|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true.
|
On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true.
I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two.
To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception.
And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ???
|
On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true.
It's not dropping the ball on testing if you don't even try to (or you simply can't) test people that don't need hospital care.
Also last week testing actually increased (but reported cases stayed the same).
|
On April 20 2020 01:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. It's not dropping the ball on testing if you don't even try to (or you simply can't) test people that don't need hospital care. Also last week testing actually increased (but reported cases stayed the same).
That sounds exactly like dropping the ball on testing. Either you fail to catch the spread by not testing people who are spreading it, or you don't procure enough tests to be able to do so. Both situations would lead to a low number of confirmed cases relative to the death rate, which seems to be the tell-tale sign of an infection that is poorly contained.
|
|
|
On April 19 2020 23:51 Uldridge wrote:
I think it's insane how a country like Singapore, which used quite strict measures initially, now seems to have an exponential surge. Crazy how China seems to contained the thing. Perhaps it has to do with population density or something?
It just shows how super duper infectious this thing really is.
There's going to have to be some rubber banding quarantine measures imo, for a year or two, before herd immunity will be accomplished. Hopefully there won't be a more deadly wave in the meantime.
On a more personal note: it seems to have seeped into a retirement home where the sister of my girlfriend works. I hope she stays healthy. It hasn't really come any closer than that for me.
My sister did give birth 2 weeks ago and no one could visit the newborn, which is kind of a bummer for all parties involved. On the upside: at least the baby and her will have all the quiet they need to a good recovery/start though.
Singapore ? That is because as most developed countries, they are using immigrant workers housed in very cramped spaces with no possibility to distantiate, and there is an outbreak in these "slums". It is spreading like wildfire and they have little access to care.
|
The additional data that Worldometers has started to provide is very handy. Two features in particular that really stand out is the number of tests performed and the ability to look back at yesterday's data for all countries. Been watching it to try to see what kinds of trends fall out.
The most concerning one I see is that just about every country that has testing that does not appear woefully inadequate is starting to catch the exponential. Even countries that seemed to have it well-contained at first, like Singapore, Russia, and Japan, are starting to show significant growth in case load and confirmed cases. I only see three countries that are largely an exception to the rule at the moment: China, India, and South Korea.
China has been discussed quite a lot so far, and I see no point in rehashing. Suffice to say, even if it looks like they have largely brought it under control there is a lot to doubt in their official counts.
India has just about the most bizarre growth rate I've seen - flat for several days, then it quadruples on a later day. They have a pretty small number of positive results per test, but a woefully inadequate number of tests to begin with for such a large country. Death rates are low, but I also know that India is the type of country where a lot of deaths simply won't be counted - people will just die of a respiratory illness, never being in a position to seek medical care, and will neither fall into the infection nor death statistics of the coronavirus (this was estimated to be a significant phenomenon in both New York and Italy; India will be 10-100x worse on this front). A severe underestimation of the true infection and death statistics is all but certain.
And then we have South Korea. Frankly I'm not too sure what to think about them - there are no clear red flags for bad data, but the official data truly looks too good to be true. I don't doubt that they handled their cases much better than most other countries, but going from many thousands of cases to suddenly bringing it under control with no lockdown - that is so out of line with what every other country has dealt with as to be suspicious all on its own. They're doing a relatively small number of tests (around 10k / day now), but it sounds like the lack of significant lockdown provides every opportunity for community spread. I'm not entirely sure I believe it.
Of the countries with data that doesn't seem overtly suspicious, I think Germany has one of the best results. It has infection peaks that are often well above what harder-hit nations like Italy have, but that's very likely due to more widespread testing that catches many more such cases before they lead to widespread infection. And a case load well in excess of 100k seems in line with expectations given the known infectiousness of the disease.
|
On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent.
So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health.
Would you think that's noble?
Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs.
|
On April 20 2020 01:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 01:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. It's not dropping the ball on testing if you don't even try to (or you simply can't) test people that don't need hospital care. Also last week testing actually increased (but reported cases stayed the same). That sounds exactly like dropping the ball on testing. Either you fail to catch the spread by not testing people who are spreading it, or you don't procure enough tests to be able to do so. Both situations would lead to a low number of confirmed cases relative to the death rate, which seems to be the tell-tale sign of an infection that is poorly contained.
I don't know if you have a nice and cozy rock home that you have been living under for the past couple of weeks but the only reason that people are paying attention to Sweden is because we are one of the few countries that have explicitly gone with a strategy of not trying to contain the spread. "Poorly contained" is probably the understatement of the week. Instead we are focusing on non binding recommendations, partial shutdowns and other less invasive limitations to limit the spread to below what our up-scaled healthcare can handle.
Mass testing is completely useless in that strategy and was not even attempted. Other metrics where you test people are useful (such as properly done studies based on random sampling) and are used. So tests are used strategically for knowing if patients are going to corona wards or not, testing personal etc.
There are still no current plans on general testing for people with mild symptoms, and I think that outside certain specific groups (working with elderly, healthcare, other essential services) there probably never will be.
Once there is a reliable antibody test there will be mass testing with that however.
|
On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs.
If another infectious disease that threatens to kill millions appears, and the correct response to reduce the spread is to quarantine hundreds of millions - yes, I expect millions of young (and old) people to accept severe restrictions on their freedom of movement to stop the spread of said disease. My great grandparents did it in their youth; I see it as perfectly reasonable for me to expect to have to do the same in response to a similar threat. And if we see another pandemic like this several decades down the road, same goes for that generation.
|
|
|
On April 20 2020 02:35 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 01:46 LegalLord wrote:On April 20 2020 01:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. It's not dropping the ball on testing if you don't even try to (or you simply can't) test people that don't need hospital care. Also last week testing actually increased (but reported cases stayed the same). That sounds exactly like dropping the ball on testing. Either you fail to catch the spread by not testing people who are spreading it, or you don't procure enough tests to be able to do so. Both situations would lead to a low number of confirmed cases relative to the death rate, which seems to be the tell-tale sign of an infection that is poorly contained. I don't know if you have a nice and cozy rock home that you have been living under for the past couple of weeks but the only reason that people are paying attention to Sweden is because we are one of the few countries that have explicitly gone with a strategy of not trying to contain the spread. "Poorly contained" is probably the understatement of the week. Instead we are focusing on non binding recommendations, partial shutdowns and other less invasive limitations to limit the spread to below what our up-scaled healthcare can handle. Mass testing is completely useless in that strategy and was not even attempted. Other metrics where you test people are useful (such as properly done studies based on random sampling) and are used. So tests are used strategically for knowing if patients are going to corona wards or not, testing personal etc. There are still no current plans on general testing for people with mild symptoms, and I think that outside certain specific groups (working with elderly, healthcare, other essential services) there probably never will be. Once there is a reliable antibody test there will be mass testing with that however.
Finding it really hard to follow what point you're trying to make in all of this. Sounds to me like an argument for saying that "things that matter (testing, prevention, etc) don't actually matter" which I'm aware is a way to argue for the approach that Sweden has taken.
It doesn't change the fact that an absence of evidence against the effectiveness of that system seems to largely spawn from a general lack of evidence collected in the first place. A real "head buried under sand" approach to evaluating its effectiveness, I'd say.
|
On April 20 2020 02:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. If another infectious disease that threatens to kill millions appears, and the correct response to reduce the spread is to quarantine hundreds of millions - yes, I expect millions of young (and old) people to accept severe restrictions on their freedom of movement to stop the spread of said disease. My great grandparents did it in their youth; I see it as perfectly reasonable for me to expect to have to do the same in response to a similar threat. And if we see another pandemic like this several decades down the road, same goes for that generation.
I'm going to agree with this, as long as it's a one-time thing without permanent consequences. Which is why I'm watching very attentively what kind of law and measures are introduced to prolong a state of emergency or make it easier to call out.
On April 20 2020 02:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. We have a lock down and I am not imprisoned in my home, I'm fine to get essential stuff and expected to practice social distancing. You making over dramatic references and stretching the truth does not make me think these measures are any less piratical or in some way unfair. You are probably also reading half truths meant to fire you up about things that are not happening. And yes if another pandemic comes I would hope we would use every tool we have, and use the ones that worked best.
Not everything that goes against your view or that of the majority is stretching the truth. Unless you want a 'discussion' to be a bunch of accounts parroting a single opinion.
|
On April 20 2020 02:20 LegalLord wrote:
The additional data that Worldometers has started to provide is very handy. Two features in particular that really stand out is the number of tests performed and the ability to look back at yesterday's data for all countries. Been watching it to try to see what kinds of trends fall out.
The most concerning one I see is that just about every country that has testing that does not appear woefully inadequate is starting to catch the exponential. Even countries that seemed to have it well-contained at first, like Singapore, Russia, and Japan, are starting to show significant growth in case load and confirmed cases. I only see three countries that are largely an exception to the rule at the moment: China, India, and South Korea.
China has been discussed quite a lot so far, and I see no point in rehashing. Suffice to say, even if it looks like they have largely brought it under control there is a lot to doubt in their official counts.
India has just about the most bizarre growth rate I've seen - flat for several days, then it quadruples on a later day. They have a pretty small number of positive results per test, but a woefully inadequate number of tests to begin with for such a large country. Death rates are low, but I also know that India is the type of country where a lot of deaths simply won't be counted - people will just die of a respiratory illness, never being in a position to seek medical care, and will neither fall into the infection nor death statistics of the coronavirus (this was estimated to be a significant phenomenon in both New York and Italy; India will be 10-100x worse on this front). A severe underestimation of the true infection and death statistics is all but certain.
And then we have South Korea. Frankly I'm not too sure what to think about them - there are no clear red flags for bad data, but the official data truly looks too good to be true. I don't doubt that they handled their cases much better than most other countries, but going from many thousands of cases to suddenly bringing it under control with no lockdown - that is so out of line with what every other country has dealt with as to be suspicious all on its own. They're doing a relatively small number of tests (around 10k / day now), but it sounds like the lack of significant lockdown provides every opportunity for community spread. I'm not entirely sure I believe it.
Of the countries with data that doesn't seem overtly suspicious, I think Germany has one of the best results. It has infection peaks that are often well above what harder-hit nations like Italy have, but that's very likely due to more widespread testing that catches many more such cases before they lead to widespread infection. And a case load well in excess of 100k seems in line with expectations given the known infectiousness of the disease.
My issue with testing numbers is that they are barely reported and it is pretty hard to trust the numbers.
For example in France, there is some open data that adds up to 220,000 tests ran since the beginning of March, worldomoeters reports 300k, but it's partial. The prime minister just conceded that they do not get test numbers from labs across France, so they only know the testing capacity (currently 150,000/week, to be 500k mid-may) but not the amount of tests that has been run.
I'd love to have per country accurate testing numbers, it is a very interesting metric.
Do remember it is a first for most of these countries to even gather, and even less report, on a daily basis, accurate numbers across their health system.
SK is heavily digitalised, and they aggressively used apps to detect/track/isolate patients and their contacts. So I'm not surprised in their case.
There are so many discrepancies between countries that it is really hard to compare all of them and not find huge inconsistencies...
|
On April 20 2020 03:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 02:35 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 20 2020 01:46 LegalLord wrote:On April 20 2020 01:23 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. It's not dropping the ball on testing if you don't even try to (or you simply can't) test people that don't need hospital care. Also last week testing actually increased (but reported cases stayed the same). That sounds exactly like dropping the ball on testing. Either you fail to catch the spread by not testing people who are spreading it, or you don't procure enough tests to be able to do so. Both situations would lead to a low number of confirmed cases relative to the death rate, which seems to be the tell-tale sign of an infection that is poorly contained. I don't know if you have a nice and cozy rock home that you have been living under for the past couple of weeks but the only reason that people are paying attention to Sweden is because we are one of the few countries that have explicitly gone with a strategy of not trying to contain the spread. "Poorly contained" is probably the understatement of the week. Instead we are focusing on non binding recommendations, partial shutdowns and other less invasive limitations to limit the spread to below what our up-scaled healthcare can handle. Mass testing is completely useless in that strategy and was not even attempted. Other metrics where you test people are useful (such as properly done studies based on random sampling) and are used. So tests are used strategically for knowing if patients are going to corona wards or not, testing personal etc. There are still no current plans on general testing for people with mild symptoms, and I think that outside certain specific groups (working with elderly, healthcare, other essential services) there probably never will be. Once there is a reliable antibody test there will be mass testing with that however. Finding it really hard to follow what point you're trying to make in all of this. Sounds to me like an argument for saying that "things that matter (testing, prevention, etc) don't actually matter" which I'm aware is a way to argue for the approach that Sweden has taken. It doesn't change the fact that an absence of evidence against the effectiveness of that system seems to largely spawn from a general lack of evidence collected in the first place. A real "head buried under sand" approach to evaluating its effectiveness, I'd say.
Well if you don't understand it that's OK.
All the data necessary to evaluate the current approach is available. Final judgment can only be made once all of this is over of course but so far everything points to it going alright at the moment.
|
|
|
On April 20 2020 03:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 03:07 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. If another infectious disease that threatens to kill millions appears, and the correct response to reduce the spread is to quarantine hundreds of millions - yes, I expect millions of young (and old) people to accept severe restrictions on their freedom of movement to stop the spread of said disease. My great grandparents did it in their youth; I see it as perfectly reasonable for me to expect to have to do the same in response to a similar threat. And if we see another pandemic like this several decades down the road, same goes for that generation. I'm going to agree with this, as long as it's a one-time thing without permanent consequences. Which is why I'm watching very attentively what kind of law and measures are introduced to prolong a state of emergency or make it easier to call out. On April 20 2020 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. We have a lock down and I am not imprisoned in my home, I'm fine to get essential stuff and expected to practice social distancing. You making over dramatic references and stretching the truth does not make me think these measures are any less piratical or in some way unfair. You are probably also reading half truths meant to fire you up about things that are not happening. And yes if another pandemic comes I would hope we would use every tool we have, and use the ones that worked best. Not everything that goes against your view or that of the majority is stretching the truth. Unless you want a 'discussion' to be a bunch of accounts parroting a single opinion. Comparing COVID to sweets and so on is not a discussion it is a logical fallacy. If you would like to bring up some scientific facts I would be happy to have that discussion. Second hand smoking related illnesses are similar and I also support all the rules we have (not sure on where you are at) where smoking is not allowed inside. I plan on staying isolated, until the medical community says otherwise.
I have been thinking that a very effective way to combat smoking would be to report smoking related deaths in the same way 'rona victims are. Over 8 million die from smoking each year globally. That is 21k per day which is in a different ball park than this virus. One difference is that smokers are accounted for in hospital capacity, but that is actually a very bad excuse.
Speaking of Worldometers: Spain just reported 0 recoveries the last couple of days and only 41 deaths yesterday. There are some very odd things going on with the reports from time to time, the sudden influxes in China probably being the worst examples.
|
|
|
On April 20 2020 04:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2020 04:15 Slydie wrote:On April 20 2020 03:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 03:07 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. If another infectious disease that threatens to kill millions appears, and the correct response to reduce the spread is to quarantine hundreds of millions - yes, I expect millions of young (and old) people to accept severe restrictions on their freedom of movement to stop the spread of said disease. My great grandparents did it in their youth; I see it as perfectly reasonable for me to expect to have to do the same in response to a similar threat. And if we see another pandemic like this several decades down the road, same goes for that generation. I'm going to agree with this, as long as it's a one-time thing without permanent consequences. Which is why I'm watching very attentively what kind of law and measures are introduced to prolong a state of emergency or make it easier to call out. On April 20 2020 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 02:26 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On April 20 2020 00:39 LegalLord wrote:With a >10% death rate and a low number of tests, I’d say it’s more likely they dropped the ball on testing than that they flattened the curve. That data looks just... too good to be true. I still fail to understand how it's possible that suddenly they are so concerned with health when tobacco and alcohol are still legal, potato chips (acrylamide) and sugar are widely available. Those are some of the leading causes of death through cancerogenity, obesity, cardiovascular disease in industrialized countries fwiw. Literally the top two. To which you could rebuke that they are up to the lifestyle choices of someone, yet they cause strain on health care just as much. Somehow everyone had the freedom to deteriorate his own health or infect others with flu, STDs, but Corona became an exception. And again, the purpose of this post is not to portray this as something harmless or nonexistant, but to question the validity of setting such a precedent in handling a possible hazard. Because today it's lockdown because Corona, tomorrow it's lockdown because ??? Because when one person drinks too many cokes it does not make somebody else get diabetes and likely kill their grandpa. To be frank they are so clearly different it is hard to take someone at face value when they write such things. You will notice we have rules about speed limits, dui's and so on that also effect others. It is consistent. So if something were to appear in the future out there that is similarly dangerous for you and others like Corona, you would agree again to be imprisoned at home for your own security? Because what applies to you also applies to grandpa, or you are grandpa by then and millions of young people have their freedom taken away for your health. Would you think that's noble? Edit: Besides the point was to prevent a run on the health-care system. Not to prevent deaths at any costs. We have a lock down and I am not imprisoned in my home, I'm fine to get essential stuff and expected to practice social distancing. You making over dramatic references and stretching the truth does not make me think these measures are any less piratical or in some way unfair. You are probably also reading half truths meant to fire you up about things that are not happening. And yes if another pandemic comes I would hope we would use every tool we have, and use the ones that worked best. Not everything that goes against your view or that of the majority is stretching the truth. Unless you want a 'discussion' to be a bunch of accounts parroting a single opinion. Comparing COVID to sweets and so on is not a discussion it is a logical fallacy. If you would like to bring up some scientific facts I would be happy to have that discussion. Second hand smoking related illnesses are similar and I also support all the rules we have (not sure on where you are at) where smoking is not allowed inside. I plan on staying isolated, until the medical community says otherwise. I have been thinking that a very effective way to combat smoking would be to report smoking related deaths in the same way 'rona victims are. Over 8 million die from smoking each year globally. That is 21k per day which is in a different ball park than this virus. One difference is that smokers are accounted for in hospital capacity, but that is actually a very bad excuse. Speaking of Worldometers: Spain just reported 0 recoveries the last couple of days and only 41 deaths yesterday. There are some very odd things going on with the reports from time to time, the sudden influxes in China probably being the worst examples. It might work, but people are terrible about assessing future risk, with COVID you get sick in 4-7 days with smoking it takes decades. I kind of like Canada's approach where we make it very uncomfortable for smokers and tax it a super high rate to pay for the future costs on the health care system (we are probably still losing but it is better than nothing). I also like all the rules about how they can't market them almost anywhere, and can't have them flavoured so it less likely for kids to get them. Even when you go into a gas station they are hidden behind a white board and there are are horrible pictures of what smoking does to your lungs, teeth and so on. It has not stopped it, but I'm not sure that anything would and making it illegal would just create a black market.
This is a little off topic and pretty cynical.
Smoking is great for the economy. Especially for countries with universal healthcare and government pensions. If you have a large percentage of the population smoking that's probably one of the biggest savings you can have.
First of all smokers spend a lot of money buying cigarettes and they are very heavily taxed. That's straight revenue with the argument that they have to pay for their added healthcare costs.
However, people always die of something. Smoking increases your risk of cancer and pulmonary disease. However if you don't smoke you will still die eventually (probably of hearth disease or cancer). Heart disease used to be "cheap" but today we usually manage one, or even two heart attacks alongside related problems. Cancer is the same thing, we can do a lot of expensive treatment today.
Sure you could say that things like pulmonary diseases can be chronic but old people have many chronic diseases.
So in the end, regardless of if you smoke or not, you will likely end up requiring medical treatment.
The difference is that you will likely need that treatment a lot earlier. And you will also likely die a LOT earlier. Economically speaking this is great because the real added cost lies not in the medical treatment but with pensions and general care of an aging population. If you can shave of 5-10 years of that it is massive. It could be a problem if you start getting sick before you retire but usually people manage fairly well until they are over that age.
So the economic argument against smoking is weak.
However the humanistic argument is crystal clear. Cigarettes is a fucking horrible product designed to get people addicted and ruin their lives (not only their lifespan but it also makes you weaker and gives you health issues while you are alive).
The argument for corona should be the same. It's not really economic damage/quarantine versus saved lives.
It's the SUFFERING caused by the economic damage and the quarantine versus the lives saved.
I personally don't give a shit if the top 1 % loses a couple of billions, or if my savings take a hit. But there are a lot of people out there who will have their lives ruined by the quarantine. They might never recover and suffer from this impact for decades. It's a real issue.
It doesn't sound so bad when you say that 12 % of Spains GDP is from tourism which is now completely crippled. But that will effect millions of people for a long time. Some might never recover. Some might even die (from suicide).
A 12 % GDP reduction will also likely mean large budget cuts. Normally prevention programs for example tobacco, mental health and poor diets are the first to go. This might easily kill more people in the long run from smoking, diabetes or suicide than the virus ever did.
|
Lalalaland34499 Posts
The other thing for smoking is that you die earlier and therefore don't collect on your government pension. From a purely economic point of view it's much more profitable for the country to have smokers rather than fat people.
But yes, off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
