|
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 02 2022 08:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Once again, I was posting in this thread in real time in Spring of 2020 about hospitals being well below normal census and arguing that restrictions should be eased. The fact that you can't grasp this and continually accuse me of using "data after the fact" to make my arguments doesn't really surprise me because I'm fairly confident you don't even know what the word hindsight means. Also unsurprising is that after my post where I offer actual data like hospital admissions being down, or ED visits being down, or 1.4 million healthcare workers being laid off in April 2020, your response is the usual one - to call me hateful and cruel while offering no data yourself. In fact for as long as this thread has been around I don't recall you linking to any scientific studies or news sources or anything of value. Literally every argument you have ever made in this thread has been an emotional plea "I care more about saving lives than you." I'm basing my world view on observations and evidence and data, the one basing their world view on their feelings is you. I wish you would go back to ripping off Twitter for your posts. + Show Spoiler +"You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge?"
This little nugget of projection really says it all. If you stopped formulating your posts based on what you think will get people to "like you" maybe you can offer something cogent. You're entire argument is trying to scrape data to retroactively prove you were right. While at the same point arguing against yourself about why the decisions that were made at the time was correct.
Do you know what hindsight means? Because you just described arguing by using hindsight. I get it your shick is to not even read your own posts but consistently arguing against yourself is just weird.
Bro you link the data that we use to prove you wrong. You're the one that can't help themselves but to frame everything in a feelings based argument that focuses on maximum cruelty and death as possible.
It's embarrassing again that you still think it's a dunk to say someone else can agree with other people and wants to not be hated by other people. That's just called being normal.
|
On November 02 2022 09:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Bolded: Thats funny . Recent article from Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/"LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY" title sums up what it is about. Now I recently learned how to skip annoying login message to browse Twitter and must say responses are not great... What was the phrase you used? "how cruel and hateful you come off"? Italic: After the fact? Posts have dates on them you can check them. While you will be checking Blackjack's post you may also notice that most of my concerns turned out to be spot on. What's so funny about it? Are you trying to say that your opponents all think the same and blindly follow the father?
No I'm really don't give a shit about amnesty. If you are anti vax or pro death like bj you need to take personal responsibility for the effects of what you preach.
Again you can't play captain hindsight and say that you're correct based off the first thing you think makes you look correct. We play this game with bj all the time where we point out the very obvious things he misses about his sources before he gets in a huff tunneling after he realizes he's got nothing and gives up.
|
On November 02 2022 18:55 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +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:On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? 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. And again we don't care about just the children themselves dying from plague we have settled science showing that they're obvious vectors for infecting their families. Also teachers and administrators are at schools last I checked.
It's wild that you're so hopeful to be proven right that you just tell people that you're completely wrong and that you want people you hate to be as wrong as you thought they were at the time. Ignorance and cruelty isn't a good look my guy
|
On November 02 2022 21:25 Sermokala 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. And again we don't care about just the children themselves dying from plague we have settled science showing that they're obvious vectors for infecting their families. Also teachers and administrators are at schools last I checked. It's wild that you're so hopeful to be proven right that you just tell people that you're completely wrong and that you want people you hate to be as wrong as you thought they were at the time. Ignorance and cruelty isn't a good look my guy I never said that it was only about the children. Read my post again. As for the rest of your response, I literally don't understand what you're saying, it's just a raging word salad.
|
On November 02 2022 21:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 09:18 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Bolded: Thats funny . Recent article from Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/"LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY" title sums up what it is about. Now I recently learned how to skip annoying login message to browse Twitter and must say responses are not great... https://twitter.com/CanTrueCrime/status/1587071768963026945 What was the phrase you used? "how cruel and hateful you come off"? Italic: After the fact? Posts have dates on them you can check them. While you will be checking Blackjack's post you may also notice that most of my concerns turned out to be spot on. What's so funny about it? Are you trying to say that your opponents all think the same and blindly follow the father? No I'm really don't give a shit about amnesty. If you are anti vax or pro death like bj you need to take personal responsibility for the effects of what you preach. Again you can't play captain hindsight and say that you're correct based off the first thing you think makes you look correct. We play this game with bj all the time where we point out the very obvious things he misses about his sources before he gets in a huff tunneling after he realizes he's got nothing and gives up.
Bolded: This was the case you know? It is actually implied in "Trust the Experts"...
Italic: You may change your mind not long in the future, as it seems that wind is changing. It is no longer some random guys on forum who disagree with mandates etc, more and more people who actually matter is getting vocal. Doctors, researchers, scientists are getting fed up with censorship and dropping even the illusion of impartiality by government agencies. I guess you can always say you didnt know and just followed the orders...
Bolded 2: Hindsight would be saying now "we shouldnt have done that". Saying "I said back then we shouldnt have done that" is not hindsight.
Italic 2: I dont think thats why he gives up. More often than not in this thread, as soon as someone dare to express any doubts about vaccine, or policy be it research for the first, or opinion for the latter the response can be summed up as:
"On the news they said differently. Why dont you believe in science and trust the experts you stupid antivaxxer"
You try to explain your point better and in response you get:
"On the news they said differently. Why dont you believe in science and trust the experts you stupid antivaxxer"
and it goes on and on. At some point you realise that you basically talking to TV/newspaper and give up.
|
On November 02 2022 08:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Once again, I was posting in this thread in real time in Spring of 2020 about hospitals being well below normal census and arguing that restrictions should be eased. The fact that you can't grasp this and continually accuse me of using "data after the fact" to make my arguments doesn't really surprise me because I'm fairly confident you don't even know what the word hindsight means. Also unsurprising is that after my post where I offer actual data like hospital admissions being down, or ED visits being down, or 1.4 million healthcare workers being laid off in April 2020, your response is the usual one - to call me hateful and cruel while offering no data yourself. In fact for as long as this thread has been around I don't recall you linking to any scientific studies or news sources or anything of value. Literally every argument you have ever made in this thread has been an emotional plea "I care more about saving lives than you." I'm basing my world view on observations and evidence and data, the one basing their world view on their feelings is you. I wish you would go back to ripping off Twitter for your posts. + Show Spoiler +"You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge?"
This little nugget of projection really says it all. If you stopped formulating your posts based on what you think will get people to "like you" maybe you can offer something cogent.
"Hospitals actually were more empty and laid off staff" might be an argument that is simple to understand but it is totally wrong and you should know why. You don't plan your healthcare system with the numbers of today, you do it with the numbers that you expect. And in a pandemic with possibly exponentially rising case numbers your system may go from "empty as never before" to being completely overwhelmed in a few days. That is also why you need to slow down infection number growth with such harsh measures as lockdowns and school closures. Was it worth it? - hard to say. Was it stupid? - no, no it was not.
|
On November 02 2022 23:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 21:21 Sermokala wrote:On November 02 2022 09:18 Razyda wrote:On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Bolded: Thats funny . Recent article from Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/"LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY" title sums up what it is about. Now I recently learned how to skip annoying login message to browse Twitter and must say responses are not great... https://twitter.com/CanTrueCrime/status/1587071768963026945 What was the phrase you used? "how cruel and hateful you come off"? Italic: After the fact? Posts have dates on them you can check them. While you will be checking Blackjack's post you may also notice that most of my concerns turned out to be spot on. What's so funny about it? Are you trying to say that your opponents all think the same and blindly follow the father? No I'm really don't give a shit about amnesty. If you are anti vax or pro death like bj you need to take personal responsibility for the effects of what you preach. Again you can't play captain hindsight and say that you're correct based off the first thing you think makes you look correct. We play this game with bj all the time where we point out the very obvious things he misses about his sources before he gets in a huff tunneling after he realizes he's got nothing and gives up. Bolded: This was the case you know? It is actually implied in "Trust the Experts"... Italic: You may change your mind not long in the future, as it seems that wind is changing. It is no longer some random guys on forum who disagree with mandates etc, more and more people who actually matter is getting vocal. Doctors, researchers, scientists are getting fed up with censorship and dropping even the illusion of impartiality by government agencies. I guess you can always say you didnt know and just followed the orders... Bolded 2: Hindsight would be saying now "we shouldnt have done that". Saying "I said back then we shouldnt have done that" is not hindsight. Italic 2: I dont think thats why he gives up. More often than not in this thread, as soon as someone dare to express any doubts about vaccine, or policy be it research for the first, or opinion for the latter the response can be summed up as: "On the news they said differently. Why dont you believe in science and trust the experts you stupid antivaxxer" You try to explain your point better and in response you get: "On the news they said differently. Why dont you believe in science and trust the experts you stupid antivaxxer" and it goes on and on. At some point you realise that you basically talking to TV/newspaper and give up. Ok so you don't understand the difference between blindly trusting the experts and listening to what the experts say and judging for yourself. I can understand how independent thought is a hard concept for some people but let be break it down.
Expert says that roundabouts are good because they lower fuel use and car accident over time.
Car accidents go up after one is installed due to people being confused about this new thing.
I go online to check the statistics about roundabouts to make sure the experts are right about what they said. Statstics back up the experts. I therefore trust the experts because they have facts and logic supporting them
I mean no I'm not going to change my mind on pro-covid people being responsible for a million deaths in America when japan had 4000 deaths but okay.
He is trying to use hindsight because his arguments for "we shouldn't have done that" correspond with the data presented of when we did that. He doesn't understand that people made decisions the way they did and the data is reflected based on their decisions. He thinks that he was proven correct because people didn't listen to him and did the opposite of what he wanted. His argument boils down to "If they opened up and locked down based on the data from the covid waves that we know now things would have been better" Which is true but makes no goddam sense because people didn't know when the next waves were coming and he explains very well why they didn't follow what he said back then.
Did you notice the part where you replaced "experts" with "the news"? Because everyone else catches that. They released day by day week by week data sets of the pandemic. It wasn't "the news" it was the CDC and the states themselves that were releasing the data. Are you confused with people not getting their entire viewpoint on events from fox news? Do you think Fauci is "the news"?
On November 02 2022 22:35 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 21:25 Sermokala 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. And again we don't care about just the children themselves dying from plague we have settled science showing that they're obvious vectors for infecting their families. Also teachers and administrators are at schools last I checked. It's wild that you're so hopeful to be proven right that you just tell people that you're completely wrong and that you want people you hate to be as wrong as you thought they were at the time. Ignorance and cruelty isn't a good look my guy I never said that it was only about the children. Read my post again. As for the rest of your response, I literally don't understand what you're saying, it's just a raging word salad. You did say it was only about the children because that was the entirety of BJ's cost benefit analysis. Hes trying to wedge "but minority education standards fell in the plauge" as his core takeaway from school shutdowns. Despite people repeatedly explaining to him why that isn't the only effect of school shutdowns he just ignores people and continues with his shitck of not reading posts. I'm sorry I can't help your reading comprehension do you have a question about any part of that I can help you with? Are you confused about the part that there are adults in schools?
|
Norway28415 Posts
Japan has had 46k deaths. It's still only ~12% of the US per capita, but still warrants correcting . However, cases per capita they're at like 60%, so it's not like the difference in deaths is just about hindering spread - having a healthier population can also be assumed to be a big factor.
|
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
|
On November 03 2022 02:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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 BJ you can't. Please don't tell me you're serious on this. Do you not understand basic concepts like how diseases get transmitted to other people? Did you not learn about germs in school?
|
On November 03 2022 00:36 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2022 08:25 BlackJack wrote:On November 02 2022 06:34 Sermokala wrote: Oh I see you really are trying to play captain hindsight. You almost made a fact-based argument there until you reverted to how you really think with appealing to feelings there at the end. You're so filled with grievance that you really don't understand how cruel and hateful you come off. We should have totally respected the capitalist healthcare system before the lives of people and the systems capability to react to, again, the plauge. The idea that people would rather stay home than risk contracting the plauge being a rational decision is just something you can't grasp.
You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge? Do you think you will convince anyone by saying that you would have made different decisions based off of data collected after the fact? Are you so disconnected with how any sort of decision making is made by people who don't base their world view on their feelings?
You don't even have coherent arguments to work with. You acknowledge that hospitals were getting caught up on securing PPE and keeping a cushion in the system in case there was another surge coming. You acknowledge that the hospital system opened up after they had a stockpile of PPE and were capable of reacting to a surge if another one came. I genuinely don't think you read your own posts and are just searching for words that you can use to seem credible before vering off to grind your axe at people you disagree with. Once again, I was posting in this thread in real time in Spring of 2020 about hospitals being well below normal census and arguing that restrictions should be eased. The fact that you can't grasp this and continually accuse me of using "data after the fact" to make my arguments doesn't really surprise me because I'm fairly confident you don't even know what the word hindsight means. Also unsurprising is that after my post where I offer actual data like hospital admissions being down, or ED visits being down, or 1.4 million healthcare workers being laid off in April 2020, your response is the usual one - to call me hateful and cruel while offering no data yourself. In fact for as long as this thread has been around I don't recall you linking to any scientific studies or news sources or anything of value. Literally every argument you have ever made in this thread has been an emotional plea "I care more about saving lives than you." I'm basing my world view on observations and evidence and data, the one basing their world view on their feelings is you. I wish you would go back to ripping off Twitter for your posts. + Show Spoiler +"You think people will like you more if you shame people for how they acted during a fucking plauge?"
This little nugget of projection really says it all. If you stopped formulating your posts based on what you think will get people to "like you" maybe you can offer something cogent. "Hospitals actually were more empty and laid off staff" might be an argument that is simple to understand but it is totally wrong and you should know why. You don't plan your healthcare system with the numbers of today, you do it with the numbers that you expect. And in a pandemic with possibly exponentially rising case numbers your system may go from "empty as never before" to being completely overwhelmed in a few days. That is also why you need to slow down infection number growth with such harsh measures as lockdowns and school closures. Was it worth it? - hard to say. Was it stupid? - no, no it was not.
Right. I didn't criticize the initial lockdown. I criticized the slow reopening. I'm not sure of the argument you're making. We can't begin reopening when the hospitals are 50% empty and healthcare workers are sitting at home watching Tiger King because hospitals may get too many patients? Eventually the reopening is going to happen (unless you're China) and hospitals are going to get a lot of patients. You have to make an argument why hospitals are way better equipped to handle the reopening in Fall 2020 than in Summer 2020.
The idea that "we can't ease restrictions because we can get a massive surge in just a few days" is no less applicable to any time you ease restrictions so it's not an argument to delaying the easing of restrictions until after the laid off healthcare workers finish watching the latest season of GoT.
|
I have read this thread from the very beginning when it was started by Legend Manifesto.
BlackJacks reasoning is perfectly fine and logical.
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. The Covid virus can harbour in animals as other flu viruses already do. This fact is already known by real Science and thats why mankind never will eradicate the common flu.
Even the Science embodied himself the big corrupt liar Mr Fauci knew this from the start, but he changed his mind like 9 times because he decided he felt the need to adapt to politics.
The faction of people on this thread are the same leftist people you see fooling around in the other politics threads. They are infused with postmodern thinking and you really see this in the arguments and semantics here. Focault would be really proud of you guys. The total masspsychosis against any opinion that differ from the narrative reminds me of THE BORG in Star Trek. Resistance is futile…
This whole line of reasoning against BlackJack that Goverment makes decisions based purely on Science is just hilarious. If you have real experience working with government you should know they cannot even manage a bubblegum machine without creating a deficit.
The loud faction of people driving the coerce narrative here is a perfect example of Stanley Milgram’s ’Obedience of Authority’. If you are not familiar of his work you should be because government surely is.
|
The loud faction of people driving the coerce narrative here is a perfect example of Stanley Milgram’s ’Obedience of Authority’. If you are not familiar of his work you should be because government surely is.
The loud faction of people driving the coerce narrative here is a perfect example of Carl Sagan's 'Demon-Haunted World'. If you are not familiar of his work, you should be because (fill in the blank).
I really wish I knew how to do real Science. \s
|
On November 03 2022 03:34 InDaHouse wrote: I have read this thread from the very beginning when it was started by Legend Manifesto.
BlackJacks reasoning is perfectly fine and logical.
People in this fucking thread actually believed you could eradicate a virus from the face of earth with lockdowns and vaccines. The Covid virus can harbour in animals as other flu viruses already do. This fact is already known by real Science and thats why mankind never will eradicate the common flu.
Even the Science embodied himself the big corrupt liar Mr Fauci knew this from the start, but he changed his mind like 9 times because he decided he felt the need to adapt to politics.
The faction of people on this thread are the same leftist people you see fooling around in the other politics threads. They are infused with postmodern thinking and you really see this in the arguments and semantics here. Focault would be really proud of you guys. The total masspsychosis against any opinion that differ from the narrative reminds me of THE BORG in Star Trek. Resistance is futile…
This whole line of reasoning against BlackJack that Goverment makes decisions based purely on Science is just hilarious. If you have real experience working with government you should know they cannot even manage a bubblegum machine without creating a deficit.
The loud faction of people driving the coerce narrative here is a perfect example of Stanley Milgram’s ’Obedience of Authority’. If you are not familiar of his work you should be because government surely is.
This is just incredible. This is what happens when euros pay way too much attention to far right coverage of American politics.
No one believed that the virus would be eradicated. That was a lie you were told by people who don't respect you. I would like to hear just anything on why you think fauci is corrupt and a liar for being a public servant for decades, with a quote of "like 9 times" I just don't have much faith to be honest.
Its just incredible how much you sabotage yourself with this. You don't offer any arguments or posit any points at all. You just screed statements like they mean anything at all and keep going like no one is going to call you on them. You take your time to compliment people for using critical thinking and say how a celebrated modern philosopist would be proud. Then you say that they do the opposite of what you just stated .You then demonstrate your knowledge of authoritarian text and suggest people should be educated on how you think. I mean you literally made a star wars reference about how you think the people who disagree with you all follow authority blindly and then referenced an phisiophical text that you are apparently very familiar with enough and resonated enough with you to remember to recommend to others to read.
The level of self own it is to say the people you don't like are free thinkers using facts and logic in their arguments vs how you love to appeal to authority and not question it because of how much you love authoritarianism, its just beautiful.
|
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.
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
|
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.
Somesmallpox peoplepolio are such moronsrinderpest.
|
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 Florida also has the 13th highest death rate per capita in the US compared to California's 39th. 383 deaths per 100k vs 245. That's 56% more deaths.
www.statista.com
Funny how that is a statistic your not interested in including. Which is really weird. If you want to talk about difference in response to a pandemic, surely the actual difference in the results of that pandemic matter.
|
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.
|
On November 03 2022 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2022 03:51 BlackJack 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. 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 Florida also has the 13th highest death rate per capita in the US compared to California's 39th. 383 deaths per 100k vs 245. That's 56% more deaths. www.statista.comFunny how that is a statistic your not interested in including. Which is really weird. If you want to talk about difference in response to a pandemic, surely the actual difference in the results of that pandemic matter.
As if the inverse is not true for you? I'm sure I've acknowledged Florida having more deaths far more than you've acknowledged any of the data I just cited.
|
On November 03 2022 02:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|