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.
Oh it's the ole "they get more funding". It's OK, got it, don't need to take this derail any further.
Funding and status, status isn't irrelevant.
They became important for the first time in their lives after having lived as low status number crunchers in the public sector.
No one goes to med school to end up as a mid 5 figure gvmnt employee in epidemiology
Funding and status, status isn't irrelevant.
They became important for the first time in their lives after having lived as low status number crunchers in the public sector.
No one goes to med school to end up as a mid 5 figure gvmnt employee in epidemiology
How do we know the lockdowns were ineffectual if we don't have a control group?
The mods can move the discussion wholesale when they have time, splitting it over two threads is awkward.
Is climatology a real science? Seems like a coincidence to me that the two fields of study that produce results right wingers despise just coincidentally happen to not be "real sciences".
How do we know the lockdowns were ineffectual if we don't have a control group?
The mods can move the discussion wholesale when they have time, splitting it over two threads is awkward.
We do it is called Sweden for europe, then there are American states that did very little, almost nothing, reopened and never closed again.
And up till the vaccine was available overall lethality was the same or lower
Remember that lockdowns, in order to be even discussed as a possibility, have to generate an exceptionally better result than not doing anything given the collateral damage.
Sweden not doing them and not having 10x the deaths of UK (rather fewer deaths lol in 2020) was more than enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt lockdowns were absolute folly.
Oh and it's proponents who have to prove efficacy.
Anyway it's funny you claim "no control group" when they would have needed proof of efficacy BEFORE enacting theme you don't experiment with constitutional freedoms, you suspend them only if you are absolutely certain (IE you are willing to bet your life on it) it is absolutely indispensable to do so. A shadow of doubt, you don't.
We do it is called Sweden for europe, then there are American states that did very little, almost nothing, reopened and never closed again.
And up till the vaccine was available overall lethality was the same or lower
Remember that lockdowns, in order to be even discussed as a possibility, have to generate an exceptionally better result than not doing anything given the collateral damage.
Sweden not doing them and not having 10x the deaths of UK (rather fewer deaths lol in 2020) was more than enoug
Just a quick Google reveals that the approach in Sweden is not without its critics. I am not going to re-litigate the whole case for and against lockdowns here, but suffice to say that the case of Sweden is not as open and shut as you make it out to be.
I get your general point about restriction of freedoms and extenuating circumstances, and it seems like further discussion will probably result in us going round in circles. Thanks.
We do it is called Sweden for europe, then there are American states that did very little, almost nothing, reopened and never closed again.
And up till the vaccine was available overall lethality was the same or lower
Remember that lockdowns, in order to be even discussed as a possibility, have to generate an exceptionally better result than not doing anything given the collateral damage.
Sweden not doing them and not having 10x the deaths of UK (rather fewer deaths lol in 2020) was more than enoug
Yeah that's not what a control group is. Look up what the control part means if you are unsure of why not.
They were covering their asses and giving legal cover to politicians.
When the best case is "nothing happens" and the worst case is "apocalypse", you aren't saying anything but legally the politician can claim that in order to avoid the worst case he can suspend the constitution.
It's like as if the constitution got suspended because of climate change, with models claiming there is "some" possibility of a 5 meter raise in sea levels in 30 years which justifies unlimited violations of fundamental r
I dont agree with that at all.
I do think there is a problem that once policy has been made on very big issues then it gets harder and harder to voice the dissenting case. The media can't cope with two ideas, the politcians get obsessed with nonsense about messaging and the dissenting side tends to attract the crackpots.
I dont agree with that at all.
I do think there is a problem that once policy has been made on very big issues then it gets harder and harder to voice the dissenting case. The media can't cope with two ideas, the politcians get obsessed with nonsense about messaging and the dissenting side tends to attract the crackpots.
Then how did Florida change completely in September 2020 (starting from the summer, after having enacted a one month lockdown in April), with the same governor and state legislature.
Lockdown was undoubtedly a very difficult policy with many serious downsides and much legitimate opposition.
I dont much about florida but I think I know why the UK thrashed about with changes. Execution failures couldn't be admitted so policy had to be changed. We dont have politicians with the metal to steer a steady course in troubled waters.
Googling says:
Florida did well because it adopted early aggressive nursing home policies, testing, and gathering restrictions to slow the spread of the virus—at a higher rate than even most states led by Democratic governors—and promoted vaccination among the elderly.
which sounds very much inline with the expert advice in the UK
Is climatology a real science? Seems like a coincidence to me that the two fields of study that produce results right wingers despise just coincidentally happen to not be "real sciences".
it has portions of real science coupled with a lot of guesswork.
Btw when lockdowns were enacted there were no studies about them to be clear, please avoid lying about that.
Climatology akin to epidemiology should just give you the climate models; then in order to assess whether to act, how much and how, climatologist should shut the **** up because their expertise ceases there. It stops at the models of how the climate would change according to them , depending on CO2 emissions and other elements.
After that, you can very clearly do nothing, or decarbonize everything tomorrow, or anything in between and any choice about that has 0 to do with climatology. So "97% of scientists agree the planet is warming because of human activity" is true and and the same time utterly irrelevant to justify "so we need to decarbonize".
Same as "X % of epidemiologists agree that if you lockdown hard R is lower" has no bearing on "then it's proper to have a lockdown".
As i mentioned, if you just kill all infected people and their contact R gets lower very fast as well.
Same as "X % of epidemiologists agree that if you lockdown hard R is lower" has no bearing on "then it's proper to have a lockdown".
Just on this. I followed the expert commitees a lot during covid and they would strongly agree with you. The politcians kept asking for advice on policy and the experts kept repeating that that's your job.
Just on this. I followed the expert commitees a lot during covid and they would strongly agree with you. The politcians kept asking for advice on policy and the experts kept repeating that that's your job.
In theory it would first require the work of a lot of other experts (if we had them). From pedagogists that have to be asked about the educational damage of lockdowns, to economists to assess the economic costs, to psychologists and psychiatrists to assess the risk of an increase in suicide ideation and mental illness in general and so on and on.
But all those sciences as well are pseudo-sciences. Psychiatrists don't even have the tools to build a model to predict how much depression in the population could increase (or not) given a lockdown. Pedagogists can't answer quantitativelty especially if they aren't given the details of how remote schooling would be implemented (because no one has a clue before the first lockdown). "how many more students will fail basic literacy tests if we move to remote schooling for a year" isn't even a question they know how to treat statistically.
And so on and on and on, that's big part of the reason why it should have been illegal to enact lockdowns. You don't even think about them without a fully developed plan with all details discussed, trials done to manage remote schooling, counseling of house arrested people for psychological problems and so on and on. It's incredible, disastrous that they were even on the table as an option.
And they were only because of China and then Italy.
Damage of lockdowns is hard to assess - so is just about everything. That shoudn't make things illegal.
A big weakness of the 'damage caaused by lockdown' argument is that people were locking down anyway and that would have accelerated as the deaths mounted. I posted at the time how london was coming like a ghost town - that was before lockdowns were a thing. So much damage was unavoidable once the pandemic was a reality. Attributing all that damage to the policy is simply incorrect and also ignores that the policy allowed mitigation of some of the damage.
Damage of lockdowns is hard to assess - so is just about everything. That shoudn't make things illegal.
A big weakness of the 'damage caaused by lockdown' argument is that people were locking down anyway and that would have accelerated as the deaths mounted. I posted at the time how london was coming like a ghost town - that was before lockdowns were a thing. So much damage was unavoidable once the pandemic was a reality. Attributing all that damage to the policy is simply incorrect and also igno
That's absolutely, certainly false for all the restrictions after the summer of 2020.
To the point that governments were puzzled about how and why people were living fully normally in france , italy , uk and so on when they had a legal chance to.
But, for march-april 2020, people would probably not have missed cancer screening if everything was normal legally. Nor outdoor activities, nor meeting their friends in many cases when young especially and so on.
And for Italy at least, the government locked down because people "weren't taking the virus seriously", people still went out clubbing and so on. I very very well remember the news in the previous days, about groups of young people interviewed and saying "we don't give a **** about the virus".
You might also remember this (because i do)
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/des...
/// It's spring break and even a pandemic doesn't appear to be stopping some people's plans.
As many Americans continue practicing social distancing to help curb the spread of the new coronavirus, videos and photos of spring breakers in Florida have poured in, showing many undeterred by the threat of COVID-19.
"If I get corona, I get corona. At the end of the day, I'm not going to let it stop me from partying," spring break goer Brady Sluder told Reuters in Miami. ///
So even if sure some people, until things were clear (that covid was far less dangerous than the government pretended it to be, that it almost exclusively killed elders and/or already ultraweak people and so on), distanced. But most would still have gone to the doctor if no lockdowns happened.
We might even just drop a big "whatever" about the first reaction, accepting panic excuses it (i don't , but whatever). The UK lockdown enacted on the 5th of jan 2021 was a crime against humanity quite simply. Everything was clear back then already, including the massive damage of locking down to health itself!
IIRC the UK *still to this day* hasn't caught up with the missed procedures caused by those lockdowns. Healthcare waiting times got permanently longer after that, there is no catch up. That kills people, that makes people suffer longer from all their other illnesses. And ofc locking down does a great deal of damage over and above the health damage.
That's absolutely, certainly false for all the restrictions after the summer of 2020.
To the point that governments were puzzled about how and why people were living fully normally in france , italy , uk and so on when they had a legal chance to.
But, for march-april 2020, people would probably not have missed cancer screening if everything was normal legally. Nor outdoor activities, nor meeting their friends in many cases when young especially and so on.
And for Italy at least, the government lock
It certainly isn't false in the Uk and I seriosuly doubt it anywhere else. The rest makes no sense to me. Opening up too early was devestating for healthcare and many of us are concerned about others (even if for some it's just their own family)
Except that I agree the fallout continues. Inevitable ocne the pandemic was a reality. Part of the problem in politcs is the idea that these things have some good solution. The only good solution is prevention and the next best thing is preparation. edit: and vaccines/science
Luciom continues to lie about COVID being much less dangerous than xyz pretended it to be.
He just doesn't understand how dangerous COVID actually was at the time (much less so now because of acquired immunity and vaccination, but still quite dangerous).
We won't know how much damage was done by COVID for decades.
"the two sciences produce results rightwingers don't like" -> epidemiology hadn't produced anything yet on lockdowns when they were enacted.
And btw quite a few "rightwing" governments enacted lockdowns, it's libertarian leaning people who hated them, and the right is libertarian leaning only in a few places. And in even fewer places the left is, but that exists as well.
It certainly isn't false in the Uk and I seriosuly doubt it anywhere else. The rest makes no sense to me. Opening up too early was devestating for healthcare and many of us are concerned about others (even if for some it's just their own family)
Except that I agree the fallout continues. Inevitable ocne the pandemic was a reality. Part of the problem in politcs is the idea that these things have some good solution. The only good solution is prevention and the next best thing is preparation. edit
So people in the UK weren't mostly living normally when legally allowed in october 2020?
opening TOO EARLY? the UK was one of the countries that locked down the most temporarily lol, like almost every other western country had fewer weeks of lockdowns overall.
Luciom continues to lie about COVID being much less dangerous than xyz pretended it to be.
He just doesn't understand how dangerous COVID actually was at the time (much less so now because of acquired immunity and vaccination, but still quite dangerous).
We won't know how much damage was done by COVID for decades.
Covid was dangerous to a certain part of the population the elderly and folks with other conditions such as obesity. As each strain came along the severity declined as well.
You are correct we will not know the long term effects of Covid or the vaccines
If only we had a Covid thread
So people in the UK weren't mostly living normally when legally allowed in october 2020?
opening TOO EARLY? the UK was one of the countries that locked down the most temporarily lol, like almost every other western country had fewer weeks of lockdowns overall.
Most people were takign the pandemic seriously.
Of course a lot of people were forced to go back to work but those who had options worked from home as much as possible and avoided a lot of mixing.
Normalcy only started to resume once the vaccines were in effect
Most people were takign the pandemic seriously.
Of course a lot of people were forced to go back to work but those who had options worked from home as much as possible and avoided a lot of mixing.
Normalcy only started to resume once the vaccines were in effect
If what you say it's true why the need for lockdowns then, it makes even less sense to force a few people inside if most are inside anyway right?
Instead the actual reality was that when they were allowed legally, people mostly resumed a normal life even before vaccination was available
Covid was dangerous to a certain part of the population the elderly and folks with other conditions such as obesity. As each strain came along the severity declined as well.
Very. But not only.
Incorrect. We know the long term effects of the vaccine since they are eliminated from the body completely within a few weeks.
COVID does not behave so kindly.
Feel free to post there.
If what you say it's true why the need for lockdowns then, it makes even less sense to force a few people inside if most are inside anyway right?
Instead the actual reality was that when they were allowed legally, people mostly resumed a normal life even before vaccination was available
Because most people still leaves a large irresponsible group.
