|
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. |
On August 19 2020 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me. This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over. But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best. Is there an example of a corona virus (or any other virus ever) that kids can't spread or would this be the first one we know of?
I think it makes sense for me to list off some factors that go into whether or not someone becomes infected by a generic infectious thing, in this case, covid:
1. How many are present? 1 virus isn't sufficient. Durability and a variety of other factors influence how many viruses are needed in order to "actually infect" someone
2. Through what mechanism does the thing infect? Certain infections attack certain types of cells. Different infections have different potential receptors through which to infect something. More info on that here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287568/
3. Is the person's immune system weak or strong? Sometimes strong immune systems are a bad thing, which is why women have a higher number of autoimmune disorders than men.
4. If an infection attacks a certain thing, the strength or resilience of that thing can have a big impact on how much of the infection can spread. Some animals are immune to certain types of infections because of their bodies being physically different.
5. Different hormones and other things are different at different ages. Since hormones and other things impact a lot of processes in our bodies, the available stuff to interact with changes how the virus interacts with our body.
5A. Kind of example of this is the fact that when covid gets on your skin, its totally not a problem and you can clean it off. Covid isn't able to just start munching on your skin and make more viruses directly from whatever it touches. In this way, you can imagine how a body/person/child being in a different physical state can have other more nuanced differences that change how an infection interacts with a host. Also think about how certain animals are running around with viruses on them they they don't mind but can kill us.
Relevant part about ACE2 and how it impacts whether you get infected
We report the novel observation that SARS-CoV infection of human airway epithelia is dependent upon the state of epithelial differentiation and ACE2 mRNA and protein expression. ACE2 is more abundantly expressed on the apical surface of polarized epithelia, and we show for the first time that well-differentiated cells support viral replication with viral entry and egress occurring primarily from the apical surface. Thus, SARS-CoV preferentially infects well-differentiated ciliated epithelial cells expressing ACE2. Since ACE2 is also the receptor for the coronavirus NL63 (12), these findings are relevant to the biology of infection with this more common human pathogen.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287568/
At the end of the day, the infectiousness of someone is determined by how many viruses they are shooting out of their mouths. If a child doesn't get very infected, the concentration of viruses in their exhaling breath will be lower than someone who has been ravaged by the virus. So that means that so long as someone isn't breathing out much of it, that person isn't very infectious.
However, asymptomatic people have been shown to have a ton of covid in them, just not suffering much. So that's why asymptomatic people spread it effectively, or don't. asymptomatic people have been shown to have both high and low concentrations in their breaths, so the amount someone is showing symptoms is not the same as how infectious they are. So kids could be totally groovy from symptoms but still infectious. Or if children's bodies effectively fight the virus and there just isn't much in their bodies, they'll be less infectious.
Judging by case studies in churches and other areas, it appears chance of infection and severity of infection are mostly correlated with exposure dosage.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/893227088/growing-body-of-evidence-suggests-masks-protect-those-wearing-them-too
^That talks about the fact that dosage might scale with severity, or at least it may in some cases. Dosage makes a big difference in many other cases. So long as kids aren't spewing much covid when they get infected, it is possible schools can open for certain ages. Unfortunately, this takes a long time to study...Unless you just open anyway, so we'll know what's going on in a couple months lol. Also I am using "maybe" and "might" the way we do in academic settings. For laymen purposes, its basically 100% guaranteed exposure dosage is hugely relevant in covid severity.
|
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately.
|
On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately.
From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people.
I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns.
|
On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately.
It's only as a matter of hedging that people say "time will tell" in regards to whether or not opening schools is bad. Some people insist, largely contrary to fact, that it won't be a big problem. There are many examples of schools and universities opening only to end up with outbreaks of sometimes hundreds of people in a very short amount of time. If the "optimists" from Sweden are to be believed, sending younger kids to school is still safe; looking around it certainly does seem like lower grade levels are less hard-hit, but it's still a far cry from "safe" right now.
You don't need to wait two months to see that this will end badly. Some simple math and extrapolating from the few examples we have in the very early weeks of school starting will suffice. Schools in areas of high infection are themselves closing due to outbreaks. The question is not so much if opening schools is a bad idea, but whether or not school openings will be the catalyst that finally breaks the fragile stability some countries (not the US) have gained in the fight to bring the infection under control. It certainly could be.
|
On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns.
538 did an estimate a while back, where they predicted Americans would be willing to spend about 20 trillion to avoid covid deaths. That's roughly a year of GDP - we're not even halfway there yet.
|
On August 19 2020 13:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. 538 did an estimate a while back, where they predicted Americans would be willing to spend about 20 trillion to avoid covid deaths. That's roughly a year of GDP - we're not even halfway there yet.
Yes, but Americans also gravely misunderstand the risks of C19. Key poll findings:
On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%.
Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%.
Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger
by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).
In other words most Americans are systemically misinformed. This is probably no different than the spat I had earlier with people about crime. If American views about the above poll numbers shifted even 50% towards reality, the acceptable GDP loss would easily reduce by much more than half, probably it would be at less than 10% of the 20 Trillion number.
|
Death is not the only risk of Covid 19
|
On August 19 2020 15:29 Zambrah wrote:
Death is not the only risk of Covid 19
I still think the death ration is probably way too low in the numbers. And even if not, the recovered section should be split in fully recovered and not fully recovered. Maybe this would convince people to stay safe when they see that 10% of all infections are either dead or suffer long term damages
|
I was looking at statistics trying to see which countries have the highest proportion of population affected.
At the top in Quatar which has more than 4% of population with confirmed cases. If we assume that the real number of cases is 10x more (this number is just a wild guess, it is probably much lower for countries like S.Korea, and larger for countries like India), then 40% of their population has been infected already. This is also strengthened by the fact that they've done only half a million tests, which is just 5 times the number of positive cases identified. If that is right and the things progress as is, they might have herd immunity by the end of the year.
|
The people that don't care now will not care then. It's only old people with long term damages, they have to suck it up for the economy. The notion that only childrens death is a way school reopening should be measured by is absurd. Teachers usually come in all age brackets and just having them in school rooms with 30 disease vectors without any discipline is the greatest idea ever. Also, elementary school is not the only one that is opening. Even if kids under 10 are basically immune, and even if that means they do not spread the virus at all, which there is no scientific proof for, despite what some posters might claim, there are tons of high school students that are almost all asymptous and spread the virus just fine. Except if people now want to claim 17 year olds are immune and 21 year olds are not. We have enough cases of 21 year olds spreading the virus partying, so people n their early tweens are definately spreading. But those theachers are just gonna have to suck it up.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On August 19 2020 17:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The people that don't care now will not care then. It's only old people with long term damages, they have to suck it up for the economy. The notion that only childrens death is a way school reopening should be measured by is absurd. Teachers usually come in all age brackets and just having them in school rooms with 30 disease vectors without any discipline is the greatest idea ever. Also, elementary school is not the only one that is opening. Even if kids under 10 are basically immune, and even if that means they do not spread the virus at all, which there is no scientific proof for, despite what some posters might claim, there are tons of high school students that are almost all asymptous and spread the virus just fine. Except if people now want to claim 17 year olds are immune and 21 year olds are not. We have enough cases of 21 year olds spreading the virus partying, so people n their early tweens are definately spreading. But those theachers are just gonna have to suck it up.
Seems to be going that way. I’m not hell-bent on closing schools my any means, where I went/my mother works and my sister currently attends had a pretty decent plan involving staggering classes on a two week timetable so they could keep distancing measures in place. School of 11-18 year olds.
Less movement of pupils between classes and teachers were able to rotate around classrooms where specialist equipment wasn’t required, instead of the pupils moving from classroom to classroom, that kind of thing.
The education minister here said nah, all schools who’d come up with plans throw them out, it’s full attendance for all pupils from now on.
Having seen the altered plan around that, which is 3 times as long it looks about the same multiplier in terms of ineffectiveness. Not the school’s fault either, merely a logistical problem when your individual classrooms plus general number of rooms available is filled back up to capacity.
My mum’s job involves helping people with special educational needs, although it varies from year to year given the student. Her current charge is autistic and needs a hand with all sorts of things, a previous one had problems with coordination so she had to scribe all his work, including internal exams.
That doesn’t sound a job you can do while maintaining distance particularly soundly, even less so teaching which will be difficult enough.
There are plenty of at least halfway house alternatives between depriving kids of learning and just saying fuck it everyone is back at school now in an environment where precautions are almost de facto impossible to implement.
The cynic in me thinks there’s such a push because school has become a necessary babysitter for so many families, especially those at low income brackets that are on the breadline. Don’t have schools open as a bandaid and more people might start rightly questioning why they’re so broke.
Remote learning wasn’t ideal in ways certainly, once people settled in it worked pretty well for many people. Especially those who struggle in the school environment.
Same with universities, although like school social aspect is important there I don’t think universities want people doing all the work from home and wondering why they can’t just do that for considerably cheaper.
Rhetoric about failing a generation of kids and their education rings extremely, extremely hollow over here when every UK education authority completely, completely botched GCSE and A level results. The latter is two years of study for those particular students and dictates entry to universities.
|
|
|
On August 19 2020 17:53 arghyad1 wrote:The news says that the Russian vaccine is working. https://indianexpress.com/article/coronavirus/russian-vaccine-sputnik-latest-updates-6558625/I am from India and in the world we are topping the charts for corona cases per day for the last 2 weeks or so. I really wish the vaccine is circulated ASAP in all countries, if it is actually working. Also it needs to be circulated for free in lots of parts of the world so that everyone has access to it.
I read that article. It says nothing about either the efficacy or the safety of the vaccine. It says all the usual: rushed through phase 1 and phase 2 trials, and skipped phase 3 trials entirely before Putin rubber stamped approval for roll-out. The only new thing is that they have a promotional video of sputnik sattellite attacking an earth-sized corona virus by circling around it while the virus explodes and disintegrates.
It also says that while Russia plans on rolling it out to healthcare professionals first, 52% of Russian medics are unwilling to be vaccinated (and 24.5% are willing right now, with the rest presumably undecided/declined to answer), citing a lack of proof of its efficacy as the most common reason.
But yeah, the news does have a screamy title to go with the michael bay style video!
|
On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns.
Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that?
|
On August 20 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that?
Because QALYs and the fact that lockdowners dont have alternative plans that are realistic.
|
Firstly, i dislike the idea that people are "lockdowners". As has been explained to you multiple times, no one wants lockdowns. "lockdowners" are not a thing.
Secondly, what is your plan?
|
On August 20 2020 01:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that? Because QALYs and the fact that lockdowners dont have alternative plans that are realistic.
What in "minimizing the loss of life and waiting for a vaccine" is unrealistic ?
|
On August 20 2020 01:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that? Because QALYs and the fact that lockdowners dont have alternative plans that are realistic.
I feel like you are using the term QALY as if it is some kind of mathematical proof we need to let old people die. I don't think citing QALY is nearly enough to say schools should open. Multiple promising vaccines are already being manufactured. I think it is worth waiting for.
|
On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:08 cLutZ wrote:On August 20 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that? Because QALYs and the fact that lockdowners dont have alternative plans that are realistic. What in "minimizing the loss of life and waiting for a vaccine" is unrealistic ?
Because that involves likely lockdowning for over a year, and then accepting a huge loss of life anyways because the vaccine is likely only 50% effective. And that is the positive scenario for an extended lockdown.
On August 20 2020 01:15 Simberto wrote:
Firstly, i dislike the idea that people are "lockdowners". As has been explained to you multiple times, no one wants lockdowns. "lockdowners" are not a thing.
Secondly, what is your plan?
They deserve a derogatory name because they are, if you are an old loveline listener, "Stupid or a Liar"? There is a reason every state governor is trying to open up, even if secretly, and its because their budgets are being destroyed.
And thus, lockdowners are a thing, because lockdowners just advocate lockdown from a low information position, and have no plan for reopening aside from utopian ideas like a perfect vaccine dropping with 350 million doses in December.
My plan is to just open everything and trust people who are likely to die to abstain. If they do not, caveat emptor.
On August 20 2020 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:08 cLutZ wrote:On August 20 2020 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 13:11 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 12:36 arbiter_md wrote:
It looks like in most of the countries the schools will open. And I expect not many precautions being taken there. In particular poor ventilation will become a no ventilation in the winter, which will make things worse.
Now people for some reason assume that after two months from the time the schools open, we will know if it was a bad idea. And I ask myself, how will we know? It might be some obvious situation where we have 50% of schools being closed in two months because some infections detected. But if it will be just 5% of the schools? Or 1%? What metrics will give us indication that it's better to have the schools closed? I don't see us getting any answers there unfortunately. From my POV the only statistic that would show opening schools to be a mistake is if the mortality rate among the under 25 significantly increased, OR the heart condition thing that mostly is showing up anecdotally, actually affects 0.5%+ of under 25 people. I simply do no see an alternative plan that isn't destructive. Even at 170k deaths, if we take into account that most Americans are basically living half-lives, lockdowns have caused a loss of 43,750,000 QALYs. If you think half lives is an overestimate, you can change the math. But given the demographics of death you basically have to think lockdown life is 95% as good as normal life for us to be coming out ahead, as of today. And future lockdowns will likely have less life saving effects compared to past lockdowns. Can you clarify why under 25 is what matters when children live with people who are older than that? Because QALYs and the fact that lockdowners dont have alternative plans that are realistic. I feel like you are using the term QALY as if it is some kind of mathematical proof we need to let old people die. I don't think citing QALY is nearly enough to say schools should open. Multiple promising vaccines are already being manufactured. I think it is worth waiting for.
If we were in March 2020, what would have been your acceptable date for a perfect deployment of a perfect vaccine where you would have agreed to lockdown until that date? Judging by the continued behavior of public health officials, I would expect they think the answer was "April 15th 2020". Public health officials appear to (correctly IMO) fear spelling out their plans because their plans are inherently unacceptable to the public. "15 Days to stop the spread" sounds good, "150 days to stop the spread would never have been accepted", because it is a nonsense idea. "18 months and pray for a vaccine" is really the plan they are pitching right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
