|
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 October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap.
There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example, they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck.
Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems.
|
On October 08 2020 14:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Things with limited value yet high rates of transmission should be closed. When we are trying to get levels down low enough to open schools, letting theaters and other stupid bullshit spread infection is mindless. There are bigger priorities we need to get running and letting theaters spread infection is just plain stupid. They should re-open when a vaccine is distributed. I've managed to live a happy life despite not going to a movie theater for the past 7 months. It is ok to make concessions in life. I don't need to always have everything. Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. Lets say Timmy has a car. Timmy changes the oil in his car because if he doesn't change the oil in his car, his engine dies and his car is useless. If Timmy told himself "spending money on an oil change now is just spending tomorrow's money", he would find himself in a worse position when his engine dies. Similarly, governments spending money to prevent greater damage or to create value is not a bad idea. There is a such thing as spending to create value. Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. And that's ok. My goal is not to maximize the total monetary value I receive over the course of my life. I can't imagine how cold and empty a life would be to spend my time wondering how I can make sure I profit from government programs. I am happy and I can support my family. I'm good. Spending money to keep someone's grandma around for another couple years is totally fine by me.
The large majority of harm caused by the virus is to those over 65 which is considered retirement age in most places. Most of people that age are not working and many are living off of social security which comes from payroll taxes. If you think it's creating value to have fewer people paying payroll taxes in order to preserve more people collecting the money derived from those payroll taxes then we will have to agree to disagree.
But I am glad you can support your family. You must not have one of those "limited value" jobs that shouldn't exist right now.
|
On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap.
yikes, already 3 million people with lifelong complications from COVID-19. That's a lot. That's also with mitigation. We could be at 3-5 million dead which by your estimate would mean up to 50 million people with ongoing issues for the rest of their lives. I am in no position to disprove these numbers so I will just have to take your word for it.
|
On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems.
Here's a link from mayo clinic. Note that it can cause blood clotting or strokes even in younger patients.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351#:~:text=COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes,completely within a few weeks.
Another from WHO, with references to SARS recovery as that's another coronavirus
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2#:~:text=• Most people with COVID,have lasting health effects.
Link from the CDC.
The risk of heart damage may not be limited to older and middle-aged adults. For example, young adults with COVID-19, including athletes, can also suffer from myocarditis. Severe heart damage has occurred in young, healthy people, but is rare. There may be more cases of mild effects of COVID-19 on the heart that can be diagnosed with special imaging tests, including in younger people with mild or minimal symptoms; however, the long-term significance of these mild effects on the heart are unknown. CDC will continue to assess and provide updates as new data emerge.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html
I will admit that it's impossible to know for sure the long term effects at this time. I am more cautious than average (I wear a mask at work(office environment, about half wear masks) and have eaten at a restaurant 3 times since March(cases were around 10/day in province at that time).
There's definitely an argument for not letting it impact your life, and just accepting it. Not everybody is going to necessarily notice a few percentage points of reduced lung capacity for example, or care about the potential for kicking the bucket a few years earlier.
I just think that people with potentially 40+ years to live should be more aware of potential consequences of catching the virus.
|
I am avid philpharmonic goer. This year our philharmony was closed in March until the ned of the season (so until July) due to some cashier getting covid. It was reopened in september with some very heavy restrctions:
-mandatory temperature checking at entry
-mandatory masks
-mandatory hand disinfection
-only half of tickets sold (so no siiting next to someone else)
-no breaks, no cafetria etc. so people do not interact with each other
In essence the experience was limit to just music (which fine for me). Today they detected covid in some trombone player (who didnt belive in covid -- guess what it doesnt matter if You belive it or not). Now philharmony is closed again, most of musicians on quarantine. I wonder when it will reopen again...Damn...
|
|
|
On October 08 2020 15:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 14:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Things with limited value yet high rates of transmission should be closed. When we are trying to get levels down low enough to open schools, letting theaters and other stupid bullshit spread infection is mindless. There are bigger priorities we need to get running and letting theaters spread infection is just plain stupid. They should re-open when a vaccine is distributed. I've managed to live a happy life despite not going to a movie theater for the past 7 months. It is ok to make concessions in life. I don't need to always have everything. On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. Lets say Timmy has a car. Timmy changes the oil in his car because if he doesn't change the oil in his car, his engine dies and his car is useless. If Timmy told himself "spending money on an oil change now is just spending tomorrow's money", he would find himself in a worse position when his engine dies. Similarly, governments spending money to prevent greater damage or to create value is not a bad idea. There is a such thing as spending to create value. On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. And that's ok. My goal is not to maximize the total monetary value I receive over the course of my life. I can't imagine how cold and empty a life would be to spend my time wondering how I can make sure I profit from government programs. I am happy and I can support my family. I'm good. Spending money to keep someone's grandma around for another couple years is totally fine by me. The large majority of harm caused by the virus is to those over 65 which is considered retirement age in most places. Most of people that age are not working and many are living off of social security which comes from payroll taxes. If you think it's creating value to have fewer people paying payroll taxes in order to preserve more people collecting the money derived from those payroll taxes then we will have to agree to disagree. But I am glad you can support your family. You must not have one of those "limited value" jobs that shouldn't exist right now.
We agree that people over 65 have limited economic value, but that feels like a weird thing to focus on. When Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor, it wasn't to stimulate the economy and they didn't owe him any debt. He was doing good for the world and setting an example for how we ought to live. I think it was a good example and I try to live that way.
Value is not created by fewer people paying payroll taxes. Value is created by decreasing infection so that high value institutions can function, creating even more value than the things we choose to cool for now. If I chose to go to work rather than exercise in the morning, I would not be creating value by not exercising. Not exercising is strictly worse than exercising, right? However, if I am in a situation where if I exercise, I miss a critical meeting at work, that would mean the value created by the exercising may actually be detrimental. If I get 2 points of value out of that morning exercise, but miss out on 10 points of value at work, it would be a bad idea to exercise in the morning.
Fundamentally, it feels like you are assuming there must be a good outcome where everything is mostly maintained and the damage is minimal. But keep in mind that hurricanes, earthquakes, child rape, murder and a variety of other downright shitty situations happen all the time. There is no guiding light that prevents tragedy, even severe tragedy. When the titanic sank, there weren't pros and cons to the situation, it was purely shitty. There are a variety of purely awful situations that occur over and over, every day. We don't have the luxury of choosing how bad a situation is. All we can do is take the best path to recovery.
Since indoor luxuries like theaters increase the time for essential, high value institutions like schools to fully function, it is important that unemployment programs, such as the extra $600, are rolled out to families that need it. It is not their fault this situation is happening and they deserve our sympathy and support. People shouldn't be expected to endure a pandemic and all the damage it causes, it simply isn't realistic. That is why collectivism is important, to help the weak in times of tragedy. When we all care for each other, we are stronger. We can close down theaters and still support the families that rely on the theater industry. I think it is the right thing to do.
|
On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ?
Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects.
Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past?
What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative.
|
On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative.
We can easily point to failures of every major country, technology company, oil company, everything. Competence isn't forever, we always make mistakes. It seems kind of weird to point out how incompetent we are as a country when we have somehow managed to be on top for quite a while. I would consider the US a very successful country. It feels like your argument is: "Since I can point to instances where mistakes have been made by government, we should generally not rely on the US government to do anything". And yet, I feel like if you were to drive from Florida to Oregon, you'd say "wow, we sure have done a lot of stuff".
I'm honestly surprised to see you make such a weird argument about failure and blunder. You've said you're a biomedical engineer of some sort I believe. If you are a development engineer, you have seen amazing failures throughout your time, it is a part of striving. When you try to build something, you naturally trip on your way there. It is a normal path of existence. Engineers know it all too well.
|
On October 09 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for?
It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative. We can easily point to failures of every major country, technology company, oil company, everything. Competence isn't forever, we always make mistakes. It seems kind of weird to point out how incompetent we are as a country when we have somehow managed to be on top for quite a while. I would consider the US a very successful country. It feels like your argument is: "Since I can point to instances where mistakes have been made by government, we should generally not rely on the US government to do anything". And yet, I feel like if you were to drive from Florida to Oregon, you'd say "wow, we sure have done a lot of stuff". I'm honestly surprised to see you make such a weird argument about failure and blunder. You've said you're a biomedical engineer of some sort I believe. If you are a development engineer, you have seen amazing failures throughout your time, it is a part of striving. When you try to build something, you naturally trip on your way there. It is a normal path of existence. Engineers know it all too well.
Failures and incompetence happen. In my interactions they are a dozen times as likely+ when you are working with a government official rather than one in the private sector. The American bureaucracy is not what makes America work. Its just lucky to exist in a place where its own powers are restrained by a fairly restrictive constitution and with a productive populace. Left to its own devices the bureaucracy would fall into Venezuelan dystopia in less than a decade.
|
On October 09 2020 03:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places:
1. No inside church service
2. No indoor bars or restaurants
3. No indoor gyms
5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place
If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively.
In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative. We can easily point to failures of every major country, technology company, oil company, everything. Competence isn't forever, we always make mistakes. It seems kind of weird to point out how incompetent we are as a country when we have somehow managed to be on top for quite a while. I would consider the US a very successful country. It feels like your argument is: "Since I can point to instances where mistakes have been made by government, we should generally not rely on the US government to do anything". And yet, I feel like if you were to drive from Florida to Oregon, you'd say "wow, we sure have done a lot of stuff". I'm honestly surprised to see you make such a weird argument about failure and blunder. You've said you're a biomedical engineer of some sort I believe. If you are a development engineer, you have seen amazing failures throughout your time, it is a part of striving. When you try to build something, you naturally trip on your way there. It is a normal path of existence. Engineers know it all too well. Failures and incompetence happen. In my interactions they are a dozen times as likely+ when you are working with a government official rather than one in the private sector. The American bureaucracy is not what makes America work. Its just lucky to exist in a place where its own powers are restrained by a fairly restrictive constitution and with a productive populace. Left to its own devices the bureaucracy would fall into Venezuelan dystopia in less than a decade.
I'm not convinced we could do a good job running simulations in our head showing the pros and cons of removing government from interactions with the private sector, so perhaps it isn't a point worth diving into. What I will say is that in the US, most regulations and interactions the private sector has with government are generally caused by times industry screwed up. But this is a covid discussion, so I don't want to derail the topic. I just wanted to point out focusing on failures and dismissing successes doesn't feel like a good approach.
|
|
|
On October 09 2020 03:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for?
It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative. Are schools not open where you are? They are here, we have listened to our health professionals that sound a lot like Fauci and things are going well. It seems like you go on off the point off the rails against "bureaucrats" in unrelated things. Your links do not prove what you are insisting that regular flu's are as bad or worse than Covid-19. Either actually provide something or stop insisting it. It is objectively wrong and it makes the rest of what you say pretty hard to believe.
Sour grapes availability heuristics are a helluva drug.
|
On October 09 2020 03:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for?
It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative. Are schools not open where you are? They are here, we have listened to our health professionals that sound a lot like Fauci and things are going well. It seems like you go on off the point off the rails against "bureaucrats" in unrelated things. Your links do not prove what you are insisting that regular flu's are as bad or worse than Covid-19. Either actually provide something or stop insisting it. It is objectively wrong and it makes the rest of what you say pretty hard to believe.
Schools here are remote only, thus not providing their two primary functions of babysitting and socialization.
Even the far-left Politifact says flu is worse for the young than covid.
And my point on bureaucrats is that you don't seem to have the expertise on "experts" to know that the "experts" you are listening to are not good at their jobs. In many cases, as is the case with Covid (95% certainty on my end) they are actively harmful.
|
On October 09 2020 03:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2020 03:30 JimmiC wrote:On October 09 2020 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 21:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 15:42 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2020 14:48 Amui wrote:On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places:
1. No inside church service
2. No indoor bars or restaurants
3. No indoor gyms
5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place
If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively.
In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years. The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH. Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well. In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap. There is so little evidence for this "fact" which is constantly asserted in this thread that I think we should demand real rigor on this point. Where is the study showing these long term effects occur more often in the young than with other diseases? The purported "youth nondeadly complications" that I've been seeing alluded to herein are not uncommon. They happen in car accidents, the flu (more than in C19 cases as a percentage), indoor pools (many people get lung damage from airborne chlorine every year), etc. People making this claim should be mandated to at least plausibly demonstrate, with primary sources, that it affects more people than the previous risks that are routinely treated as minor. Automobiles are a clear example , they are much more deadly to the young than C19, and that is an annual risk, while C19 can be eliminated from ever harrying them again when they actually have a risk via many strategies from vaccine to herd immunity to dumb luck. Honestly, I think talking about C19 complications in the young is egregious discourse that might need to be curtailed by mods. Do we have a thread that lets Qanon just idly speculate? If so, I suppose this is fine. But we are having regular posts about young people permanent damage that is even more unhinged. Epstein actually existed and knew and commiserated with the people that those weirdos would have predicted were in the alleged conspiracy. What does the C19 long term damage idea predict? That some percentage of people who get a respiratory disease will have long term heart and lung damage? Guess what, that is already known, and is higher for most other respiratory diseases it seems. What is your theory on why Doctors and virologists around the world to almost 100% disagree with you on the severity and response to the virus? How come they with their decade of training and various amounts of experience all came to the conclusion that this is way worse than the flu and severe actions need to be taken to curb it ? Except they dont? The AAP has been recommending that k-12 return to in person instruction for months. The Mayo clinic link above clearly relies on fringe cases for its claims of young person complications (otherwise it would use the phrase "over XXthousand instances" or something similar). Given that seasonal flu also causes heart attacks and heart inflammation and the flue is a worse disease for the young than C19 is, the same likely holds for side effects. Again, where are the people advocating this view who have shown to be accurate predictors in the past? What I think you are doing is confusing public health experts, like Fauci, with actual expertise. They are decidedly not. Fauci, if he ever was an expert, hasn't been one since the 80s. He is instead an expert in the social scene of the bureaucracy he inhabits, an expert at following the herd. The "experts" you see on TV are not disease experts, they are experts in the art of getting on TV and happen to have an MD. The crises of "public" experts is quite severe at the moment, and its not limited to health. NASA can't launch its own astronauts into space, it relied on Russians for a decade, and now on a South African who immigrated to America. These are not outliers. The government couldn't launch a simple website to support the PPACA, the EPA polluted a river through sheer incompetence, one government entity even lost money selling weed. These are not unrelated anecdotes, instead they are examples of how rising in a government beurocracy only shows skill in rising, not skill at the underlying task. And that is the subset of people you seem to be focusing on, a bunch of midwits following a narrative. Are schools not open where you are? They are here, we have listened to our health professionals that sound a lot like Fauci and things are going well. It seems like you go on off the point off the rails against "bureaucrats" in unrelated things. Your links do not prove what you are insisting that regular flu's are as bad or worse than Covid-19. Either actually provide something or stop insisting it. It is objectively wrong and it makes the rest of what you say pretty hard to believe. Schools here are remote only, thus not providing the ir two primary functions of babysitting and socialization.
Even the far-left Politifact says flu is worse for the young than covid. And my point on bureaucrats is that you don't seem to have the expertise on "experts" to know that the "experts" you are listening to are not good at their jobs. In many cases, as is the case with Covid (95% certainty on my end) they are actively harmful.
These words, they don't mean what you think they mean.
The primary purpose of schooling is education. Socialization is at best an ancillary benefit and babysitting a completely
unintended one. Schooling was made mandatory long before we had dual worker households.
Far leftists are marxists or anarchists. Not uh, a fact checking website that has awarded its lies of the year on bipartisan basis since founding. (2011 and 2013 both went to democrats. Since 2015 it's basically just gone to Trump, but uh, how could they not? He's the undisputed all time champ there. Alex Jones types won it in 2018 for the crisis actor conspiracies).
|
|
|
On October 09 2020 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
Also, for like the 100th time why is bureaucrat a bad word to you, they are merely government workers. Most of the time they can't even do what they think is best or want to because of politics. Rarely is it their fault but they sure are an easy target for people who apparently have no clue on their function or roll.
They are bad because the organization has bad incentive structures. Getting promoted in these organizations is not related to how good you are at your job. Just look at someone like Fauci. How many of his predictions (prediction is the only objective way to evaluate an expert) have been better than a laymans? He has mostly underperformed common sense. He was against international travel restrictions and masks at the most critical time of the virus's proliferation (January and early February). He hyped the Imperial College model that said we'd have 2 million deaths by the end of the year even with lockdowns. He generally seems unable to comprehend fluid dynamics and probably doesn't even know what the term laminar flow refers to.
|
|
|
On October 09 2020 05:20 JimmiC wrote:
He was not perfect, nor was anyone. The old Hindsight is 20/20. The issue is that you have a commander and chief as more and more info came in and more and more was known he continued to use his "gut" not too mention his version of "transparency" is lying to keep people "calm". Travel bans would have made a difference, but not what trump did, because China was not the only hot spot not even close. Not to mention he was still lying to people about severity and spouting that the summer would just kill it off so don't worry.
...
You can have a hate on for fauci but you have to look outside your borders and for you to be in the right 99.998 % of the doctors and experts in the public and private world have to be wrong. I'm sure you are a intelligent fellow but I also know you have no medical background so this kind of hubris is just insane levels. Do you think people with no legal training or experience would know you were completely wrong on legal questions? And these people have a lot more training and schooling than even lawyers.
These two are in contradiction. I'm not criticizing him for getting some things wrong, I'm criticizing him for being worse than flipping a quarter. If you sent me 10 potential inventions and asked me to evaluate which ones were likely to be successful patent applications, and which ones would not be, and then you asked the same question to a flipped quarter, I would beat the quarter 99% of the time, the other time being random chance because there sometimes is an extremely lucky quarter. Fauci has lost to the quarter a statistically improbable amount of times such that he is basically an anti-expert. Like one of those radio sports personalities where you make money just betting the opposite of whatever they pick.
|
Can we get a specific list of items where Fauci was wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
