Covid-19 Discussion

Majority view AMONG WHO? Majority of what? What makes you confidently claim there is majoritarian consensus about that claim?

There is almost no trace of any comprehensive attempt to evaluate all the cons of lockdowns (all of them, numerically) and compare to the purported amount of lives saved.

Do you have any for a specific country proving that? That has everything included learning losses, mental health damage and so on, puts a number to every one of those lockdown damages, and confidently claim enough lives were saved even taking into account ALL direct and indirect costs, including supply chain disruption, recent inflation, increased public debt and so on and on, with all their long term effects?

We don't even have a clear "scientific" number to be able to claim HOW MUCH a day of lockdown costs for someone under it. What's the number? What's the price? There is no consensus and there can't be any because it's a subjective call.

I wouldn't go in lockdown for 500/day, some might for 100/day. Some might for free if it's brief for all I know.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of costs, the pure freedom cost.

Take a country of 60m people like Italy, at 100/day/person (an ultra low ball estimate of freedom cost of lockdown, and that doesn't include all the other damages).

That's 6 billion euros per day in ultra-low estimate.

Given the expected value of a life saved from covid is low (you aren't saving young adults, rather mostly people with few years of life expectancy left), at say 10 years of LE each (already generous), 500k per life is already high end of the value.

That would mean every day of lockdown must save 12k people with an average life expectancy left of 10 years (nursing home residents have 3-4 years of LE for reference) JUST to break even with the freedom costs, before all other costs are considered.

It doesn't make any ****ing sense even in the most optimistic models even under utilitarianism. It doesn't make any sense at all even if they worked better than what the people who enacted them believed they did.

I don't know if you think you are doing anything other than making it less likely anyone is ever going to take you seriously, but you're not. Just thought you might want to consider that.

Just so you can maybe try to grab onto reality for a half a second before you continue this madness, consider these inarguable facts:

1) separating people inarguably slows the spread of respiratory viruses.
2) 6 million Jews were killed by Nazis during the holocaust.
3) 17 million people were killed by Nazis during the holocaust and by the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity.
4) you continuously comparing an attempt to keep a very dangerous virus from spreading unchecked to NAZIS LITERALLY KILLING 17 MILLION PEOPLE is insane and you should stop.

Just trying to help.

It's too bad putting someone on ignore doesn't completely get rid of having to deal with their........whatever that crap is.

well, there you go

I could see this making sense in your own mind but you have to realize you just made all of this up on the spot and its complete ****ing nonsense

Sure house arresting an innocent is worth less than 100 Eur per day really, which is why the state pays you more than that in cases of wrongful conviction

All actuarial tables value the life of old people far less than that of young adults , check them.

That's already how we assess damage in most civil cases.

That's the law that govern our lives regularly

Obviously not the same scope but for severity the violations of constitutional rights, the Patriot Act and use of FISA courts were worse.

I would argue Citizens United decision was a bigger constitutional slap in the face than lockdowns too.

But holocaust level, that's idiotic.

On the individual level sure, but scale is what makes an Holocaust-like event actually. And be careful, I compared to the Holocaust IN ITALY, while in general I said it was OUR GENERATION holocaust.

Holocaust in total did more damage to Europe than lockdowns? Yes. Not in every single European country though. (And to be clear, holocaust isn't synonym with WW2, every country which didn't have many Jews genocided OBVIOUSLY suffered a lot more from lockdowns than from the Holocaust, this shouldn't even be controversial).

Still in our generation, lockdowns were the event most akin to the Holocaust: massive violation of human rights of citizens in unprecedented scale, with the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of assassination in terms of years of life lost at a minimum.

Citizens united is a SCOTUS decision you disagree with but no individual negative right was touched (it was rather an expansion of the scope of the 1a), so there is no comparison to compressions of actual negative rights (things the government simply can't do to you full stop).

Yes mask wearing and a small period of lockdown was as bad as killing holocaust/6millions Jews.

What a bunch of stupid idiotic claim .

Btw u don’t care about science truth , If u did u wouldn’t hold the narrative u have on climate changes .
So stop Pretending ….

.

That’s A nice trick luciom uses .
He take an event like 80 years ago but he restricted you in choosing a much shorter time frame to find comparable or worst policies ….

But taking the same time frame , obv force Vietnam draft was far more problematic on freedom of rights than the mask wearing and lockdown .

Holocaust is so hilarious ….

But lockdown did prevent life loss due to less road accidents :p
So u had some positive in lockdown .

What kind of facking thing u can find with holocaust i wonder …

And this was all known March through May 2020?

If you believe the Italian government had all the information AT THE TIME of the lockdowns.... you are very deluded.

This is the dumbest post written here since I joined 2+2. Lozen, BJ and Washoe should bow to the king and accept complete and utter defeat

1) There is no scientific consensus now or then that lockdowns were useless. Quite the opposite.

2) Is it your contention that people 50 years old and up don't matter?

April 2020
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline...

Yup they knew everything all right .
A death rates at 10% for infects cases but only 110k infected people on 59 millions citizens…

So yeah they could have known everything about covid with a sample size of 0.0019% of the population dying at a 10% rate.

Luciom science is A+ …..

Ps: 10th of April 2020, italy reported 100 death of doctors!
Everything’s was A1 , regardless of what happened from Luciom …

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/...

But luciom knew better !

No Luc, you are incorrect about the extent of the Italian govt's knowledge of C19 in March 2020.

No country had a true grasp of the situation.

we already knew it was less dangerous than the spanish flu and certainly so, given the spanish flu lethality had been around 2% across all age brackets (including young healthy adults, the most valuable individuals in society) . In YLL per infection terms we already all knew covid was significantly less dangerous than that, and that was BEFORE any treatment and so on (so we knew as a full certainty things could only get better from there).

And given plans were written with airborne viruses with lethality up to and including the spanish flu one, and the totality of worldwide accumulated literature for 50+ years did not suggest locking down (house arrest style, schools closures were suggested up to a couple of weeks) if that kind of virus came back , i am not incorrect in saying that it was adamantly clear we shouldn't have locked down and that everything we knew about airborne viruses didn't even vaguely suggest lockdown could ever have been an option at all, and it was incredible even to just discuss the option nevermind implementing it *against the explicit counsel of experts*, which is what the italian government did.

Keep in mind that the state of literature on the topic up to the end of 2019 was that it was unclear, if a 1-3% lethality airborne virus came around again, if it made sense to quarantine direct contacts of infected individuals or not. That was the gray area, the discussed/controversial one, with the WHO having published "both sides" opinions and unclear about it.

No country health body, nor the WHO, even vaguely suggested to quarantine anyone else at all, nor to order to stay at home, nor to be going to other people houses and so on.

That again in case of an incredibly more dangerous virus, one which would have killed tons of kids and young adults.

As for the extent of the lethality everybody knew in Bergamo the totality of the population had been exposed to the virus, there was no doubt about that. Whether actually developing an infection or not, that everyone had repeatedly come in contact with it was well known. So it literally couldn't be worse than that at no lockdown. And 1% of the population died in excess, with no excess deaths up to 50 and very few 50 to 65, and the vast majority of the excess death in over 65 with 3 comorbidities (this was *already known* when we locked down).

So we were already absolutely certain the virus was VERY significantly less dangerous than the spanish flu. How much so depends on the value-weighting of having nursing home residents dying a lot today instead than in the next 2-4 years, and similar things for ultra-chronically-co-morbid people outside of nursing homes.

Given we are talking something VERY less dangerous than something else against which we had planned NOT to lock down...

it's a big lie to claim "we didn't know enough", an enormous lie, we had all elements to be absolutely certain locking down made no sense at all.

Not that there is any model where lock down ever makes sense for ethical reasons, but that's another topic.

Even under a violent, fascist model where you can house arrest innocents to try to help others (it's truly incredible that's even an option in our western constitutions, truly incredible), locking down made no sense and we had enough data to claim that.

*and scientific bodies apparently did claim that* , then government LIED , redacted the reports, hid them, and we only knew 12-24-36 months later depending on the country.

King you realize we are talking the fact that scientific bodies rejected the option of lockdowns right?

Do you think the only measure of danger for a virus is lethality?

Which is more dangerous, a virus with an R of 0.2 that kills 99%, or one with an R of 10 that kills 1%?

It should be pretty simple to understand that lockdowns keep people separated, and separating people reduces the spread of respiratory viruses. You shouldn't need to go hunting papers to confirm this.

That might be because the lethality of a virus has nothing to do with its contagiousness.

You repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that CFR is the only measure of danger in a virus. This is why you should leave these kinds of issues to those with training. You don't even know what you don't know. The rest of your post is just riffing on your fundamental misunderstanding of how to assess danger. It can be ignored.

jfc gorgonian in case of an airborne epidemy you know to begin with the totality of the population will get exposed regardlessly, if R is >1 that's what happens anyway, unless you can eradicate worldwide, which you can't after the virus is seeded enough which obviously already was in march 2020.

At most in case you DO NOT have the virus seeded in an area you can make an argument for ultra-strict border controls for the area, which, btw, is what literature said! "cordon sanitaire" options were on the table and were in literature, they aren't lockdowns though.

If italy had forced people in the bergamo area (and other affected areas) to stay in those areas and/or viceversa, sealed off southern regions completly from domestic travel, that would have been historically unprecedented, but predicated on some actual science, and i wouldn't have commented that as fascist, or anti-science.

There is no case reduction in any way or form no matter what you do, there is at most a DELAY in the inevitability of 100% of the population getting exposed to the pathogen.

And yes given health is made up of a ton of things not only about avoiding a specific encounter with a specific pathogen, you do need literature to prove that stay at home orders during a pandemic improves health outcome, given *all the other effects on health of such provisions*. How monstrous of a person can you be to say that you don't need papers to assess the totality of the damage to health (physical and mental) of a policy before being able to claim that a policy is good for society health?

And yes given you know as an absolute certainty everyone will get exposed (not necessarily infected , because the immunitary system can and will make it so that exposure doesn't necessarily become infection) repeatedly no matter what you do, lethality is the only thing that matters, for airborne pandemics with natural R > 1.

Again we are comparing to the spanish flu, which is what pandemic plans modelled, what to do if a virus that will reach everyone and kills 2% across age brackets appears again.

And again, and i answer only because i am interested in what others think given your total bad faith has been clear for a while, "we should leave these kinds of issues to those with training" is NOT what politicians in Italy, UK and Germany did: the people with training told them not to lockdown, and the politicians lied to the public, redacted the reports and hid them from the public, and it took years of lawyering to get access to the fact that the politicians were told by people who spent their whole life studying these things, not to lock down in those 3 countries.

You keep talking as if science, and scientific opinion, backed lockdowns which it literally didn't, You guys were the anti-scientific ones against accumulated knowledge, acting in bad faith AND lying incessantly to the public about a purported consensus favouring your preferences.

And you should pay for it.

Incorrect, and ignores that multiple infections are more dangerous than a single one, and ignores mutation and improvements in treatment/prevention over time. Again, you don't even know what you don't know.

So what was your answer to the question I asked? I see you ignored it completely.

I didn't read the rest of your post because you 1) were factually wrong on your very first point, and 2) ignored my question.

Some follow-up questions for your consideration.

What was the R(0) of polio? Could it spread through the same mechanisms covid could? What was the lethality rate of polio? Did the totality of the population become infected with polio? Were there other severe outcomes of polio infection to consider besides death?

I look forward to your answers.

It was possible to avoid gettign covid before the vaccine was available. I did it, so did many other other people

One big uncertainty was when a vaccine would emerge. Under the assumption it would (which was a fair bet) then avoiding getting covid was a great idea.