EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 449
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 01 2021 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: Closed borders or virtually closed borders is a central element of why containing it is much easier for NZ. Norway had weekly cases at around ~10 for the entire country for several months last year - until we reopened for travelling and foreign workers - and then, even with quarantine hotels and airport testing, we saw a sharp increase. (And since then, the weekly cases has been between 10 and 100 times higher than it was during the summer of 2020). But we can't actually close our borders entirely, as we are entirely dependent on both foreign workers and imported food. For this reason, complete shutdowns to fully eradicate spread are a non-option, because even if we eliminate covid entirely from Norway (and I think there have been periods where this was possible in Norway), it will inevitably be reintroduced from other countries that didn't manage the same thing. Thus, it's considered not worth the cost and effort. (I generally agree with this.) I think we're talking past each other, so it seems to me it's best to agree to disagree. | ||
|
Slydie
1922 Posts
On September 01 2021 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: Closed borders or virtually closed borders is a central element of why containing it is much easier for NZ. Norway had weekly cases at around ~10 for the entire country for several months last year - until we reopened for travelling and foreign workers - and then, even with quarantine hotels and airport testing, we saw a sharp increase. (And since then, the weekly cases has been between 10 and 100 times higher than it was during the summer of 2020). But we can't actually close our borders entirely, as we are entirely dependent on both foreign workers and imported food. For this reason, complete shutdowns to fully eradicate spread are a non-option, because even if we eliminate covid entirely from Norway (and I think there have been periods where this was possible in Norway), it will inevitably be reintroduced from other countries that didn't manage the same thing. Thus, it's considered not worth the cost and effort. (I generally agree with this.) And then you have the social aspects of being isolated too. People just organize ther activities and businesses very differently when you need a 3-hour flight to get to the next country. On the flipside, the enormous amount of movement of people between Madrid and Barcelona was a very important reason why Spain was hit so hard. I am very curious about the long-term plans of NZ and Taiwan are. Taiwan hasn't even broken 4% fully vaccinated yet, and NZ is close to 25%, so they will likely stay isolated for a while. Spain has passed 70% nationally now, at the development is very promising with a 20-30% weekly reduction of new cases. 70% could be a good target number, as it was expected to be when this started. Edit: I googled all the numbers, it is quite fast to check them. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25507 Posts
On September 01 2021 23:40 Magic Powers wrote: What I'm asking for is evidence for (lack of) self-sufficiency being the reason why other countries can't follow NZ's example of swift, targeted lockdowns to prevent outbreaks and quickly return to normal. That's not a claim I've seen good evidence for so far. Self-sufficiency may be an intuitively valid point, but the claim that NZ's approach can't work in many other countries is pure speculation, because it doesn't follow from self-sufficiency. I'm not talking about closed borders, I'm talking about border control coupled with a quick lockdown when a dangerous strain is discovered. We're already seeing the huge consequences of not responding quickly (or even doing nothing in some cases). This is not a sustainable approach. At least for countries that don’t share a bunch of land borders, yes I’m not sure why not. Hell a chief argument of the pro-Brexit camp was exactly taking control of borders, so I’m unsure why an island like the U.K. has at times performed worse than countries in mainland Europe, never mind being remotely close to New Zealand or Australia numbers. Well, I’m not unsure why we performed worse, I’m unsure why a lot of people seem to think NZ/Aus have a myriad of unique characteristics that meant we can’t aspire to similar successes. Kind of like the mentality that some Americans have that socialised healthcare can work everywhere else, but not in the US for, reasons. If you completely fuck up a contact tracing system, if you don’t impose meaningful testing apparatus at points of entry and if you don’t impose meaningful mandatory quarantining, then well of course you can’t pursue an elimination strategy. Ireland (from memory) at one stage was down to a few hundred active Covid cases and double digit novel cases, so unlike the U.K. emulating Nz or Aus was within reach at one stage but they didn’t impose the aforementioned border and other control measures so it shot quickly beyond being realistic there too. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28675 Posts
On September 02 2021 00:25 Magic Powers wrote: I think we're talking past each other, so it seems to me it's best to agree to disagree. I think I understand entirely what you are arguing, but do let me know where I drop off: You're saying that immediate lockdowns at the first sign of covid to hinder it from getting a tiny foothold appears to be a good way of dealing with the virus, as evident from how well NZ has managed to handle the pandemic. I agree that it has been a good solution for NZ. However: I, (and gorsameth), are saying that while this is an option that New Zealand has, but it is to a much smaller degree viable for European countries, because New Zealand is a country where all travel happens either by airplane or by boat - both being very easy to control and monitor, because literally every person that enters is in some type of registry. Additionally, New Zealand makes enough food to sustain itself, and while I don't know how many migrant workers usually work in NZ, I am guessing that with how far away it is from significantly poorer countries (migrant workers tend to come from 'the closest country with worse economy'), they are also probably less dependent upon them than what the case is for most western European countries. Then I am saying that there were periods where Norway could have eradicated covid from Norway. It was practically gone summer 2020. However, then, due to travel, it reemerged. We've never had any type of real crisis, our health care system was never close to being overran, our death counts per capita are between 5% and 20% the numbers of most other western countries, so we've concluded that no, total shutdowns are not worth it, because even if we did manage to eradicate the virus, it would reemerge with much greater frequency than what we see in NZ. And Norway only shares border with Sweden. (However, we are entirely dependent upon migrant workers and importing food. ) For most of Europe, they are even more interconnected with the rest of Europe than what the case is for Norway, and shutting down the borders is even less of a possibility. Monitoring all car traffic and every passenger that arrives through car is a completely different endeavor from monitoring all air traffic and having control over every passenger that arrives by plane - and this would be true even if the numbers were comparable. And if the Netherlands shuts down everything for 3 weeks and they manage to fully eradicate covid from the Netherlands by doing so, it might not really be a solution the Dutch support if it ends up being reintroduced by some Belgian jerk one week later. These types of shutdowns require a certain amount of good will from the population or authoritarianism from the government to work out, they can't perpetually be reintroduced one week after the previous one ended. So while for NZ it is an option because it's possible to control travel to a far greater degree, meaning they don't need to keep shutting stuff down all the time, that same option does not exist for most of Europe. Where do you disagree? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 01:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think I understand entirely what you are arguing, but do let me know where I drop off: You're saying that immediate lockdowns at the first sign of covid to hinder it from getting a tiny foothold appears to be a good way of dealing with the virus, as evident from how well NZ has managed to handle the pandemic. I agree that it has been a good solution for NZ. However: I, (and gorsameth), are saying that while this is an option that New Zealand has, but it is to a much smaller degree viable for European countries, because New Zealand is a country where all travel happens either by airplane or by boat - both being very easy to control and monitor, because literally every person that enters is in some type of registry. Additionally, New Zealand makes enough food to sustain itself, and while I don't know how many migrant workers usually work in NZ, I am guessing that with how far away it is from significantly poorer countries (migrant workers tend to come from 'the closest country with worse economy'), they are also probably less dependent upon them than what the case is for most western European countries. Then I am saying that there were periods where Norway could have eradicated covid from Norway. It was practically gone summer 2020. However, then, due to travel, it reemerged. We've never had any type of real crisis, our health care system was never close to being overran, our death counts per capita are between 5% and 20% the numbers of most other western countries, so we've concluded that no, total shutdowns are not worth it, because even if we did manage to eradicate the virus, it would reemerge with much greater frequency than what we see in NZ. And Norway only shares border with Sweden. (However, we are entirely dependent upon migrant workers and importing food. ) For most of Europe, they are even more interconnected with the rest of Europe than what the case is for Norway, and shutting down the borders is even less of a possibility. Monitoring all car traffic and every passenger that arrives through car is a completely different endeavor from monitoring all air traffic and having control over every passenger that arrives by plane - and this would be true even if the numbers were comparable. And if the Netherlands shuts down everything for 3 weeks and they manage to fully eradicate covid from the Netherlands by doing so, it might not really be a solution the Dutch support if it ends up being reintroduced by some Belgian jerk one week later. These types of shutdowns require a certain amount of good will from the population or authoritarianism from the government to work out, they can't perpetually be reintroduced one week after the previous one ended. So while for NZ it is an option because it's possible to control travel to a far greater degree, meaning they don't need to keep shutting stuff down all the time, that same option does not exist for most of Europe. Where do you disagree? Norway has had a policy of quarantine for int. travel for a long time. Despite easing of measures they still require quarantine from all unvaccinated people or those who were infected >6 months prior, except from nearby countries/regions that have a low infection rate. This is the first thing that Norway can improve on - not give such freebies to any regions where dangerous strains are in circulation. The quarantine lasts for up to 10 days only instead of the 14+ days like in NZ and Taiwan. This is the second thing that Norway can improve on - increase the duration to 14+ days. This also shows that Norway does in fact have the capacity to control its borders in a way very similar to NZ and Taiwan. The claims that too many people would slip through the system, or that the rules wouldn't be enforcable, don't seem substantiated to me. They can also respond quickly with a lockdown when a dangerous or unknown variant has been discovered, and they can do track and trace for variants that are being monitored. Add to that the damage that the infections are actively causing to people's health and the economy, then it should become clear why I can't agree that the current approach of many countries is a better alternative. To me it looks like we're actively choosing the worse of two roads, not for practical reasons but rather for political, ideological or emotional ones. When I look at the policies that are already in place in other countries, then the reasons given why NZ's approach couldn't work just don't sound convincing. It sounds more like those in power are in conflict for reasons outside of practical solutions. That would be an explanation I can understand, even though I wouldn't like it. Edit: To put it more succinctly. The way I see it is that Norway is already enforcing rules that are strikingly similar to what NZ and Taiwan have been doing - except too inefficiently, because they're not putting the remaining 20% of required effort to achieve the same goal. It's like almost eradicating the virus and then saying "well, we've done our job". And like clockwork, the virus comes back stronger. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21718 Posts
On September 02 2021 01:41 Magic Powers wrote: The Netherlands, a tiny country with 1/3 sea border, has over 300 roads leading in/out of the country. Most of those are small local roads, only 11 are Highways. I don't even want to know how many roads a country like Germany or France would have to control to effectively lock down the country.Norway has had a policy of quarantine for int. travel for a long time. Despite easing of measures they still require quarantine from all unvaccinated people or those who were infected >6 months prior, except from nearby countries/regions that have a low infection rate. This is the first thing that Norway can improve on - not give such freebies to any regions where dangerous strains are in circulation. The quarantine lasts for up to 10 days only instead of the 14+ days like in NZ and Taiwan. This is the second thing that Norway can improve on - increase the duration to 14+ days. This also shows that Norway does in fact have the capacity to control its borders in a way very similar to NZ and Taiwan. The claims that too many people would slip through the system, or that the rules wouldn't be enforcable, don't seem substantiated to me. They can also respond quickly with a lockdown when a dangerous or unknown variant has been discovered, and they can do track and trace for variants that are being monitored. Add to that the damage that the infections are actively causing to people's health and the economy, then it should become clear why I can't agree that the current approach of many countries is a better alternative. To me it looks like we're actively choosing the worse of two roads, not for practical reasons but rather for political, ideological or emotional ones. When I look at the policies that are already in place in other countries, then the reasons given why NZ's approach couldn't work just don't sound convincing. It sounds more like those in power are in conflict for reasons outside of practical solutions. That would be an explanation I can understand, even though I wouldn't like it. The situations between islands and continental countries are massively different. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 01:46 Gorsameth wrote: The Netherlands, a tiny country with 1/3 sea border, has over 300 roads leading in/out of the country. Most of those are small local roads, only 11 are Highways. I don't even want to know how many roads a country like Germany or France would have to control to effectively lock down the country. The situations between islands and continental countries are massively different. Int. travel is already way down since the beginning of the pandemic. Much of int. travel is for tourism, holidays, or meeting family. That part of life has already been heavily restricted and undergone massive changes. Many people haven't met family in a year or more, many have refrained from having holidays in other countries, tourism is also way down. I think you're severely overestimating the burden on border control. Beyond that, this burden can be lifted further. Like I described in my comment, Norway has already had tighter restrictions. They lifted some of them, not because it was necessary to protect the economy, or helpful in the fight against the pandemic. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
All eyes on Spain and Portugal now to see what level of immunization is needed to stop Delta. Canada stalled out around 73% first/67% second dosed and that isn't enough to prevent spread so 70% is probably not enough at a population level to stop Delta, despite stopping every other variant so far dead. Spain/Portugal are into the mid-70s, which gives a good snapshot of what being able to vaccinate kids will be able to do for stopping spread in other countries with lower vaccination rates - The difference between 67 and 75% isn't much - 8% of the population, but it's ~1/4 of the remaining unvaccinated population, which may be enough with some other measures for a return to normality. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21718 Posts
On September 02 2021 01:55 Magic Powers wrote: There is a lot of shopping, even simple groceries or just filling up the gas tank because its cheaper, in the border regions with Belgium and Germany.Int. travel is already way down since the beginning of the pandemic. Much of int. travel is for tourism, holidays, or meeting family. That part of life has already been heavily restricted and undergone massive changes. Many people haven't met family in a year or more, many have refrained from having holidays in other countries, tourism is also way down. I think you're severely overestimating the burden on border control. Beyond that, this burden can be lifted further. Like I described in my comment, Norway has already had tighter restrictions. They lifted some of them, not because it was necessary to protect the economy, or helpful in the fight against the pandemic. Plus laborers living on one side and working on the other. Belgium tried to limit it early during Covid by blocking roads with cargo containers to try and stop people but that only did so much. Your underestimating how much border traffic there is and how interconnected communities near the border are. Your underestimating how many people cross a border daily | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On September 01 2021 23:56 JimmiC wrote: This article from Australia compares it to other activities and in Australia you have the same chance of dying by lightning strike as you do from AZ. https://theconversation.com/concerned-about-the-latest-astrazeneca-news-these-3-graphics-help-you-make-sense-of-the-risk-162175 tbh the way I got 1 in 500000 was multiplying the 8.1 in 1 million rate of TTS by the 20ish% fatality rate (not sure if the numbers are right because they are from memory), but based on the article it seems the mortality rate is more like 4%, hence 1 in 2 million. I think it would have been worth taking even with 1 in 500000 fatality rate but this makes the decision even clearer. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On September 02 2021 02:11 Lmui wrote: With any land border, it's going to be hard to stop travel from causing spread, especially if you don't normally have border checks. All eyes on Spain and Portugal now to see what level of immunization is needed to stop Delta. Canada stalled out around 73% first/67% second dosed and that isn't enough to prevent spread so 70% is probably not enough at a population level to stop Delta, despite stopping every other variant so far dead. Spain/Portugal are into the mid-70s, which gives a good snapshot of what being able to vaccinate kids will be able to do for stopping spread in other countries with lower vaccination rates - The difference between 67 and 75% isn't much - 8% of the population, but it's ~1/4 of the remaining unvaccinated population, which may be enough with some other measures for a return to normality. I've heard that it might take close to 90% fully vaccinated to stop spread. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 02:19 Gorsameth wrote: There is a lot of shopping, even simple groceries or just filling up the gas tank because its cheaper, in the border regions with Belgium and Germany. Plus laborers living on one side and working on the other. Belgium tried to limit it early during Covid by blocking roads with cargo containers to try and stop people but that only did so much. Your underestimating how much border traffic there is and how interconnected communities near the border are. Your underestimating how many people cross a border daily I'm not underestimating it. What I'm doing is I'm comparing the measures of the current situation with possible alternatives and the consequences on people's health and the economy. I often hear people talk about the pandemic becoming endemic, about a return to normal, about living with the virus, all sorts of more or less optimistic future scenarios. Some think these are possible now, some think they're possible in the future thanks to the current measures. I think none of these scenarios are realistic given the current situation and measures taken. What I'm actually doing is I'm looking at the situation, and I fail to understand why so many people appear to be optimistic about our chances moving forward without improving the measures where it counts the most. The major setbacks we've seen came from mutations. These setbacks were inevitable given the measures that were in place. Right now, those same measures are in place again, and we're already seeing things go from bad to worse. Despite that, people somehow seem to believe we're heading in a good direction. It doesn't make sense. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
On September 02 2021 03:15 Anc13nt wrote: I've heard that it might take close to 90% fully vaccinated to stop spread. Based on the simple R0 of 6-9, and a vaccine effectiveness in the high 80s, yeah it'll take around 90% fully vaccinated to stop spread. There are measures though that can drop R0 even a few points though, for example, universal masking in public indoor environments to the point that 80-85% fully vaccinated, or possibly even lower thresholds are required to largely stop spread. Things like closing high risk environments, or restricting high risk environments to only vaccinated individuals amongst other actions can drop the threshold low enough that the spread can be contained. Hard to say to be honest, we're watching it play out in real time. We have the tools right now to handle it, just need to implement them. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
Pre-vaccination vs post-vaccination Pre-Delta vs post-Delta Alpha COVID pre vaccination vs alpha COVID post vaccination vs Delta post vaccination, etc. Basically none of those timelines line up with a December 1st-present timeline. The only reason to examine a December 1st-present timeline is so that you can capture the significant amount of deaths from the holiday season before vaccines were prevalent. Using global deaths isn't very helpful in the first place since different countries have vaccinated at different rates. A lot of people dying in India doesn't mean that Israel should lock down. When you look at the US deaths since vaccines were widespread and effective, say March 1, 2021, the deaths from the 6 months of then until now are a fraction of the deaths in the previous 12 months. And not like a 1/3rd fraction but more like a 1/6th fraction. This is despite the fact that this 6 month period has had far fewer restrictions than the previous 12 months. Hell, we have sporting events with 100% capacity now. That was unheard of for the entirety of 2020 since the pandemic started, yet despite that, and despite Delta being worse, we are still seeing fewer deaths. So I'm not sure what your pessimism is about. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On September 01 2021 17:29 Magic Powers wrote: Viruses don't evolve, they mutate randomly. As more virus is in circulation, the chance of a mutation increases. Some of those mutations are meaningful, and we call a meaningful mutation a new "strain". If you want to know how we label a given mutation as a new strain, feel free to ask. [...] While you are right that mutations can be both milder and more dangerous, I think the fact that we have pretty good levels immunity in the population now in some countries make us better suited to handle the future variants of the virus too. From my understanding this is what happened with all the other bad flu viruses in history. Like the 1957 and 1968 Hong Kong flu was about as dangerous (if you look at CFR at any rate) as Corona, but they slowly became just another seasonal flu when our immune systems caught up, helped by mass vaccinations of course. On the other hand you must take into consideration that no lung born virus disease has ever been eradicated by humanity (correct me if I'm wrong). And since corona isn't stopped by the vaccines, only mitigated, there must be no more than a snowflake's chance in hell that this virus will ever disappear. Like sure, you can apply the New Zealand strategy to .... New Zealand. Good luck trying that in Bangladesh or Afghanistan. And if you don't do it everywhere you'll either have to stay locked down forever (which seems to be New Zealand's and Australia's absurd strategy) or you vaccinate the weak and go on with your life. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 05:33 BlackJack wrote: Magic Powers, you're quite transparent with your attempt at cherry picking data to paint a bleaker picture of the COVID outlook. Why would you choose December 1st as some cutoff point to examine deaths? There's many natural timelines we can look at of the COVID pandemic: Pre-vaccination vs post-vaccination Pre-Delta vs post-Delta Alpha COVID pre vaccination vs alpha COVID post vaccination vs Delta post vaccination, etc. Basically none of those timelines line up with a December 1st-present timeline. The only reason to examine a December 1st-present timeline is so that you can capture the significant amount of deaths from the holiday season before vaccines were prevalent. Using global deaths isn't very helpful in the first place since different countries have vaccinated at different rates. A lot of people dying in India doesn't mean that Israel should lock down. When you look at the US deaths since vaccines were widespread and effective, say March 1, 2021, the deaths from the 6 months of then until now are a fraction of the deaths in the previous 12 months. And not like a 1/3rd fraction but more like a 1/6th fraction. This is despite the fact that this 6 month period has had far fewer restrictions than the previous 12 months. Hell, we have sporting events with 100% capacity now. That was unheard of for the entirety of 2020 since the pandemic started, yet despite that, and despite Delta being worse, we are still seeing fewer deaths. So I'm not sure what your pessimism is about. If I pick a later date, then the timeframe shortens. For example 2021 March 01 the total global deaths were at over 2.668 million. That's an additional 70% deaths (1.865 million) since then over a span of 6 months. The first death was reported on January 09, but worldometer starts counting on January 22, so I'll go with the latter. This gives us about 13.3 months for 2.668 million and 6 months for an additional 1.865 million. This would give us a ratio of 0.2 : 0.31, or an increase in the death rate of 55% (instead of the 100% in my previous estimate). We can reduce the timeframe for the first count to 2020 April 01 (bringing the death count down to 2.622 million) and do the same calculation again. Then it would be a ratio of 0.24 : 0.31, or an increase in the death rate of about 30% It's quite clear that the death rate has increased. The only thing that has really gone down is, well, the increase of the death rate. It's still increasing, but it's been increasing slower than it has previously. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 05:49 Elroi wrote: While you are right that mutations can be both milder and more dangerous, I think the fact that we have pretty good levels immunity in the population now in some countries make us better suited to handle the future variants of the virus too. From my understanding this is what happened with all the other bad flu viruses in history. Like the 1957 and 1968 Hong Kong flu was about as dangerous (if you look at CFR at any rate) as Corona, but they slowly became just another seasonal flu when our immune systems caught up, helped by mass vaccinations of course. On the other hand you must take into consideration that no lung born virus disease has ever been eradicated by humanity (correct me if I'm wrong). And since corona isn't stopped by the vaccines, only mitigated, there must be no more than a snowflake's chance in hell that this virus will ever disappear. Like sure, you can apply the New Zealand strategy to .... New Zealand. Good luck trying that in Bangladesh or Afghanistan. And if you don't do it everywhere you'll either have to stay locked down forever (which seems to be New Zealand's and Australia's absurd strategy) or you vaccinate the weak and go on with your life. Originally, when I first heard of covid-19, and for several months, I was very much on the optimistic side. I thought it would follow a similar trajectory as the Spanish flu, which was the closest comparison I was able to find. I saw that the virus was mutating at half the rate, it was a respiratory virus, and otherwise it didn't seem too dissimilar to me at first. After learning about how viruses and vaccines work, I thought there was only little need to worry because strong actions were already being taken and medicine/science and healthcare had progressed very significantly over the past 100 years. So despite all the differences making covid-19 worse than the Spanish flu, I imagined we'd be over the hill in a few years, in some of the worse cases maybe 3-5, but hopefully sooner. If I was given a choice, I'd still be spreading optimism rather than pessimism. But my adherence to objectivity and reason doesn't allow that at this moment, at least not in regards to this pandemic. I'm sorry, I wish I could be among the optimistic crowd. But I only have so much optimism left in me. I think the human species and civilization will survive and eventually overcome this, and possibly even come out stronger at the end. That's about as much optimism as I can muster right now. But what are we going to lose on the way? And will I see an end to it in my lifetime? Even though I also care a lot about other people, I'm not a selfless person, so I worry about my own future, too. What if I get old and covid-19 is still around and as dangerous as ever? Or what if I get infected and I have to live with horrible, currently not well understood consequences of this disease? These are the kinds of questions I'm asking myself. I grew up learning about AIDS and other terrifying diseases. I'm not going to claim that I lack emotions, I also have fears, some more irrational than others. I ask myself if we could do better, in the here and now. Not later when it might be too late. As someone who grew up playing strategy games like SC and chess, I'm trained to think ahead as much as I can. The best way to win is to be prepared for things before they happen. That means analyzing the past and the present in great detail. I also believe that doing too much is better than not doing enough. My own nature is to act late, often just barely in time, sometimes far too late for my liking. That's not a good trait to have, it gets me into trouble. Are we making that same mistake right now? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On September 02 2021 06:02 Magic Powers wrote: If I pick a later date, then the timeframe shortens. For example 2021 March 01 the total global deaths were at over 2.668 million. That's an additional 70% deaths (1.865 million) since then over a span of 6 months. The first death was reported on January 09, but worldometer starts counting on January 22, so I'll go with the latter. This gives us about 13.3 months for 2.668 million and 6 months for an additional 1.865 million. This would give us a ratio of 0.2 : 0.31, or an increase in the death rate of 55% (instead of the 100% in my previous estimate). We can reduce the timeframe for the first count to 2020 April 01 (bringing the death count down to 2.622 million) and do the same calculation again. Then it would be a ratio of 0.24 : 0.31, or an increase in the death rate of about 30% It's quite clear that the death rate has increased. The only thing that has really gone down is, well, the increase of the death rate. It's still increasing, but it's been increasing slower than it has previously. As I said, different countries got vaccinated at different rates. On March 1st less than 1% of India was vaccinated. Now they have given out 650 million vaccines. You're using deaths from largely unvaccinated countries as an argument for why vaccinated countries shouldn't open. You seriously don't see the problem with that? Here's how ridiculous your conclusion looks in another context (COVID deaths in the United States): ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cZMnN3Y.png) | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4202 Posts
On September 02 2021 06:31 BlackJack wrote: As I said, different countries got vaccinated at different rates. On March 1st less than 1% of India was vaccinated. Now they have given out 650 million vaccines. You're using deaths from largely unvaccinated countries as an argument for why vaccinated countries shouldn't open. You seriously don't see the problem with that? Here's how ridiculous your conclusion looks in another context (COVID deaths in the United States): You're not looking at the correct graph. As you mentioned, the one you're showing is from the US. But I was talking about global deaths - which I thought was clear because I was responding to GK's claim of infectiousness. And he even added the phrase "hit the world". Or the most obvious fact that I was talking about 1.5 mio deaths and 4.5 mio deaths, which refers to the global death count. Or would you argue that the US has in fact seen 4.5 mio covid-19 deaths...? This is the global cumulative death count over time: ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/4ccd60a5ef190bad727052c19817d97b.png) And this graph shows the global daily new deaths: ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/548a90a0eecde3c1e14bb36d4f4e496e.png) | ||
| ||
