Covid-19 Discussion
Has the wisdom and courage to realize that the cure has now become worse than the disease. It's time to open up. Stop moving the ball.
Hospital systems have not been overwhelmed.
Ventilators are not in shortage.
Treatments are being developed.
There is no cure or vaccine. This is not going away for four years.
The devastation of the cure:
Suicide rates picking up.
Massive economic devastation which causes depression, anxiety, obesity, again increase in suicide rates and directly impacts poorer economic areas.
Alcohol sales up 51%.
Domestic Abuse on the uprise
Child abuse on the uprise.
Hospitals that do not have COVID related issues are forced to lay off doctors and nurses as there are not enough patients to economically support it, meaning they won't have the staff to deal with COVID outbreaks.
Michael Avenatti gets released from prison
We all did our part. We sheltered (here in Pennsylvania for 5 weeks already).
Open the office buildings. Open the hair saloons. Get rid of stupid mask laws.
Continue to monitor outbreaks and in areas hospital systems become threatened, reenact tougher guidelines.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!
And stop shaming people that want common sense solutions. Waiting for a vaccine is stupid and unpractical.
They can tell you the function that governs how many cases there will be 78 days from today, it's just that the inputs to that function need to be very precise in order for the answer to be correct.
There is one lily sitting in a pond, and the number of lilies doubles daily. Within 30 days the pond is totally full of lilies. How many days does it take for the pond to be at least half full of lilies?
The answer is 29 days. For every day you're out, you mistake is a compounded factor of 2. Such is
Compare those to any R < 1.0 and you'll quickly see how absolutely critical it is to understand this notion. This is what happened to the flu during covid times, btw. The covid mitigations brought the flu R < 1.0 but not the covid R.
I don't know enough about epidemiology to judge the validity of experts' opinions on the matter, but it seems spurious to me to suggest that almost every single country in the world went on lockdown on the word of one or a handful of unqualified individuals.
They didn't. It was the imperial college's projections that spurred most of the action. That dude (who is indeed a random unqualified blogger, though his blog is startlingly well done for someone completely unqualified) even references it in his post.
They can tell you the function that governs how many cases there will be 78 days from today, it's just that the inputs to that function need to be very precise in order for the answer to be correct.
There is one lily sitting in a pond, and the number of lilies doubles daily. Within 30 days the pond is totally full of lilies. How many days does it take for the pond to be at least half full of lilies?
The answer is 29 days. For every day you're out, you mistake is a compounded factor of 2. Such is
They can give you a function with made up assumptions they can't measure if not ex post yes. A banal function any people with a grasp of decent math can provide to you.
They also don't know any long term effect because they don't know the extent of immunity you get from infection, it's temporal length and so on.
They don't know how much R0 (approx what the contagion rate would be, the change in cases) would decrease given every specific NPI proposed, they can only guess, and guesstimate ex post (can't measure the efficacy of a single NPI, same as economic policies we discussed).
And you got "uncontrollable" r0 anyway at the end even after the disastrous lockdowns.
That lockdowns might decrease r was possible . Still nothing to do with "it was proper".
Shooting every infected person in the head and all his contacts will decrease r as well. So what? (This isn't hyperbole, this is what north Korea did)
It's not the epidemiologists role to decide how much it is worth to reduce r.
You give us your best estimates and the get the **** out while we decide about tradeoffs, and crucially *your expertise ceases to be relevant at all when discussing those tradeoffs*. You matter as much as the last person in society there. You are irrelevant, unprepared, and unqualified as an epidemiologist (or healthcare professional in general) to judge the appropriateness of tradeoffs.
Dentists tell you to wash the teeth 3 times per day, from that it Doesn't follow that it is a good government policy to have armed squads of soldiers going house from house to check teeth cleaning routines.
Was it epidemiologists who ordered the military into the streets in Italy? I was under the impression that the government still controlled the military.
You seem to be blaming epidemiologists for the government not considering trade-offs properly (or at least how you would have liked them to).
I don't know enough about epidemiology to judge the validity of experts' opinions on the matter, but it seems spurious to me to suggest that almost every single country in the world went on lockdown on the word of one or a handful of unqualified individuals.
It was a domino effect. It all started with Italy (that went in lockdown because of the China connection described). Then other countries followed suit (the UK was particularly bad at it with Ferguson actually admitting lockdowns were only possible because of China and Italy), and the hammer and the dance article, with every copy cat which followed, created a strong consensus among the elites that they were proper so there was no pushback.
Anyway again we are deeply OT
Was it epidemiologists who ordered the military into the streets in Italy? I was under the impression that the government still controlled the military.
You seem to be blaming epidemiologists for the government not considering trade-offs properly (or at least how you would have liked them to).
I am specifically not blaming epidemiologists for the Italian lockdown no, but they played a big part. We got the evidence from the documents. Up till a day before they didn't propose it. When Conte government locked down because of China, the experts in the special epidemic council that till a day before did not advocate for lockdowns, all went public pro lockdown giving it credibility (and legality).
Keep in mind that if they had said as a choir it was completely unscientific, it would have been illegal under Italian law.
Courts that determined the legality of those actions used the actual claims at the times by "experts" to justify the actions, not sure if you follow what that means. It's literally giving experts the power to decide what's legal or not.
So yes they are responsible in big ways even if they didn't give the order.
They can give you a function with made up assumptions they can't measure if not ex post yes. A banal function any people with a grasp of decent math can provide to you.
They also don't know any long term effect because they don't know the extent of immunity you get from infection, it's temporal length and so on.
They don't know how much R0 (approx what the contagion rate would be, the change in cases) would decrease given every specific NPI proposed, they can only guess, and guesstimate ex post (c
OK but epidemiologists don't make policy. They plug numbers into their models and advise "if you implement lockdowns then the model predicts x and if you don't the model predicts y". I don't remember Fauci and his gang of lab assistants drafting executive orders for lockdowns or going door to door dressed in spacesuits and armed to the teeth to enforce curfews. I don't get how thy are any different to the dentists in your example. Were there activist epidemiologists writing op-eds in the Communist Monthly or something? Or maybe we just shouldn't have models, shouldn't listen to experts, and hope for the best?
Was it epidemiologists who ordered the military into the streets in Italy? I was under the impression that the government still controlled the military.
You seem to be blaming epidemiologists for the government not considering trade-offs properly (or at least how you would have liked them to).
If I get experts on record inventing the idea that your product is dangerous and I ban it, and j am only legally allowed to ban it because of that expert claim otherwose i couldn't, who's to blame when years afterwards it comes out it wasnt dangerous after all?
OK but epidemiologists don't make policy. They plug numbers into their models and advise "if you implement lockdowns then the model predicts x and if you don't the model predicts y". I don't remember Fauci and his gang of lab assistants drafting executive orders for lockdowns or going door to door dressed in spacesuits and armed to the teeth to enforce curfews. I don't get how thy are any different to the dentists in your example. Were there activist epidemiologists writing op-eds in the
Depending on the country they do. In many countries what's legal or not in emergency depends on experts advice.
Emergency doesn't give a complete blank check to disregard all rights usually, you still have to "balance" them.
But if a ****ing unproven model by experts claims that if you don't do x a million people die, then you are legally allowed to do x while you wouldn't if doing x only saved say 100 lives.
So depending on how they write the model, they decide what is legal or not.
@Mods - this derail probably belongs in the Covid thread, if anyone feels like moving it.
. I don't get how thy are any different to the dentists in your example. Were there activist epidemiologists writing op-eds in the Communist Monthly or something? Or maybe we just shouldn't have models, shouldn't listen to experts, and hope for the best?
Because we didn't have an emergency suspending constitutional rights predicated on dentistry, otherwise if they had wanted to, the national dentist association could have written models to justify armed soldiers going home to home to force you wash your teeth.
Anyway yes we shouldn't abdicate basic constitutional rights for health emergencies in general no exception, that's the lesson.
Some thresholds should be completely unconstitutional full stop, including any policy which damages someone to protect someone else.
If you aren't yourself at GRAVE danger, no behavior should be banned or compelled to you full stop mo exception.
You shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice someone freedom to try to help someone else, that's collectivist and it is morally corrupt at its core.
And when it's kids being sacrificed it's a crime against humanity.
I am specifically not blaming epidemiologists for the Italian lockdown no, but they played a big part. We got the evidence from the documents. Up till a day before they didn't propose it. When Conte government locked down because of China, the experts in the special epidemic council that till a day later did not advocate for lockdowns, all went public pro lockdown giving it credibility (and legality).
Keep in mind that if they had said as a choir it was completely unscientific, it would have been
Responding to this in the more appropriate thread.
You said yourself that epidemiologists should provide the government with their best estimates and that the government should then consider the trade-offs. That's pretty much exactly what they did and the reality is that on the whole the estimates were actually quite accurate when it came to managing infection rates specifically.
While there are definitely legitimate arguments to be made that the actions taken were excessive (especially in Italy) there is absolutely no doubt that fewer people died of Covid due to the implementation of lockdowns and to claim otherwise is patently absurd. Whether it was worth the societal/economical/cultural impact is another question entirely and one that can be reasonably be debated (albeit it's not one I'm particularly interested in having personally).
Depending on the country they do. In many countries what's legal or not in emergency depends on experts advice.
Emergency doesn't give a complete blank check to disregard all rights usually, you still have to "balance" them.
But if a ****ing unproven model by experts claims that if you don't do x a million people die, then you are legally allowed to do x while you wouldn't if doing x only saved say 100 lives.
So depending on how they write the model, they decide what is legal or not.
OK but that is what scientists do. They create models, they tell you the assumptions the models make, their limitations, and their error margins and confidence intervals. The lawmakers and judges then take that information and choose what to do with it. I really don't see why your ire is directed at the scientists here. Are you suggesting that they purposely did not disclose the limitations and error margins, or they overestimated the models' accuracy due to incompetence, or what?
This thread need an aidsnalysis vaccine
Because we didn't have an emergency suspending constitutional rights predicated on dentistry, otherwise if they had wanted to, the national dentist association could have written models to justify armed soldiers going home to home to force you wash your teeth.
Anyway yes we shouldn't abdicate basic constitutional rights for health emergencies in general no exception, that's the lesson.
Some thresholds should be completely unconstitutional full stop, including any policy which damages someone to pr
OK this is kinda veering into some sort of libertarian territory. I think those views are cute, in a way, but most people tend to grow out of them in their mid 20s. Regardless, someone else can debate libertarianism with you if they want, I'm more interested in the scientific aspect of this dialogue.
OK but that is what scientists do. They create models, they tell you the assumptions the models make, their limitations, and their error margins and confidence intervals. You then take that information and choose what to do with it. I really don't see why your ire is directed at the scientists here. Are you suggesting that they purposely did not disclose the limitations and error margins, or they overestimated the models' accuracy due to incompetence, or what?
Yes they lied with models to justify lockdowns obviously (after the fact, to keep their jobs, in Italy). They massaged the models with the worst possible assumptions they could (for COVID risk) and the best possible assumptions of efficacy of lockdowns to justify them obviously.
Not incompetence, explicit bad faith.
And that had legal repercussions, it wasn't just "an opinion".
We had a model published by them 10 days after the lockdown started which claimed 450k ICU accesses by June if no lockdown (population 60m).
Yes they lied with models to justify lockdowns obviously (after the fact, to keep their jobs, in Italy). They massaged the models with the worst possible assumptions they could (for COVID risk) and the best possible assumptions of efficacy of lockdowns to justify them obviously.
Not incompetence, explicit bad faith.
And that had legal repercussions, it wasn't just "an opinion".
We had a model published by them 10 days after the lockdown started which claimed 450k ICU accesses by June if no lockdown
What was the motivation/agenda for these scientists to want lockdowns, and risk their careers and lie to achieve this goal? You are saying after the fact, which I find confusing. What did they do to cause the lockdows before the fact?
Responding to this in the more appropriate thread.
You said yourself that epidemiologists should provide the government with their best estimates and that the government should then consider the trade-offs. That's pretty much exactly what they did and the reality is that on the whole the estimates were actually quite accurate when it came to managing infection rates specifically.
While there are definitely legitimate arguments to be made that the actions taken were excessive (especially in Italy)
Early on information was so incomplete, that I can't really fault what officials in Italy did or didn't do at the beginning of the pandemic. With hindsight we know they were unnecessary but at the time it was a tough call.
The problem was people like Fauci lying (effectiveness of N95 masks) and shooting off the credibility of government institutions, and then keeping lockdowns going after more information was available where they could have made better tradeoffs.
If I get experts on record inventing the idea that your product is dangerous and I ban it, and j am only legally allowed to ban it because of that expert claim otherwose i couldn't, who's to blame when years afterwards it comes out it wasnt dangerous after all?
Depends. If "you" produce a competing product and I can prove you bribed the experts, I sue the **** out of you, and you end up owing me your net worth, your soul, and possibly going to prison for fraud. If "you" are a regulator and it was an error made in good faith, probably nothing happens. I would think this exact scenario plays out with FDA & its equivalent in other countries approvals all the time.
What was the motivation/agenda for these scientists to want lockdowns, and risk their careers and lie to achieve this goal? You are saying after the fact, which I find confusing. What did they do to cause the lockdows before the fact?
They didn't risk their career.
Lockdown was already decided , against their recommendations (which were secret at the time, it took a FOIA months later to know that), then they pivoted to please the prime minister (and give him legal cover).
They were then all hired by public institutions, or got promoted if they were public employees already, got grants and so on.
Again I am talking about Italy.
But that was phase one. After the game was clear, they pre-emptively published pro lockdown stuff later on, we got more lockdowns after the first one in Italy.
2 or 3 of them got a slot in parliament later, just to give the idea of the scale of the fraud.
Depends. If "you" produce a competing product and I can prove you bribed the experts, I sue the **** out of you, and you end up owing me your net worth, your soul, and possibly going to prison for fraud. If "you" are a regulator and it was an error made in good faith, probably nothing happens. I would think this exact scenario plays out with FDA & its equivalent in other countries approvals all the time.
I am a regulator that politically hates you, because you donate to the other party or similar reasons.
Good faith doesn't exist at that level
Responding to this in the more appropriate thread.
You said yourself that epidemiologists should provide the government with their best estimates and that the government should then consider the trade-offs. That's pretty much exactly what they did and the reality is that on the whole the estimates were actually quite accurate when it came to managing infection rates specifically.
While there are definitely legitimate arguments to be made that the actions taken were excessive (especially in Italy)
No as I explained later in the other thread they then lied to give cover to the government tradeoff choices.
It is not patently absurd to claim lives were not saved because they all got COVID months later anyway.
At most you can claim some people got a couple of months to live extra (under house arrest).
Also lockdowns actively killed a ton of people, because they disrupted healthcare more than COVID itself did. Starting from cancer screening which got suspended.
Next virus, I'm prepared to support MAGA's God given right to be cynical, free hosts.
No as I explained later in the other thread they then lied to give cover to the government tradeoff choices.
It is not patently absurd to claim lives were not saved because they all got COVID months later anyway.
At most you can claim some people got a couple of months to live extra (under house arrest).
Firstly, it's an exaggeration to say that everyone got COVID later (I'm a counter example myself as I've somehow never had it). Secondly do you really not understand that the period of time over which the infections occur has a major impact on the outcomes? Thirdly delaying infections allows more time to understand the virus and improve quality of care for those who are seriously ill.
Although I disagree with you on almost everything I generally get the impression that you're an intelligent person. Claiming lockdowns resulted in no fewer deaths from COVID is so utterly indefensible that it's making me doubt that.
They didn't risk their career.
Lockdown was already decided , against their recommendations (which were secret at the time, it took a FOIA months later to know that), then they pivoted to please the prime minister (and give him legal cover).
They were then all hired by public institutions, or got promoted if they were public employees already, got grants and so on.
Again I am talking about Italy.
But that was phase one. After the game was clear, they pre-emptively published pro lockdown stuff later
I don't know anything about the situation in Italy so can't comment, but it doesn't seem that you are suggesting the same thing happened in the rest of the world. So, let's take the UK as an example. What motivation did the epidemiologists here have to lie and recommend a lockdown?
