|
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 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:22 Mohdoo wrote: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.
There are a variety of situations in life where there is no remotely good answer and everything sucks. We aren't owed 18 months of normalcy. Nothing about our existence on earth is in accordance with some fundamental quality of life. A lot of people on this planet don't understand that. People have an extremely hard time understanding that nothing we currently enjoy is guaranteed and that if it were to all be taken from us, no rules would have been violated. Pandemics occur and we suffer because of them. There is no poetry to it, just tragedy.
Because of that, I don't look at 18 months as unreasonable, it simply is. It is devastating and bad and deeply unpleasant, damaging in many ways. But that doesn't make it "wrong". Bad and worse can sometimes be the only options. Pointing out that the majority of people aren't able to grasp the reality of tragedy doesn't make epidemiology any less valid. The current approach of minimizing death is clearly appropriate and I don't think you've effectively argued otherwise.
|
On August 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:22 Mohdoo wrote: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. I really don't get why you keep arguing against non-existent idea's when reality is right infront of you.
No one is talking about lockdown for a year+. The rest of the world already dealt with this, lockdown for a few months to squash the initial surge and then open slowly back up with masks/social distancing and apply stronger local measures for short period where hotspots flare up.
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
|
On August 20 2020 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote: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: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. There are a variety of situations in life where there is no remotely good answer and everything sucks. We aren't owed 18 months of normalcy. Nothing about our existence on earth is in accordance with some fundamental quality of life. A lot of people on this planet don't understand that. People have an extremely hard time understanding that nothing we currently enjoy is guaranteed and that if it were to all be taken from us, no rules would have been violated. Pandemics occur and we suffer because of them. There is no poetry to it, just tragedy. Because of that, I don't look at 18 months as unreasonable, it simply is. It is devastating and bad and deeply unpleasant, damaging in many ways. But that doesn't make it "wrong". Bad and worse can sometimes be the only options. Pointing out that the majority of people aren't able to grasp the reality of tragedy doesn't make epidemiology any less valid. The current approach of minimizing death is clearly appropriate and I don't think you've effectively argued otherwise.
What do you even think "the current approach" is? Because, what I see is everybody that was not heavily hit by the initial March/April waves getting their waves in due course. The current approach is death, delayed by 4-6 months, while pretending something else is happening.
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools.
|
Coronavirus, and any pandemic really relies on exponential spread.
If you have an R0 of 1.3, and 100 infected, you need to stop 30+ cases from those infected. If you have 10000 infected, you need to stop 3000 cases. You need to get the base number down to a reasonable level, so that other measures to reduce R0 to 1 or below can work. That's essentially what every compentent country has done. Severe restrictions are in place to drop R0 to below 1, so the base number of infections drops to a manageable point, and then restrictions are eased until R0 is at 1, or just below 1. Contact tracing can only handle so many people, same with widespread availability of testing, speed of testing etc.
It's not unreasonable to expect that a subset of life is on hold until a vaccine is widespread.
|
On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On August 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote: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: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. There are a variety of situations in life where there is no remotely good answer and everything sucks. We aren't owed 18 months of normalcy. Nothing about our existence on earth is in accordance with some fundamental quality of life. A lot of people on this planet don't understand that. People have an extremely hard time understanding that nothing we currently enjoy is guaranteed and that if it were to all be taken from us, no rules would have been violated. Pandemics occur and we suffer because of them. There is no poetry to it, just tragedy. Because of that, I don't look at 18 months as unreasonable, it simply is. It is devastating and bad and deeply unpleasant, damaging in many ways. But that doesn't make it "wrong". Bad and worse can sometimes be the only options. Pointing out that the majority of people aren't able to grasp the reality of tragedy doesn't make epidemiology any less valid. The current approach of minimizing death is clearly appropriate and I don't think you've effectively argued otherwise. What do you even think "the current approach" is? Because, what I see is everybody that was not heavily hit by the initial March/April waves getting their waves in due course. The current approach is death, delayed by 4-6 months, while pretending something else is happening.
Minimizing death is a good thing. Deaths will still happen, since no solution is perfect, but so long as we keep doing as well as we can, we are doing the right thing. And since we have data to help us see what is the right thing to do, we're in a good situation, if we choose to be. Different states are doing different things because the federal government has chosen not to impose a national approach. In other countries, they are much more united.
Also, you said a vaccine would only be 50% effective. Can you clarify that?
|
On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On August 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:On August 20 2020 01:19 Erasme wrote: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: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. There are a variety of situations in life where there is no remotely good answer and everything sucks. We aren't owed 18 months of normalcy. Nothing about our existence on earth is in accordance with some fundamental quality of life. A lot of people on this planet don't understand that. People have an extremely hard time understanding that nothing we currently enjoy is guaranteed and that if it were to all be taken from us, no rules would have been violated. Pandemics occur and we suffer because of them. There is no poetry to it, just tragedy. Because of that, I don't look at 18 months as unreasonable, it simply is. It is devastating and bad and deeply unpleasant, damaging in many ways. But that doesn't make it "wrong". Bad and worse can sometimes be the only options. Pointing out that the majority of people aren't able to grasp the reality of tragedy doesn't make epidemiology any less valid. The current approach of minimizing death is clearly appropriate and I don't think you've effectively argued otherwise. What do you even think "the current approach" is? Because, what I see is everybody that was not heavily hit by the initial March/April waves getting their waves in due course. The current approach is death, delayed by 4-6 months, while pretending something else is happening. Show nested quote +
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools.
You understand america is that kid in highschool who cannot read, and yet try to do the same things as other students ? You can't follow the rest of the world now, because you didn't follow the rest of the world when it mattered. To put some context, at 67m pop in France we have 15deaths daily. America at 328m is at 1k+.
|
|
|
The federal government never had the power to implement a national response. It’s only got stuff like immigration controls and issuing statements and guidance. It’s America, not some unfederalized fantasyland.
Unless people really want Trump to have the ability to direct openings, closings, masks, rofl
|
On August 20 2020 01:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I get that it really looks as if everyone is dogpiling onto you right now. But i kind of cannot ignore that you are lashing out towards everyone, and your plan on how to handle the pandemic is simply "ignore it and hope for the best".
I have a hard time even responding to that, because it seems so utterly callous and absurd.
It also really doesn't help that you seem to have a superiority complex where you need to call anyone having a different stance than your really, really extreme stance names and declare that they argue from a low information position.
Once again, no one has the plans you claim your opponents have. No one wants an indeterminate lockdown, people do have plans for reopening, and no one is hoping for a perfect vaccine in december. You seem to be fighting against windmills, which might be cute if you weren't advocating for about the worst possible reaction to a pandemic.
|
|
|
On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools. You believe the US is at the point where the virus is (mostly) squashed and the country can open back up and try to control the resurgent spread because the number of infected are low.
In reality the US is at step 0, before the point where the rest the world went into lockdown. The country is at its peak, not the bottom of the valley.
US schools are not trying to re-open during a low point in infections, but at a high point. Which is bad, because the change of a student being infected and causing a spread in class isn't 1 in a million, but 1 in 1000 (numbers completely bullshit, just trying to get the point across).
And yes, the US went into a lockdown already, that was badly implemented and ignored and therefor did not do what it needed to do (outside of a few places like NY,NJ)
|
Trump should just tweet "we are trying to copy Sweden".
|
|
|
Fwiw I’m a lock downer but I want an actual freaking lock down. People that must work in hospitals and such housed separately from families. Etc. no plan to reopen? The lock down IS the plan to reopen.
If you properly lock everything down and starve the virus from new hosts you can reopen fully , close borders except for those willing to quarantine for a few weeks and actually beat this thing by tracing new hot spots.
We have the resources to do this, we can limit lock down to a month or two and we can return to normalcy but everyone seems to be cool with fighting this thing half assed and ignoring the fact their is real risk to getting sick beyond just dying. Whatever, I’m mad at all of you that feel this way. I can’t go visit my family, I haven’t left a ten block radius around my house since March. I’m tired and depressed but it’s cool, you all keep bickering over if mask wearing in public is appropriate or not. (Why are we in public in first place... 😰😰😰)
|
On August 20 2020 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools. You believe the US is at the point where the virus is (mostly) squashed and the country can open back up and try to control the resurgent spread because the number of infected are low. In reality the US is at step 0, before the point where the rest the world went into lockdown. The country is at its peak, not the bottom of the valley. US schools are not trying to re-open during a low point in infections, but at a high point. Which is bad, because the change of a student being infected and causing a spread in class isn't 1 in a million, but 1 in 1000 (numbers completely bullshit, just trying to get the point across). And yes, the US went into a lockdown already, that was badly implemented and ignored and therefor did not do what it needed to do (outside of a few places like NY,NJ)
If its true that the US is a Phase 0, then the lockdowns failed. So your plan is...more lockdowns?
Fwiw I’m a lock downer but I want an actual freaking lock down. People that must work in hospitals and such housed separately from families. Etc. no plan to reopen? The lock down IS the plan to reopen.
If you properly lock everything down and starve the virus from new hosts you can reopen fully , close borders except for those willing to quarantine for a few weeks and actually beat this thing by tracing new hot spots.
We have the resources to do this, we can limit lock down to a month or two and we can return to normalcy but everyone seems to be cool with fighting this thing half assed and ignoring the fact their is real risk to getting sick beyond just dying. Whatever, I’m mad at all of you that feel this way. I can’t go visit my family, I haven’t left a ten block radius around my house since March. I’m tired and depressed but it’s cool, you all keep bickering over if mask wearing in public is appropriate or not. (Why are we in public in first place... 😰😰😰)
At least this guy has a plan. Draconian totalitarian lockdown with the goal of getting to 0 cases in America by basically welding everyone into their homes for a month.
|
On August 20 2020 03:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools. You believe the US is at the point where the virus is (mostly) squashed and the country can open back up and try to control the resurgent spread because the number of infected are low. In reality the US is at step 0, before the point where the rest the world went into lockdown. The country is at its peak, not the bottom of the valley. US schools are not trying to re-open during a low point in infections, but at a high point. Which is bad, because the change of a student being infected and causing a spread in class isn't 1 in a million, but 1 in 1000 (numbers completely bullshit, just trying to get the point across). And yes, the US went into a lockdown already, that was badly implemented and ignored and therefor did not do what it needed to do (outside of a few places like NY,NJ) If its true that the US is a Phase 0, then the lockdowns failed. So your plan is...more lockdowns? Show nested quote +Fwiw I’m a lock downer but I want an actual freaking lock down. People that must work in hospitals and such housed separately from families. Etc. no plan to reopen? The lock down IS the plan to reopen.
If you properly lock everything down and starve the virus from new hosts you can reopen fully , close borders except for those willing to quarantine for a few weeks and actually beat this thing by tracing new hot spots.
We have the resources to do this, we can limit lock down to a month or two and we can return to normalcy but everyone seems to be cool with fighting this thing half assed and ignoring the fact their is real risk to getting sick beyond just dying. Whatever, I’m mad at all of you that feel this way. I can’t go visit my family, I haven’t left a ten block radius around my house since March. I’m tired and depressed but it’s cool, you all keep bickering over if mask wearing in public is appropriate or not. (Why are we in public in first place... 😰😰😰) At least this guy has a plan. Draconian totalitarian lockdown with the goal of getting to 0 cases in America by basically welding everyone into their homes for a month.
Lockdowns have measurably saved lives. Labeling them a failure by whatever standards you're applying doesn't change that. They succeeded in saving lives and that is a success to me.
I have the pleasure of living in Oregon. 24,000 people have been infected in Oregon out of a population of 4,218,000. In Florida, where less restrictive lockdown policies were used, 584,000 out of 21,480,000 were infected.
Oregon ends up .56% infected, Florida 2.7%.
Despite having roughly 5x the population of Oregon, Florida has 30x the deaths. There are other factors that go into play, but it feels appropriate to say locking down saved lives.
|
United States44205 Posts
Lockdown isn’t a binary. It’s not a switch that closes or reopens everything. It’s an approach that recognizes that a key component in tackling a pandemic in reducing the spread and attempts to incorporate a cost/benefit analysis approach into activities which would normally be routine. Arguing that lockdowns are bad because everything cannot be closed down forever is an absurd straw man that misses the point. Even at the height of lockdowns grocery stores stayed open because people need to eat. Even now when most places have reopened sports aren’t played in front of crowds because we have the ability to show people what is happening in a game in real time without their in-person attendance. It’s not one or the other, it’s about weighing the benefits.
|
|
|
On August 20 2020 03:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 02:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2020 01:55 cLutZ wrote:
Its a plan most of the world is following and if you want to argue against that then argue against that and not some fantasy where you lock down for a year+.
Lockdowners in America are opposed to following the plans of the rest of the world, as exhibited by the people in this thread opposing reopening of schools. You believe the US is at the point where the virus is (mostly) squashed and the country can open back up and try to control the resurgent spread because the number of infected are low. In reality the US is at step 0, before the point where the rest the world went into lockdown. The country is at its peak, not the bottom of the valley. US schools are not trying to re-open during a low point in infections, but at a high point. Which is bad, because the change of a student being infected and causing a spread in class isn't 1 in a million, but 1 in 1000 (numbers completely bullshit, just trying to get the point across). And yes, the US went into a lockdown already, that was badly implemented and ignored and therefor did not do what it needed to do (outside of a few places like NY,NJ) If its true that the US is a Phase 0, then the lockdowns failed. So your plan is...more lockdowns? Your hung up on the fact that a burgler climbed through an open window, therefor there is no point trying to lock your door, and you might aswell let yourself get robbed constantly. When the obvious answer is to close the window AND lock the door.
Lockdowns failed in the US because they were not done properly and everyone flaunted the rules, and that is assume a state even went into lockdown in the first place.
If the baboon in chief hadn't been flailing around and half the US states didn't decide that science is bullshit and lives must be thrown on the pyre of economics and an open economy at any cost you wouldn't be in this position.
Yes going into a 2nd lockdown would suck for the US, and without a social security net its going to be horrible. Again, a US problem, not an issue with the measure of a lockdown to stem viral spread.
Should have done it properly the first time.
|
Unfortunately it looks like a second lockdown will be needed in Europe soon. Numbers are growing slowly but steady and the blame is on the vacation returnees. But I don't see the numbers going down when vacation season ends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
