|
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 November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one.
Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity."
But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm
|
On November 03 2022 04:39 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 02:36 BlackJack wrote:On November 02 2022 16:53 Magic Powers wrote:
Covid-19 spreads very fast in hospitals, while also holding the highest rate of people who are vulnerable to infectious diseases. Some hospitals had to be nearly emptied to protect current and would-be patients, and to protect hospital capacity for emergencies. We had this discussion long ago, but I remember it as if it was yesterday. The claim that hospitals stood nearly empty is meaningless without this context. In part it was necessary and in part it was people's choice to stay away. Citation needed "Hospitals under pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic have experienced an additional challenge due to clusters of hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection occurring on non-COVID-19 wards. These clusters have involved both staff and patients and compromise staffing, bed management and routine care, especially delivery of elective surgical procedures. They have also contributed towards the overall morbidity and mortality of the pandemic." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8511651/"Results The analysis included 286 hospitals from all 9 US Census divisions. The number of all-cause hospitalizations per month was relatively stable from 2016 through 2019 and then fell by 21% (57,281 fewer hospitalizations) between March and April 2020, particularly in hospitalizations for non-respiratory illnesses. From April onward there was a rise in the number of monthly hospitalizations per month. Hospitalizations per month, nationally and in each Census division, decreased for 20 of 25 MDCs between March and April 2020. There was also a decrease in hospitalizations per month for all age groups between March and April 2020 with the greatest decreases in hospitalizations observed for patients 50–64 and ≥65 years of age." https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262347"In November 2020, as COVID-19 cases surged, non-COVID-19 hospitalizations started to decline again and were about 80% of predicted hospitalizations by the end of the month. This suggests that people may once again be delaying or forgoing care due to the pandemic, in some cases likely due to hospital capacity constraints." https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/trends-in-overall-and-non-covid-19-hospital-admissions/There's also a simple explanation for this: covid-19 patients are drawn to hospitals for treatment, where other patients are then of course at enhanced risk of an infection and a more severe course of the disease because their health is compromised. Back in 2020 I found (and may or may not have posted) information in which places you'd be most likely to catch covid-19, and hospitals were named somewhere at the top. I have a hard time finding that same information now, presumably because the situation has changed. Today hospitals are no longer among the riskiest places because daily infections are way down, and much fewer people end up being hospitalized for covid-19.
Thanks for the links but none of them really are a citation for your claim that COVID "spreads very fast in hospitals." The first comes the closest but doesn't really say anything about the prevalence of hospital-acquired COVID, only that it is a challenge and offers some things that can be done like improving ventilation.
I googled it myself and was able to source a figure
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827479/
Scientific studies have proven that in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 is not negligible. According to several reports, the hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rate is 12–15%.
|
Like I said, the information was there in 2020, I just couldn't find it anymore. I can distinctly remember non-infected at-risk groups being told to stay away from the hospital if at all possible. A lot of appointments were pushed back by several months due to prevention measures. This was a real thing that we all knew about and I don't know why it's being questioned now.
|
On November 03 2022 03:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 20:22 Mikau313 wrote:On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:On October 30 2022 04:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 29 2022 23:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 21:43 Slydie wrote:On October 29 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth. They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed. The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open. Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction. But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic. At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions. The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself. Simplified for you: + Show Spoiler +
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread
B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B
BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data
BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
Sorry, that "closing schools" is reducing the spread is NOT an obvious truth. For the flu, the spread has been equal or even worse when closing schools, as the youngsters will meet anyway, and in more fluctuating groups, less regulated. You need to close schools AND make sure they don't have any social life elsewhere either, which is an absolutely awful thing to force upon youngsters, and it is much worse for the ones who struggle already. Then, you need to remember that the goal is really to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, not only a raw number number of cases. Proving that closing schools achieved this goal is not easy, but if you have some studies, bring them on! This was an experiment, not based on science. Remember that there are powerful incentives to justify these decisions, so we might have to wait a bit to get solid unbiased proof. But, I know Norway and Denmark opened their schools late spring 2020, and still had some of the best covid numbers in the world. Yeah but we did destroy their social lives too. There weren’t many play dates happening during the pandemic. That’s why my post introducing the topic was two-fold. Not just that student test scores are way down but also pediatric depression, anxiety, and suicidality is way up. But yes I agree with you that it was an experiment not based on science. Magic Powers source says as much well - the decision to close schools was often not done on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis but more on a gut feel of the people making these decisions. Also just want to remind everyone that in Spring and Summer of 2020 I was posting in real time in this thread about how hospitals across the country were becoming ghost towns. All elective surgeries were being cancelled. People were avoiding the Emergency Room like it was the plague. Hospitals were closing down entire wings and laying off workers because there were no patients. There was definitely plenty of room to ease some restrictions and keeping schools open should have been the obvious choice. Are you trying to play captain hindsight by using data from after the fact to make yourself seem like the smart one for making perfect decisions? You do realize that if decisions changed from when they were made it would have meant that different outcomes would have happened? Hospitals were at their breaking point for supplies and giving them breathing room so people can recover from the hell march and resupply to prepare for the next wave wasn't something that occurred to you being a possibility at all these past two years? BlackJack's description of the cost benefit analysis of school closure is at least exactly the one communicated to us in Sweden by our authorities during the epidemic, i.e.: we don't believe children are spreading the disease to an extent that would justify closing schools; it is not particularly dangerous for the children themselves to get the disease; it could have potentially very harming consequences to stop young children from going to school. All of this has turned out to be true as far as I can tell. I remember thinking at the time that the calls for closing schools was a dangerous mixture of virtue signalling and hysteria, and it seems to have been an accurate impression. This seems to have been true for Sweden. What was true for Sweden wasn't necessarily true for Norway, or Belgium, or the US, or China. Sweden was heavily criticized in this thread at the time for their decisions. At least now we can acknowledge that they made the right decisions for their children even if we can't conclude that it could cross over to other countries.But Sweden wasn't the only one heavily criticized for not having enough restrictions. Florida was criticized even more for their fast reopening and their push to get kids back in schools. Two of are largest states were basically on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their COVID policy and they happen to be the state I'm from and the state I live in now. It's interesting to compare the two: 4th grade test scores for 2022 Reading Florida - T-2nd in country California - T-31st in country Mathematics Florida - 4th in country California - T-37th in country 2022 Q2 GDP growth Florida: +1.6% California: -0.5% Unemployment Florida: 2.5 Ranked 9th California: 3.9 Ranked 37th Although this doesn't necessarily prove that California was able to open back up the way Florida did
Funny how having the benefit of hindsight works, yes.
|
On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one.
How bizarre:
On July 22 2021 00:12 Magic Powers wrote:
The problem with reopening
First a theoretical explanation of how a virus propagates (and thus produces an epidemic or pandemic):
1) A virus infects a host (e.g. a person or an animal), which then produces more of the same virus
2) The virus mutates (with some probability per each replication)
3) With more virus matter in circulation, the probability of mutation goes up (causing a cumulative probability, which eventually leads to quasi-certainty)
4) Most mutations are not meaningful (i.e. not resulting in new strains)
5) Some mutations are meaningful, leading to new strains
6) Of the new strains, some are more potent, others are less potent (in various ways)
7) Of the new strains, some can/could overcome previously existing immunity
Also, 100 sars-cov-2 virions inside a single host are estimated to be potent enough to cause an infection, and therefore (re)start/continue/worsen the pandemic. 100 is a very small amount, meaning sars-cov-2 is relatively more potent.
Some of the more recent waves are happening in the UK and it's now also happening in NL and Israel and a long list of other countries that have previously brought the numbers down very low. This is very important to note.
The strains that are concerning and are currently in circulation are categorized as alpha, beta, gamma and delta. Delta is the fastest spreading type right now.
What is the problem when the rate of infection increases (as we can see happening right now in most countries)?
What most countries have been doing is that they've brought the numbers down and then reopened before eradicating the virus, resulting in R going back up to >1. I call those countries "exporters", because they're mostly responsible for producing more infections. Some of the most notable examples are/were China (the point of origin), then countries like Italy, Brazil, UK, India, and a few more.
Especially noteworthy is the UK, which has not been an exporter country until a few weeks ago, and is now again an exporter due to R>1. This happened because the delta variant was exported to the UK at some point (as it was to many other countries, too).
A few countries had previously fully eradicated the virus. Those were Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore (and maybe one or two that I've overlooked). I call these countries "importers", because the only means for them to produce an epidemic is (or was until recently) by importing infected people and releasing them into the general population.
This is what has happened in Taiwan and is now also what's happening in Australia and probably Singapore. It took only one infected international traveller "partying hard" in Taiwan to release covid into the general population.
New Zealand might be spared from this fate, we'll have to wait and see.
As we can see, it takes only one individual to slip through and start an epidemic in any given country.
This is why - throughout this pandemic - many countries have ben seen blocking or restricting travel from exporter countries. But that system is clearly not perfect, and due to this imperfection there's a persistent problem.
What is the problem?
There are too many exporter countries. Due to this, each time that one exporter country becomes an importer, it somehow manages to go right back to becoming an exporter. Why? Because of freshly imported new strains from other exporters. It'd be possible to prevent the import of a virus from one exporter country, but it becomes difficult if not outright impossible when the number of exporters increases exponentially.
A possible solution to this problem could be to further tighten international travel restrictions. Quarantines will have to be extended far beyond two weeks, for example. A number of other heavy adjustments will have to be made to int. travel, like the total traffic, perhaps even the duration of the stay, also track and trace, etc.
This can help (but by no means guarantee to) end the pandemic if every single country implements these restrictions. Why is that? Because if new strains never popped up in the first place, the virus would eventually lose all of its potency, because the vulnerable population would be shrinking rapidly. Mutation into new strains is the virus' way of overcoming old immunity. So it's the import/export of new strains that must be halted.
Is this an economically sustainable strategy? My answer would be a very clear "yes!" We can see that Taiwan's economy didn't suffer much or at all despite heavy int. travel restrictions, while most/all other countries suffered. Further increasing those restrictions will certainly do far less damage to the economy than continuous lockdowns.
Beyond that, everyone should watch out for their own health. Try to eat healthy food (less processed, less sugar/starch, more fiber) and get exercise and sunlight.
Good luck and stay safe.
Bolded.
|
On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm
Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style.
Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay.
Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept?
|
Canada11372 Posts
|
Canada11372 Posts
On November 02 2022 20:22 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:On October 30 2022 04:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 29 2022 23:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 21:43 Slydie wrote:On October 29 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy. You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized. Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth. They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed. The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open. Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction. But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic. At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions. The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself. Simplified for you: + Show Spoiler +
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread
B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B
BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data
BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
Sorry, that "closing schools" is reducing the spread is NOT an obvious truth. For the flu, the spread has been equal or even worse when closing schools, as the youngsters will meet anyway, and in more fluctuating groups, less regulated. You need to close schools AND make sure they don't have any social life elsewhere either, which is an absolutely awful thing to force upon youngsters, and it is much worse for the ones who struggle already. Then, you need to remember that the goal is really to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, not only a raw number number of cases. Proving that closing schools achieved this goal is not easy, but if you have some studies, bring them on! This was an experiment, not based on science. Remember that there are powerful incentives to justify these decisions, so we might have to wait a bit to get solid unbiased proof. But, I know Norway and Denmark opened their schools late spring 2020, and still had some of the best covid numbers in the world. Yeah but we did destroy their social lives too. There weren’t many play dates happening during the pandemic. That’s why my post introducing the topic was two-fold. Not just that student test scores are way down but also pediatric depression, anxiety, and suicidality is way up. But yes I agree with you that it was an experiment not based on science. Magic Powers source says as much well - the decision to close schools was often not done on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis but more on a gut feel of the people making these decisions. Also just want to remind everyone that in Spring and Summer of 2020 I was posting in real time in this thread about how hospitals across the country were becoming ghost towns. All elective surgeries were being cancelled. People were avoiding the Emergency Room like it was the plague. Hospitals were closing down entire wings and laying off workers because there were no patients. There was definitely plenty of room to ease some restrictions and keeping schools open should have been the obvious choice. Are you trying to play captain hindsight by using data from after the fact to make yourself seem like the smart one for making perfect decisions? You do realize that if decisions changed from when they were made it would have meant that different outcomes would have happened? Hospitals were at their breaking point for supplies and giving them breathing room so people can recover from the hell march and resupply to prepare for the next wave wasn't something that occurred to you being a possibility at all these past two years? BlackJack's description of the cost benefit analysis of school closure is at least exactly the one communicated to us in Sweden by our authorities during the epidemic, i.e.: we don't believe children are spreading the disease to an extent that would justify closing schools; it is not particularly dangerous for the children themselves to get the disease; it could have potentially very harming consequences to stop young children from going to school. All of this has turned out to be true as far as I can tell. I remember thinking at the time that the calls for closing schools was a dangerous mixture of virtue signalling and hysteria, and it seems to have been an accurate impression. This seems to have been true for Sweden. What was true for Sweden wasn't necessarily true for Norway, or Belgium, or the US, or China.
That was certainly the messaging we were getting in Canada early on (at least after that first lockdown.) I recall joking with some colleagues that somehow schools were magical places where Covid was not spread... despite kids getting sick all the time from colds and flus. And I suppose, early on that might have been so. It wasn't really until we got to the lesser versions like Omicron that it really started sweeping through our schools.
|
On November 03 2022 08:28 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. How bizarre: Show nested quote +On July 22 2021 00:12 Magic Powers wrote:
The problem with reopening
First a theoretical explanation of how a virus propagates (and thus produces an epidemic or pandemic):
1) A virus infects a host (e.g. a person or an animal), which then produces more of the same virus
2) The virus mutates (with some probability per each replication)
3) With more virus matter in circulation, the probability of mutation goes up (causing a cumulative probability, which eventually leads to quasi-certainty)
4) Most mutations are not meaningful (i.e. not resulting in new strains)
5) Some mutations are meaningful, leading to new strains
6) Of the new strains, some are more potent, others are less potent (in various ways)
7) Of the new strains, some can/could overcome previously existing immunity
Also, 100 sars-cov-2 virions inside a single host are estimated to be potent enough to cause an infection, and therefore (re)start/continue/worsen the pandemic. 100 is a very small amount, meaning sars-cov-2 is relatively more potent.
Some of the more recent waves are happening in the UK and it's now also happening in NL and Israel and a long list of other countries that have previously brought the numbers down very low. This is very important to note.
The strains that are concerning and are currently in circulation are categorized as alpha, beta, gamma and delta. Delta is the fastest spreading type right now.
What is the problem when the rate of infection increases (as we can see happening right now in most countries)?
What most countries have been doing is that they've brought the numbers down and then reopened before eradicating the virus, resulting in R going back up to >1. I call those countries "exporters", because they're mostly responsible for producing more infections. Some of the most notable examples are/were China (the point of origin), then countries like Italy, Brazil, UK, India, and a few more.
Especially noteworthy is the UK, which has not been an exporter country until a few weeks ago, and is now again an exporter due to R>1. This happened because the delta variant was exported to the UK at some point (as it was to many other countries, too).
A few countries had previously fully eradicated the virus. Those were Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore (and maybe one or two that I've overlooked). I call these countries "importers", because the only means for them to produce an epidemic is (or was until recently) by importing infected people and releasing them into the general population.
This is what has happened in Taiwan and is now also what's happening in Australia and probably Singapore. It took only one infected international traveller "partying hard" in Taiwan to release covid into the general population.
New Zealand might be spared from this fate, we'll have to wait and see.
As we can see, it takes only one individual to slip through and start an epidemic in any given country.
This is why - throughout this pandemic - many countries have ben seen blocking or restricting travel from exporter countries. But that system is clearly not perfect, and due to this imperfection there's a persistent problem.
What is the problem?
There are too many exporter countries. Due to this, each time that one exporter country becomes an importer, it somehow manages to go right back to becoming an exporter. Why? Because of freshly imported new strains from other exporters. It'd be possible to prevent the import of a virus from one exporter country, but it becomes difficult if not outright impossible when the number of exporters increases exponentially.
A possible solution to this problem could be to further tighten international travel restrictions. Quarantines will have to be extended far beyond two weeks, for example. A number of other heavy adjustments will have to be made to int. travel, like the total traffic, perhaps even the duration of the stay, also track and trace, etc.
This can help (but by no means guarantee to) end the pandemic if every single country implements these restrictions. Why is that? Because if new strains never popped up in the first place, the virus would eventually lose all of its potency, because the vulnerable population would be shrinking rapidly. Mutation into new strains is the virus' way of overcoming old immunity. So it's the import/export of new strains that must be halted.
Is this an economically sustainable strategy? My answer would be a very clear "yes!" We can see that Taiwan's economy didn't suffer much or at all despite heavy int. travel restrictions, while most/all other countries suffered. Further increasing those restrictions will certainly do far less damage to the economy than continuous lockdowns.
Beyond that, everyone should watch out for their own health. Try to eat healthy food (less processed, less sugar/starch, more fiber) and get exercise and sunlight.
Good luck and stay safe. Bolded.
Learn to read. I called for far more to eradicate the virus. If any country eradicates the virus, it would just pop up again later due to exporter countries. So to properly get rid of it, every country that is an exporter would have to eradicate it completely. This would be done with more targeted international travel restrictions coupled with extended quarantines, and the virus would have to be eradicated in every country and not just a few.
The lockdowns that we were seeing didn't include those things, and the intent of the lockdowns was only to "flatten the curve". My approach would've been far more extensive in scale, time and effort.
You also specifically chose that one comment that I wrote before all the other ones. In later comments I made clear many times that lockdowns and vaccines will not be enough to defeat the pandemic. You found one comment that you thought proves your point, but omitted the many comments that disprove your point. Did you do this on purpose?
|
On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept?
You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that.
and just fyi I was also theorizing about herd immunity in early 2020 so I was just as wrong as everyone else and my post didn't imply otherwise. That's just another thing you invented in your head.
See the problem is your foaming-at-the-mouth hatred has caused you to be unable to even interpret what I've written correctly. Likewise, your poorly written posts are near impossible for me to decipher. So the obvious solution is to stop shitting up this thread by responding to each other.
|
On November 03 2022 09:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 20:22 Mikau313 wrote:On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:On October 30 2022 04:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 29 2022 23:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 21:43 Slydie wrote:On October 29 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth. They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed. The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open. Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction. But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic. At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions. The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself. Simplified for you: + Show Spoiler +
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread
B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B
BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data
BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
Sorry, that "closing schools" is reducing the spread is NOT an obvious truth. For the flu, the spread has been equal or even worse when closing schools, as the youngsters will meet anyway, and in more fluctuating groups, less regulated. You need to close schools AND make sure they don't have any social life elsewhere either, which is an absolutely awful thing to force upon youngsters, and it is much worse for the ones who struggle already. Then, you need to remember that the goal is really to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, not only a raw number number of cases. Proving that closing schools achieved this goal is not easy, but if you have some studies, bring them on! This was an experiment, not based on science. Remember that there are powerful incentives to justify these decisions, so we might have to wait a bit to get solid unbiased proof. But, I know Norway and Denmark opened their schools late spring 2020, and still had some of the best covid numbers in the world. Yeah but we did destroy their social lives too. There weren’t many play dates happening during the pandemic. That’s why my post introducing the topic was two-fold. Not just that student test scores are way down but also pediatric depression, anxiety, and suicidality is way up. But yes I agree with you that it was an experiment not based on science. Magic Powers source says as much well - the decision to close schools was often not done on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis but more on a gut feel of the people making these decisions. Also just want to remind everyone that in Spring and Summer of 2020 I was posting in real time in this thread about how hospitals across the country were becoming ghost towns. All elective surgeries were being cancelled. People were avoiding the Emergency Room like it was the plague. Hospitals were closing down entire wings and laying off workers because there were no patients. There was definitely plenty of room to ease some restrictions and keeping schools open should have been the obvious choice. Are you trying to play captain hindsight by using data from after the fact to make yourself seem like the smart one for making perfect decisions? You do realize that if decisions changed from when they were made it would have meant that different outcomes would have happened? Hospitals were at their breaking point for supplies and giving them breathing room so people can recover from the hell march and resupply to prepare for the next wave wasn't something that occurred to you being a possibility at all these past two years? BlackJack's description of the cost benefit analysis of school closure is at least exactly the one communicated to us in Sweden by our authorities during the epidemic, i.e.: we don't believe children are spreading the disease to an extent that would justify closing schools; it is not particularly dangerous for the children themselves to get the disease; it could have potentially very harming consequences to stop young children from going to school. All of this has turned out to be true as far as I can tell. I remember thinking at the time that the calls for closing schools was a dangerous mixture of virtue signalling and hysteria, and it seems to have been an accurate impression. This seems to have been true for Sweden. What was true for Sweden wasn't necessarily true for Norway, or Belgium, or the US, or China. That was certainly the messaging we were getting in Canada early on (at least after that first lockdown.) I recall joking with some colleagues that somehow schools were magical places where Covid was not spread... despite kids getting sick all the time from colds and flus. And I suppose, early on that might have been so. It wasn't really until we got to the lesser versions like Omicron that it really started sweeping through our schools.
The earliest variants also affected kids much less than later ones. Any measures to "protect" kids against the first strains were unnecessary, and at worst, counterproductive. Delta and Omnicron were different in that regard.
I remember how some ultra rare autoimmune syndrome was used to justify closing schools. That is pure fear, not rational thinking.
|
On November 03 2022 16:30 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 08:28 Razyda wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. How bizarre: On July 22 2021 00:12 Magic Powers wrote:
The problem with reopening
First a theoretical explanation of how a virus propagates (and thus produces an epidemic or pandemic):
1) A virus infects a host (e.g. a person or an animal), which then produces more of the same virus
2) The virus mutates (with some probability per each replication)
3) With more virus matter in circulation, the probability of mutation goes up (causing a cumulative probability, which eventually leads to quasi-certainty)
4) Most mutations are not meaningful (i.e. not resulting in new strains)
5) Some mutations are meaningful, leading to new strains
6) Of the new strains, some are more potent, others are less potent (in various ways)
7) Of the new strains, some can/could overcome previously existing immunity
Also, 100 sars-cov-2 virions inside a single host are estimated to be potent enough to cause an infection, and therefore (re)start/continue/worsen the pandemic. 100 is a very small amount, meaning sars-cov-2 is relatively more potent.
Some of the more recent waves are happening in the UK and it's now also happening in NL and Israel and a long list of other countries that have previously brought the numbers down very low. This is very important to note.
The strains that are concerning and are currently in circulation are categorized as alpha, beta, gamma and delta. Delta is the fastest spreading type right now.
What is the problem when the rate of infection increases (as we can see happening right now in most countries)?
What most countries have been doing is that they've brought the numbers down and then reopened before eradicating the virus, resulting in R going back up to >1. I call those countries "exporters", because they're mostly responsible for producing more infections. Some of the most notable examples are/were China (the point of origin), then countries like Italy, Brazil, UK, India, and a few more.
Especially noteworthy is the UK, which has not been an exporter country until a few weeks ago, and is now again an exporter due to R>1. This happened because the delta variant was exported to the UK at some point (as it was to many other countries, too).
A few countries had previously fully eradicated the virus. Those were Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore (and maybe one or two that I've overlooked). I call these countries "importers", because the only means for them to produce an epidemic is (or was until recently) by importing infected people and releasing them into the general population.
This is what has happened in Taiwan and is now also what's happening in Australia and probably Singapore. It took only one infected international traveller "partying hard" in Taiwan to release covid into the general population.
New Zealand might be spared from this fate, we'll have to wait and see.
As we can see, it takes only one individual to slip through and start an epidemic in any given country.
This is why - throughout this pandemic - many countries have ben seen blocking or restricting travel from exporter countries. But that system is clearly not perfect, and due to this imperfection there's a persistent problem.
What is the problem?
There are too many exporter countries. Due to this, each time that one exporter country becomes an importer, it somehow manages to go right back to becoming an exporter. Why? Because of freshly imported new strains from other exporters. It'd be possible to prevent the import of a virus from one exporter country, but it becomes difficult if not outright impossible when the number of exporters increases exponentially.
A possible solution to this problem could be to further tighten international travel restrictions. Quarantines will have to be extended far beyond two weeks, for example. A number of other heavy adjustments will have to be made to int. travel, like the total traffic, perhaps even the duration of the stay, also track and trace, etc.
This can help (but by no means guarantee to) end the pandemic if every single country implements these restrictions. Why is that? Because if new strains never popped up in the first place, the virus would eventually lose all of its potency, because the vulnerable population would be shrinking rapidly. Mutation into new strains is the virus' way of overcoming old immunity. So it's the import/export of new strains that must be halted.
Is this an economically sustainable strategy? My answer would be a very clear "yes!" We can see that Taiwan's economy didn't suffer much or at all despite heavy int. travel restrictions, while most/all other countries suffered. Further increasing those restrictions will certainly do far less damage to the economy than continuous lockdowns.
Beyond that, everyone should watch out for their own health. Try to eat healthy food (less processed, less sugar/starch, more fiber) and get exercise and sunlight.
Good luck and stay safe. Bolded. Learn to read. I called for far more to eradicate the virus. If any country eradicates the virus, it would just pop up again later due to exporter countries. So to properly get rid of it, every country that is an exporter would have to eradicate it completely. This would be done with more targeted international travel restrictions coupled with extended quarantines, and the virus would have to be eradicated in every country and not just a few. The lockdowns that we were seeing didn't include those things, and the intent of the lockdowns was only to "flatten the curve". My approach would've been far more extensive in scale, time and effort. You also specifically chose that one comment that I wrote before all the other ones. In later comments I made clear many times that lockdowns and vaccines will not be enough to defeat the pandemic. You found one comment that you thought proves your point, but omitted the many comments that disprove your point. Did you do this on purpose?
Surely you can't be serious. I read somewhere that something like 80% of white-tailed deer they tested in Iowa had COVID-19 or COVID-19 antibodies. We have 30 million white-tailed deer in North America, are we supposed to lock them down too? Or just cull them all ala the Danes and the minks? And it's not just deer. It's cats and dogs, hamsters and hippos and hyenas, ferrets, mice, otters and pigs and rabbits, and the freaking tigers at the zoo that we gave the COVID vaccines to (although they would be fairly easy to lockdown). 29 different kinds of animals in one source I read. Even if you achieved this amazing goal of getting to zero COVID in the human population with whatever draconian measures you imagine, all it takes is one zoonotic infection to cross over and then you start from scratch. I think everyone should have realized long ago that eradicating COVID is a fool's errand.
|
On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that.
The reason why I can't remember a single person who said that lockdowns and vaccines would eradicate covid is because I myself had this discussion with people and that's why it's still quite fresh in my head. The overwhelming majority was of the opinion that we can't eradicate the virus (which is why people were opposed to my proposal) - saying that it's too late for that - but we can get it under control and learn to live with it, as we have with the flu. This opinion was formed roughly when Pfizer were completing or have completed their trials.
I really can't remember anyone saying that lockdowns and vaccines would actually eliminate the virus. I don't think anyone did say it, or at least not with any meaningfully strong conviction. It'd only be a comment made in passing.
No, what people actually did say is that lockdowns and vaccines would end the pandemic. That's a very different statement that's far more reasonable. I myself opposed that idea and instead took the position that it wouldn't even end the pandemic.
|
On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that.
I wasn't commenting on covid one way or the other, just providing counterexamples to a statement made by someone earlier, about viruses in general.
|
On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that. and just fyi I was also theorizing about herd immunity in early 2020 so I was just as wrong as everyone else and my post didn't imply otherwise. That's just another thing you invented in your head. See the problem is your foaming-at-the-mouth hatred has caused you to be unable to even interpret what I've written correctly. Likewise, your poorly written posts are near impossible for me to decipher. So the obvious solution is to stop shitting up this thread by responding to each other.
You're the one constantly shitting up the thread with arguments that contradict yourself. You have a very poor grasp on basic concepts and instead of learning anything new you decide to constantly dig deeper on your ignorance and feelings.
No one thinks chickenpox or measles or the flu are eradicated. If we thought that you wouldn't need to get the measles vaccine. You wouldn't need to get the chickenpox vaccine. But you got them anyway and if you'll have kids they'll get them it too. But sorry us for thinking that you can use your brain about why things happen around you.
I'm not going to stop disputing someone who puts so much effort into trying to get people killed because they're ignorant and like being ignorant. The obvious solution is for you to take a breath and think about why things happen around you.
|
On November 03 2022 18:43 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 09:12 Falling wrote:On November 02 2022 20:22 Mikau313 wrote:On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:On October 30 2022 04:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 29 2022 23:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 21:43 Slydie wrote:On October 29 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth. They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed. The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open. Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction. But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic. At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions. The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself. Simplified for you: + Show Spoiler +
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread
B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B
BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data
BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
Sorry, that "closing schools" is reducing the spread is NOT an obvious truth. For the flu, the spread has been equal or even worse when closing schools, as the youngsters will meet anyway, and in more fluctuating groups, less regulated. You need to close schools AND make sure they don't have any social life elsewhere either, which is an absolutely awful thing to force upon youngsters, and it is much worse for the ones who struggle already. Then, you need to remember that the goal is really to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, not only a raw number number of cases. Proving that closing schools achieved this goal is not easy, but if you have some studies, bring them on! This was an experiment, not based on science. Remember that there are powerful incentives to justify these decisions, so we might have to wait a bit to get solid unbiased proof. But, I know Norway and Denmark opened their schools late spring 2020, and still had some of the best covid numbers in the world. Yeah but we did destroy their social lives too. There weren’t many play dates happening during the pandemic. That’s why my post introducing the topic was two-fold. Not just that student test scores are way down but also pediatric depression, anxiety, and suicidality is way up. But yes I agree with you that it was an experiment not based on science. Magic Powers source says as much well - the decision to close schools was often not done on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis but more on a gut feel of the people making these decisions. Also just want to remind everyone that in Spring and Summer of 2020 I was posting in real time in this thread about how hospitals across the country were becoming ghost towns. All elective surgeries were being cancelled. People were avoiding the Emergency Room like it was the plague. Hospitals were closing down entire wings and laying off workers because there were no patients. There was definitely plenty of room to ease some restrictions and keeping schools open should have been the obvious choice. Are you trying to play captain hindsight by using data from after the fact to make yourself seem like the smart one for making perfect decisions? You do realize that if decisions changed from when they were made it would have meant that different outcomes would have happened? Hospitals were at their breaking point for supplies and giving them breathing room so people can recover from the hell march and resupply to prepare for the next wave wasn't something that occurred to you being a possibility at all these past two years? BlackJack's description of the cost benefit analysis of school closure is at least exactly the one communicated to us in Sweden by our authorities during the epidemic, i.e.: we don't believe children are spreading the disease to an extent that would justify closing schools; it is not particularly dangerous for the children themselves to get the disease; it could have potentially very harming consequences to stop young children from going to school. All of this has turned out to be true as far as I can tell. I remember thinking at the time that the calls for closing schools was a dangerous mixture of virtue signalling and hysteria, and it seems to have been an accurate impression. This seems to have been true for Sweden. What was true for Sweden wasn't necessarily true for Norway, or Belgium, or the US, or China. That was certainly the messaging we were getting in Canada early on (at least after that first lockdown.) I recall joking with some colleagues that somehow schools were magical places where Covid was not spread... despite kids getting sick all the time from colds and flus. And I suppose, early on that might have been so. It wasn't really until we got to the lesser versions like Omicron that it really started sweeping through our schools. The earliest variants also affected kids much less than later ones. Any measures to "protect" kids against the first strains were unnecessary, and at worst, counterproductive. Delta and Omnicron were different in that regard. I remember how some ultra rare autoimmune syndrome was used to justify closing schools. That is pure fear, not rational thinking.
How many times does someone have to tell you that it wasn't just about the kids and that there are adults that go into schools as well to do school related activity?
Do we need to explain to you the concept that children interact with nonchildren a lot?
|
On November 03 2022 03:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 20:22 Mikau313 wrote:On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:On October 30 2022 04:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 29 2022 23:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 21:43 Slydie wrote:On October 29 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth. They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed. The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open. Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction. But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic. At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions. The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself. Simplified for you: + Show Spoiler +
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread
B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B
BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data
BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
Sorry, that "closing schools" is reducing the spread is NOT an obvious truth. For the flu, the spread has been equal or even worse when closing schools, as the youngsters will meet anyway, and in more fluctuating groups, less regulated. You need to close schools AND make sure they don't have any social life elsewhere either, which is an absolutely awful thing to force upon youngsters, and it is much worse for the ones who struggle already. Then, you need to remember that the goal is really to reduce deaths and hospitalisations, not only a raw number number of cases. Proving that closing schools achieved this goal is not easy, but if you have some studies, bring them on! This was an experiment, not based on science. Remember that there are powerful incentives to justify these decisions, so we might have to wait a bit to get solid unbiased proof. But, I know Norway and Denmark opened their schools late spring 2020, and still had some of the best covid numbers in the world. Yeah but we did destroy their social lives too. There weren’t many play dates happening during the pandemic. That’s why my post introducing the topic was two-fold. Not just that student test scores are way down but also pediatric depression, anxiety, and suicidality is way up. But yes I agree with you that it was an experiment not based on science. Magic Powers source says as much well - the decision to close schools was often not done on a rigorous cost-benefit analysis but more on a gut feel of the people making these decisions. Also just want to remind everyone that in Spring and Summer of 2020 I was posting in real time in this thread about how hospitals across the country were becoming ghost towns. All elective surgeries were being cancelled. People were avoiding the Emergency Room like it was the plague. Hospitals were closing down entire wings and laying off workers because there were no patients. There was definitely plenty of room to ease some restrictions and keeping schools open should have been the obvious choice. Are you trying to play captain hindsight by using data from after the fact to make yourself seem like the smart one for making perfect decisions? You do realize that if decisions changed from when they were made it would have meant that different outcomes would have happened? Hospitals were at their breaking point for supplies and giving them breathing room so people can recover from the hell march and resupply to prepare for the next wave wasn't something that occurred to you being a possibility at all these past two years? BlackJack's description of the cost benefit analysis of school closure is at least exactly the one communicated to us in Sweden by our authorities during the epidemic, i.e.: we don't believe children are spreading the disease to an extent that would justify closing schools; it is not particularly dangerous for the children themselves to get the disease; it could have potentially very harming consequences to stop young children from going to school. All of this has turned out to be true as far as I can tell. I remember thinking at the time that the calls for closing schools was a dangerous mixture of virtue signalling and hysteria, and it seems to have been an accurate impression. This seems to have been true for Sweden. What was true for Sweden wasn't necessarily true for Norway, or Belgium, or the US, or China. Sweden was heavily criticized in this thread at the time for their decisions. At least now we can acknowledge that they made the right decisions for their children even if we can't conclude that it could cross over to other countries. But Sweden wasn't the only one heavily criticized for not having enough restrictions. Florida was criticized even more for their fast reopening and their push to get kids back in schools. Two of are largest states were basically on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their COVID policy and they happen to be the state I'm from and the state I live in now. It's interesting to compare the two: 4th grade test scores for 2022 Reading Florida - T-2nd in country California - T-31st in country Mathematics Florida - 4th in country California - T-37th in country 2022 Q2 GDP growth Florida: +1.6% California: -0.5% Unemployment Florida: 2.5 Ranked 9th California: 3.9 Ranked 37th Although this doesn't necessarily prove that California was able to open back up the way Florida did
That is quiet interesting. Would be nice to have the data for 2018-2021 as well so that we can make a good comparison with pre-pandemic values and maybe see some trends.
|
On November 04 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that. and just fyi I was also theorizing about herd immunity in early 2020 so I was just as wrong as everyone else and my post didn't imply otherwise. That's just another thing you invented in your head. See the problem is your foaming-at-the-mouth hatred has caused you to be unable to even interpret what I've written correctly. Likewise, your poorly written posts are near impossible for me to decipher. So the obvious solution is to stop shitting up this thread by responding to each other. You're the one constantly shitting up the thread with arguments that contradict yourself. You have a very poor grasp on basic concepts and instead of learning anything new you decide to constantly dig deeper on your ignorance and feelings. No one thinks chickenpox or measles or the flu are eradicated. If we thought that you wouldn't need to get the measles vaccine. You wouldn't need to get the chickenpox vaccine. But you got them anyway and if you'll have kids they'll get them it too. But sorry us for thinking that you can use your brain about why things happen around you. I'm not going to stop disputing someone who puts so much effort into trying to get people killed because they're ignorant and like being ignorant. The obvious solution is for you to take a breath and think about why things happen around you.
Yeah I still have no idea what your point is about chickenpox and measles in the context of achieving herd immunity vs COVID. Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?
|
On November 04 2022 04:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that. and just fyi I was also theorizing about herd immunity in early 2020 so I was just as wrong as everyone else and my post didn't imply otherwise. That's just another thing you invented in your head. See the problem is your foaming-at-the-mouth hatred has caused you to be unable to even interpret what I've written correctly. Likewise, your poorly written posts are near impossible for me to decipher. So the obvious solution is to stop shitting up this thread by responding to each other. You're the one constantly shitting up the thread with arguments that contradict yourself. You have a very poor grasp on basic concepts and instead of learning anything new you decide to constantly dig deeper on your ignorance and feelings. No one thinks chickenpox or measles or the flu are eradicated. If we thought that you wouldn't need to get the measles vaccine. You wouldn't need to get the chickenpox vaccine. But you got them anyway and if you'll have kids they'll get them it too. But sorry us for thinking that you can use your brain about why things happen around you. I'm not going to stop disputing someone who puts so much effort into trying to get people killed because they're ignorant and like being ignorant. The obvious solution is for you to take a breath and think about why things happen around you. Yeah I still have no idea what your point is about chickenpox and measles in the context of achieving herd immunity vs COVID. Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?
Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. There is a large list of things that you get a vaccine for and are mandated to get a vaccine for. I do belive that I can go out on a bar and insist that you received a list of vaccines as a child too. Are you aware why you got them or why vaccine mandates are good?
|
On November 04 2022 10:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2022 04:14 BlackJack wrote:On November 04 2022 01:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 18:35 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 08:30 Sermokala wrote:On November 03 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:On November 03 2022 04:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote:
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. Please name those people, because I can't remember a single one. Just use the search function and search for "herd immunity." But I'm sure now we're going to pretend that by herd immunity we meant where everyone catches the disease and then continues to catch it year after year and hundreds continue to die every day even after almost everyone has either been vaccinated or had COVID already. A totally normal application of that term. /sarcasm Bj is now evolving by trying to mix his usual gotcha based argument style with the new captain hindsight style. Clearly bj has never heard about things like chickenpox or measles. You know diseases that spread wildly and require herd immunity to keep at bay. Does anyone think he's going to pull out his few months old idea that making children get vaccines is a monstrous and new concept? You talking about chickenpox and measles and DPB talking about smallpox and polio just helps prove my point that many in this thread thought we could virtually eliminate COVID the way we have other diseases and disproves Magic Power's implication that nobody in this thread believed that. So thanks for that. and just fyi I was also theorizing about herd immunity in early 2020 so I was just as wrong as everyone else and my post didn't imply otherwise. That's just another thing you invented in your head. See the problem is your foaming-at-the-mouth hatred has caused you to be unable to even interpret what I've written correctly. Likewise, your poorly written posts are near impossible for me to decipher. So the obvious solution is to stop shitting up this thread by responding to each other. You're the one constantly shitting up the thread with arguments that contradict yourself. You have a very poor grasp on basic concepts and instead of learning anything new you decide to constantly dig deeper on your ignorance and feelings. No one thinks chickenpox or measles or the flu are eradicated. If we thought that you wouldn't need to get the measles vaccine. You wouldn't need to get the chickenpox vaccine. But you got them anyway and if you'll have kids they'll get them it too. But sorry us for thinking that you can use your brain about why things happen around you. I'm not going to stop disputing someone who puts so much effort into trying to get people killed because they're ignorant and like being ignorant. The obvious solution is for you to take a breath and think about why things happen around you. Yeah I still have no idea what your point is about chickenpox and measles in the context of achieving herd immunity vs COVID. Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What? Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. There is a large list of things that you get a vaccine for and are mandated to get a vaccine for. I do belive that I can go out on a bar and insist that you received a list of vaccines as a child too. Are you aware why you got them or why vaccine mandates are good?
Wait do you actually believe COVID can be TOTALLY eliminated with vaccines and it's uselful to do so (by basically forcing people to take the vaccines)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
