|
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. |
Well if you want to pad your profits for a quarter, selling 200k doses (2 dose vaccine) at 10k a course nets a cool billion dollars.
200k doses is 1% or less of all vaccines being made available, and I'm sure there's enough million/billionaires who'd jump.
Here's the CDC guidance for who gets vaccines in the USA (PDF warning)
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf
There's some modelling in there as well as to infections averted as well. Essential workers (Healthcare first, then other essential workers) first averts the most cases of covid.
High risk (65+, high risk adults) first averts the most deaths.
It's a better guide than our gut feelings.
The conclusion is:
Phase 1a
HCP
LTCF residents
Phase 1b
Essential workers
(examples: Education Sector, Food & Agriculture, Utilities,
Police, Firefighters, Corrections Officers, Transportation)
Phase1c
Adults with high -risk medical conditions
Adults 65+
|
On December 03 2020 00:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2020 18:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 02 2020 09:49 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2020 08:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:I mean, the economy does transfer into lives lost, too. I'm not gonna attempt to make a cost-benefit analysis or whatever, but there is a limit to how harmful a measure can be to the economy compared to how little that measure contributes to further covid spread before it becomes unwise to implement that measure. In theory, I guess you could get a reasonable ballpark from some calculation involving estimated years of jobs lost + decreased life expectancy for long term unemployment + increased covid infection numbers and death.  Your missing my point, it is unproven that these restrictions are bad for the economy. So you are right that bad economy can cost death. Just no one here who thinks restrictions are all bad has proven that they are worse for the economy than doing nothing. It is not the restrictions stopping me from shopping and going to restaurants and shopping. It is the people not taking the precautions that is. And where I live over 50% of the people are like me. That numbers ranges from 40%-70% so no restrictions at all and the economy suffers. Not to mention sick days, super expensive, healthcare super expensive so on. It is flawed logic that people think you are choosing between health and the economy it is not that simple because restrictions are not the only factor, or even the major factor to whats hurting the economy, that would be the pandemic. Hawaii is keeping tourists out because it is better for their economy to have the people stay healthy and confident so they keep it going than some tourist dollars. Fight the virus you improve the economy. Fight the restrictions (don't wear masks, gather socially and so on) you feed the virus and fuck your economy. I agree economy is important, I'm just pointing out how overly simplistic and incredibly flawed this economy vs health argument is. It is not some balance where you pull from to hurt the other and vice versa. I'm not missing any points. I'm not making any arguments regarding what measures are too much and what measures are not regarding hawaii, I'm just disagreeing with your apparent principled position of 'every measure to combat the virus is worth it', and more than anything, I'm having a hard time seeing why Blackjack's position is seemingly so incomprehensible. (It seems that way at least, because otherwise I assume there would be less mischaracterization of it.) To give a more specific example, In Norway right now, schools are running as normally (although if any students are given a covid diagnosis, their class ends up being quarantined). I think that's reasonable, because shutting down schools (with current level of spread) imo hurts society more than the amount of spread originating from schools being open hurts society. Further, I don't think it's far fetched or particularly cynical or 'So you're willing to condemn a bunch of people to horrible outcomes, because you think it might be better for the economy' (that's a literal you-quote from the previous page) to think that maybe quarantining everyone who enters Hawaii might hurt their society more (through reducing tourism to ~0-ish, for a state really dependent on tourism) than requiring negative covid tests to avoid that quarantine does. Basically, I replied because I don't understand why you have to extrapolate the arguments of the people you are discussing with into something nefarious. Wow, I'm shocked you would use such a blatant and inaccurate strawman. No I don't think every measure possible is good.
Well you verbatim said
On December 02 2020 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
Measures are good for the economy not the other way around.
You could have qualified that statement with "some measures are good" or "it's unproven what measures are and aren't good for the economy." Not sure how you can fault Eri for assuming your position is "every measure is good for the economy" when you make a blanket statement like "Measures are good for the economy."
Either way, considering your statements from previous posts
On December 02 2020 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
Are we back to not understanding the economic impact of letting the virus run wild?
On December 02 2020 07:41 JimmiC wrote:
That is basically my point. You cannot prove that the measures are worse then letting the pandemic run wild.
I really think you should be the last person upset about strawmans when you've spent the last page arguing against this idea of "letting the virus run wild."
|
|
|
On December 03 2020 03:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2020 03:38 BlackJack wrote:On December 03 2020 00:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2020 18:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 02 2020 09:49 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2020 08:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:I mean, the economy does transfer into lives lost, too. I'm not gonna attempt to make a cost-benefit analysis or whatever, but there is a limit to how harmful a measure can be to the economy compared to how little that measure contributes to further covid spread before it becomes unwise to implement that measure. In theory, I guess you could get a reasonable ballpark from some calculation involving estimated years of jobs lost + decreased life expectancy for long term unemployment + increased covid infection numbers and death. Your missing my point, it is unproven that these restrictions are bad for the economy. So you are right that bad economy can cost death. Just no one here who thinks restrictions are all bad has proven that they are worse for the economy than doing nothing. It is not the restrictions stopping me from shopping and going to restaurants and shopping. It is the people not taking the precautions that is. And where I live over 50% of the people are like me. That numbers ranges from 40%-70% so no restrictions at all and the economy suffers. Not to mention sick days, super expensive, healthcare super expensive so on. It is flawed logic that people think you are choosing between health and the economy it is not that simple because restrictions are not the only factor, or even the major factor to whats hurting the economy, that would be the pandemic. Hawaii is keeping tourists out because it is better for their economy to have the people stay healthy and confident so they keep it going than some tourist dollars. Fight the virus you improve the economy. Fight the restrictions (don't wear masks, gather socially and so on) you feed the virus and fuck your economy. I agree economy is important, I'm just pointing out how overly simplistic and incredibly flawed this economy vs health argument is. It is not some balance where you pull from to hurt the other and vice versa. I'm not missing any points. I'm not making any arguments regarding what measures are too much and what measures are not regarding hawaii, I'm just disagreeing with your apparent principled position of 'every measure to combat the virus is worth it', and more than anything, I'm having a hard time seeing why Blackjack's position is seemingly so incomprehensible. (It seems that way at least, because otherwise I assume there would be less mischaracterization of it.) To give a more specific example, In Norway right now, schools are running as normally (although if any students are given a covid diagnosis, their class ends up being quarantined). I think that's reasonable, because shutting down schools (with current level of spread) imo hurts society more than the amount of spread originating from schools being open hurts society. Further, I don't think it's far fetched or particularly cynical or 'So you're willing to condemn a bunch of people to horrible outcomes, because you think it might be better for the economy' (that's a literal you-quote from the previous page) to think that maybe quarantining everyone who enters Hawaii might hurt their society more (through reducing tourism to ~0-ish, for a state really dependent on tourism) than requiring negative covid tests to avoid that quarantine does. Basically, I replied because I don't understand why you have to extrapolate the arguments of the people you are discussing with into something nefarious. Wow, I'm shocked you would use such a blatant and inaccurate strawman. No I don't think every measure possible is good. Well you verbatim said On December 02 2020 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
Measures are good for the economy not the other way around. You could have qualified that statement with "some measures are good" or "it's unproven what measures are and aren't good for the economy." Not sure how you can fault Eri for assuming your position is "every measure is good for the economy" when you make a blanket statement like "Measures are good for the economy." Either way, considering your statements from previous posts On December 02 2020 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
Are we back to not understanding the economic impact of letting the virus run wild?
On December 02 2020 07:41 JimmiC wrote:
That is basically my point. You cannot prove that the measures are worse then letting the pandemic run wild. I really think you should be the last person upset about strawmans when you've spent the last page arguing against this idea of "letting the virus run wild." Because I'm not expecting you to take each sentence out of context to change the meaning. I was responding to your comments. If you can bring up actual measures that are in we can discuss them. But if you continue the false assumption that measures are bad for the economy I will continue to show why they are not.
Just to clarify, you haven't actually shown anything. What you've done is asked us to prove that measures are bad for the economy, but actually not even that. We already know that measures are bad for the economy at face value - closing businesses is never not going to be bad for the economy. What you've asked us to do is prove that measures are not worse for the economy than not having the measures because it could lead to more spread and that spread could end up hurting the economy more. Failing to prove that is not evidence that the opposite is true.
But there's some data on the economy
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Unemployment rates by state for October. Hawaii, the state with the most restrictions and the lowest amount of COVID cases has the overwhelmingly highest unemployment rate of any other state. Meanwhile the states that are doing the worst at containing COVID, Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, are all among the lowest unemployment rate. Obviously unemployment isn't the only factor in the strength of an economy but it's certainly a factor.
I mean let's just talk Hawaii's new policy specifically so we stop generalizing about restrictions. Do you think Hawaii's new policies allowing tourists back in will be good or bad for its economy?
|
Until either yesterday or two days ago the fast food shops were open, today they were all closed. The 7-day moving average had already decreased by over 35% prior to the closures, and the 3-day moving average by about 50%. The only reason I can think of for those closures is that our government thought the infection rate wasn't dropping fast enough.
So for anyone wondering why I keep arguing that it's not the virus but the restrictions that are hurting the economy, this is an example. You can disagree all you want, this is a fact. Pardon me for "strawmanning" that the economy would suffer less with fewer restrictions.
And all these measures can only be justified if the testing is in fact as accurate as it's claimed to be - which is currently hotly debated.
|
|
|
|
|
What also is 100% clear is that the virus is bad for the economy and that masks have no negative effect on the economy and that social distancing has a relatively minor effect compared to the others.
What do you mean by that?
|
|
|
On December 03 2020 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +What also is 100% clear is that the virus is bad for the economy and that masks have no negative effect on the economy and that social distancing has a relatively minor effect compared to the others. What do you mean by that?
The best thing that can be said about masks is that they are cheap and you can still move around. It is just too bad the isolated effect on the spread seems neglible, but that is another discussion. You can't say they have NO effect on the economy, though, as both shops, bars and restaurants will have fewer customers and sell less when communication is hampered by face masks.
Social distancing is such a broad term, but it tends to include limitations to travel and gathering in groups, and both absolutely have major impact on entire industries. Making an effort to stay 1-2 m away from each other, not so much, Scandinavians have done that naturally for years, and seem to benefit a lot from it during the pandemic.
|
On December 03 2020 05:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2020 04:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Until either yesterday or two days ago the fast food shops were open, today they were all closed. The 7-day moving average had already decreased by over 35% prior to the closures, and the 3-day moving average by about 50%. The only reason I can think of for those closures is that our government thought the infection rate wasn't dropping fast enough.
So for anyone wondering why I keep arguing that it's not the virus but the restrictions that are hurting the economy, this is an example. You can disagree all you want, this is a fact. Pardon me for "strawmanning" that the economy would suffer less with fewer restrictions.
And all these measures can only be justified if the testing is in fact as accurate as it's claimed to be - which is currently hotly debated. How about that they have had a lot of spread traced to fast food shops? Or that they have modeled that if they increase the rate drop they can reopen a whole host of sectors that will do far more than economy. Or a bunch of others reasons I can think of and some I can not. Making up the why (that happens to fit what you believed before) and then treating that assumption as a fact is not critical thinking and it leads to all sorts of problems.
I looked into the new regulations and it seems they allow picking up food from fast food chains from 6am until 7pm, and delivery is allowed around the clock. But that has resulted in almost all of the shops just staying closed after 7pm because it's not profitable to stay open just for delivery.
This shows that the restrictions have unintended consequences. Businesses obviously know better than the government what's good for them. I also don't see how this rule would drive down infections from shops that serve on the streetside, which a lot of them do. Instead it causes people to go inside to shop for food in the supermarket (as I've done today when I realized the fast food shops were closed). So people behave in a way that is counterproductive because of all this micro-management from the government.
I'm sorry but everything my government has done during this current lockdown only convinces me further that they're overshooting the target and causing more harm with it.
|
On December 03 2020 05:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2020 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:What also is 100% clear is that the virus is bad for the economy and that masks have no negative effect on the economy and that social distancing has a relatively minor effect compared to the others. What do you mean by that? That compared to shutting down businesses or imposing % limits, or other more severe measures social distancing has relatively minor effects on the economy.
Ok, then I'd say I don't agree with the wording. A "relatively minor effect" is something else. Compared to shutting down businesses it's "minor", yes of course. But social distancing still has by far the biggest impact on the economy - and that impact is not minor in any way.
It's like saying losing an arm and a leg is minor compared to hopelessly suffocating to death. Ok, well... that's great. I don't see why that needs to be said, it's quite obvious. Doesn't make losing two limbs any better.
|
|
|
I'm not in the do-nothing camp though, I fully support the government taking certain measures. I just think those measures could be a lot smarter with better communication.
|
|
|
On December 03 2020 06:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2020 06:26 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm not in the do-nothing camp though, I fully support the government taking certain measures. I just think those measures could be a lot smarter with better communication. So are you against masks or social distancing? And do you think there could be reasons you would agree with in regards to the fast food measure? Did they provide any explanation for it when they imposed here? Here they do, but tons of people don't read or believe them. To the point on communication I completely agree, it is such a challenge though because there is so much misinformation out there and sources outside of the government are more trusted than the government ones by huge swaths of the populace.
What I know is that there's no study proving or disproving the efficacy of the universal mask mandates. I've looked for months and found nothing (and I'm aware of the lab tests proving that masks work in some situations. Labs can't replicate complex real life situations, so overall the mandates are still mostly speculative). I myself wear a mask wherever I go because I know that my lifestyle can't cause anyone any harm and the mask wouldn't significantly impact things (except for it being annoying). But I've already lived a very isolated life before anyway so that's easy for me to say. The reality of other people may be quite different.
I'm very much in favor of social distancing wherever possible, with consideration of the economic impact. Mainly I'm in favor of stronger communication, and I believe there should be more efforts going into tracing infections and less into lockdowns. We should also try to strengthen the healthcare sector, as my analysis of Switzerland compared to Austria shows, because it would give us more options.
We don't know how soon (or not soon) we can fully reopen everything again, so it's important to make sure the economy can keep running for as long as possible even in the worst case scenario. In my experience not being prepared for the worst case is a very bad strategy. That would be that yet another crisis happens that further damages the economy. Such a crisis can be caused by an external threat (like for example a distinctly new, dangerous strain of the virus) but also by our own actions (bringing the economy down) or inactions (not increasing hospital capacity) as well as incompetence, ignorance or radicalism (in any direction).
I also believe that science is never settled, it keeps updating, and therefore there should not be any shaming of those who "deny" certain "scientific findings", especially not in regards to newer research. Scientists shouldn't operate that way and neither should we. That's not the same as endulging in conspiracy theories or denying scientific research altogether. If someone rejects research without even looking at it, then we can safely say they're not interested in science.
|
|
|
On December 03 2020 10:37 JimmiC wrote:
To the first part it is settled, they work. If the policy is not working than it is a behavior issue and not a mask problem. Which you don't solve by taking away masks you do through education and enforcement.
To your last point that is dangerous thinking. You should follow the best information you have now, understanding it may change in the future. This is why lots of scientific papers contain things like confidence intervals. Otherwise whats the point of any information, it all could be proven wrong. Sure the experts could be wrong and you could be right, but what is incredibly more likely. It is like you are betting on yourself over people with way more schooling and expertise at worse than even money, it is a bad bet.
I said I didn't find conclusive evidence that the mask mandates did or didn't have an impact. Feel free to provide a study if one exists.
And to the second paragraph, the experts aren't sure of what's true themselves. I posted a recent study that comes to the conclusion that PCR tests don't work properly. There's currently a debate going on that will hopefully reveal more.
I also didn't say that we shouldn't use current information. We should use it, but our reasoning for dismissing claims to the contrary should not draw from dogmatic beliefs, no matter if those beliefs results out of available research or not. If someone rejects our evidence using valid reasoning then it's on us to disprove that reasoning. If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect from others then we're no better. If we fall back on "expert opinion" when valid evidence to the contrary has surfaced then we're not interested in learning but only interested in pushing a narrative. The danger is always that the information we have turns into dogma, and that must be avoided.
|
i suspect the decline in test reliability comes from the quality of the administration of the test going down as testing becomes widespread
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel). Several measures might help to minimise false-positive results and mitigate possible consequences. Firstly, stricter standards should be imposed in laboratory testing. This includes the development and implementation of external quality assessment schemes and internal quality systems, such as automatic blinded replication of a small number of tests for performance monitoring to ensure false-positive and false-negative rates remain low, and to permit withdrawal of a malfunctioning test at the earliest possibility.
many big governments have lots of big goals and make grand, large pronouncements; this includes putting up big testing #s. they fail in the execution phase.
"the devil.. is in the details".
|
I just arrived in Santa Monica Beach for a little R&R in the sun and right as I arrived the mayor of LA order a stay at home order ordering all LA county residents to stay in their home except for essential reasons. Skimming the order now, it appears sunbathing on the beach is banned but swimming, surfing, and other activities are permitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
