Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@dkf no 2021 spoilers, please! We're still enjoying the idea that this year was the bad one.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There is a pandemic. It’s affected millions of people, with well over a million deceased
I can agree that it is true that there are over a million people who were affected by the virus who are also dead now . But saying they're "covid deaths" looks like you're falling for the very bullshit you're warning about.
You can look at the excess deaths to see that, and add to that the reduction in other deaths (e.g. traffic incidents) we’ve seen. I have no idea how bad some places screw up their counting, but I’m pretty sure over here it’s not all made up.
Sure, but there's a lot of daylight between "all made up" and "we must close all schools and you can't walk outside and other random shit like trying to shut down outdoors dining."
There’s also a lot between “a few places did bad testing” and “the cases are based on false positives”. Full intensive care units don’t point to the latter.
They don't not point to it, either. The magnitudes of the two are so far apart.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I hate it too, because it reeks of authoritarian nanny state, but I understand politicians who resort to extreme measures after everything else has proven fruitless because people behave much less rational than expected.
Oh, I understand it, but I believe they believe they have more control than they do. Also that they're being counterproductive in the long term.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There is a pandemic. It’s affected millions of people, with well over a million deceased
I can agree that it is true that there are over a million people who were affected by the virus who are also dead now . But saying they're "covid deaths" looks like you're falling for the very bullshit you're warning about.
You can look at the excess deaths to see that, and add to that the reduction in other deaths (e.g. traffic incidents) we’ve seen. I have no idea how bad some places screw up their counting, but I’m pretty sure over here it’s not all made up.
Sure, but there's a lot of daylight between "all made up" and "we must close all schools and you can't walk outside and other random shit like trying to shut down outdoors dining."
There’s also a lot between “a few places did bad testing” and “the cases are based on false positives”. Full intensive care units don’t point to the latter.
They don't not point to it, either. The magnitudes of the two are so far apart.
If your foregone conclusion is that cases are false positives and deaths are people who would've died anyway, there's not much that could convince you otherwise.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I hate it too, because it reeks of authoritarian nanny state, but I understand politicians who resort to extreme measures after everything else has proven fruitless because people behave much less rational than expected.
Oh, I understand it, but I believe they believe they have more control than they do. Also that they're being counterproductive in the long term.
To "how many deaths must we afford to save the economy" there's the opposite argument that letting the virus get even further out of control will harm not just the population but also the economy more than doing nothing.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There is a pandemic. It’s affected millions of people, with well over a million deceased
I can agree that it is true that there are over a million people who were affected by the virus who are also dead now . But saying they're "covid deaths" looks like you're falling for the very bullshit you're warning about.
You can look at the excess deaths to see that, and add to that the reduction in other deaths (e.g. traffic incidents) we’ve seen. I have no idea how bad some places screw up their counting, but I’m pretty sure over here it’s not all made up.
Sure, but there's a lot of daylight between "all made up" and "we must close all schools and you can't walk outside and other random shit like trying to shut down outdoors dining."
There’s also a lot between “a few places did bad testing” and “the cases are based on false positives”. Full intensive care units don’t point to the latter.
They don't not point to it, either. The magnitudes of the two are so far apart.
If your foregone conclusion is that cases are false positives and deaths are people who would've died anyway, there's not much that could convince you otherwise.
Look, if your conclusion is that the people who know about PCR and say that running a 40+ cycle test is bullshit have no idea what they're talking about, then you might as well keep spewing strawmen like that.
It can be true that the giant numbers being reported are inflated and that there are excess deaths.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I hate it too, because it reeks of authoritarian nanny state, but I understand politicians who resort to extreme measures after everything else has proven fruitless because people behave much less rational than expected.
Oh, I understand it, but I believe they believe they have more control than they do. Also that they're being counterproductive in the long term.
To "how many deaths must we afford to save the economy" there's the opposite argument that letting the virus get even further out of control will harm not just the population but also the economy more than doing nothing.
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
Judging by the results of New York and California, either
- People spread the virus when they go to get food or other essentials that are "exceptions" to the lockdown rules, meaning lockdowns don't work because of the exceptions that you have to have to not kill everyone of starvation.
- Some fraction of people ignore the lockdowns, meaning lockdowns don't work because they're not enforceable except for the honor system and even a small fraction of people violating the lockdown means the price paid by everyone else was worthless.
Either, or, or , seems like a pretty good case study for "things we did and are doing that aren't worth the candle"
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
I was talking about a lot of cases being false positives. I don't know how it got to "just" being false positives. Sure, sure, and how will they feed themselves? And all the other stuff we need to do? That sort of thing is an hysterical and panicked over reaction, is my argument.
-
@izzion said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
meaning lockdowns don't work
It depends how you define a lockdown working.
The "flatten the curve" lockdowns worked at the time, even if a minority of people ignored them.
What we have now (certainly in the UK, but I suspect elsewhere too) just seems like a panicked response and it's difficult to say if it works when you don't know what it's supposed to achieve.
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@izzion said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
meaning lockdowns don't work
It depends how you define a lockdown working.
The "flatten the curve" lockdowns worked at the time, even if a minority of people ignored them.
What we have now (certainly in the UK, but I suspect elsewhere too) just seems like a panicked response and it's difficult to say if it works when you don't know what it's supposed to achieve.
True. Judging by the behavior of the PTBees
after they did a line of lockdown crackover the course of this thing, it seems like the current goal is "no one dies of or even catches COVID again", which is certainly something lockdowns aren't going to accomplish, based on the evidence of the past 9 months.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
we don't need any measures in the first place.
Every politician who gets caught violating their own directives is effectively arguing this by revealed preference. They may not care about the health of others, but surely they care about their own?
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
we don't need any measures in the first place.
Every politician who gets caught violating their own directives is effectively arguing this by revealed preference. They may not care about the health of others, but surely they care about their own?
Indeed. @HardwareGeek posted this elsewhere:
For anyone not familiar with her:
Deborah Leah Birx (born April 4, 1956) is an American physician and diplomat who has served as the United States Global AIDS Coordinator for Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump since 2014; she has additionally served as the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force since February 2020.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
They may not care about the health of others, but surely they care about their own?
I wouldn't be so sure. Just like immature teenagers, politicians are so used to thinking that normal rules don't apply to them they probably consider themselves invulnerable. Plus, when they get sick, they can afford top-notch specialists and treatments.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
we don't need any measures in the first place.
Every politician who gets caught violating their own directives is effectively arguing this by revealed preference.
And they're wrong. So what?
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
I was talking about a lot of cases being false positives.
What does a lot mean? Absolutely or relatively? I see no indication for the latter being true.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Sure, sure, and how will they feed themselves? And all the other stuff we need to do?
They don't, obviously. Sounds super effective.
That sort of thing is an hysterical and panicked over reaction, is my argument.
You said it isn't effective. It can be both effective and an over-reaction.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And they're wrong. So what?
How do you know they are wrong? How do you know that this is the only thing they are wrong about? Why should we continue following their directives? Would you take medical advice from a physician who chain smoked, drank heavily, never exercised, and only ate fast food?
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And they're wrong. So what?
How do you know they are wrong?
Are you for real?
How do you know that this is the only thing they are wrong about? Why should we continue following their directives? Would you take medical advice from a physician who chain smoked, drank heavily, never exercised, and only ate fast food?
So if every physician / the medial research community at large tells you smoking is bad for your health, but your primary care physician also tells you that while being a chain-smoker, you conclude that smoking is obviously not bad otherwise he wouldn't do it?
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Are you for real?
Yes, I am. Have you seen this study?
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
So if every physician / the medial research community at large tells you smoking is bad for your health
Not every physician agrees with the lockdowns and mask mandates. There are thousands who don't.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
you conclude that smoking is obviously not bad otherwise he wouldn't do it?
No, but I would seek another source for medical advice.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Are you for real?
Yes, I am. Have you seen this study?
No. Can you sum up how it's relevant to politician's not following the rules?
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
So if every physician / the medial research community at large tells you smoking is bad for your health
Not every physician agrees with the lockdowns and mask mandates. There are thousands who don't.
There are quite certainly thousands of physicians who smoke.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
you conclude that smoking is obviously not bad otherwise he wouldn't do it?
No, but I would seek another source for medical advice.
Sure, but don't dismiss the other source if they give the same advice. And don't go for politician's who happen to be featured in some not-the-bee whatever.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
I was talking about a lot of cases being false positives.
What does a lot mean? Absolutely or relatively? I see no indication for the latter being true.
Where are you looking? Given the amount of testing and the admitted misuse of the PCR tests by running too many cycles I don't see how there couldn't be a lot of false positives out there.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
So if every physician / the medial research community at large tells you smoking is bad for your health, but your primary care physician also tells you that while being a chain-smoker, you conclude that smoking is obviously not bad otherwise he wouldn't do it?
But this absolutely doesn't apply to COVID (as already pointed out). Using an argument like this is either ignorant or dishonest.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
So if every physician / the medial research community at large tells you smoking is bad for your health, but your primary care physician also tells you that while being a chain-smoker, you conclude that smoking is obviously not bad otherwise he wouldn't do it?
But this absolutely doesn't apply to COVID (as already pointed out). Using an argument like this is either ignorant or dishonest.
So was the original argument to begin with.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No. Can you sum up how it's relevant to politician's not following the rules?
If ivermectin works as a prophylactic, wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to give it to the most vulnerable so they don't get the virus, and give it to everyone who lives in the same household as someone infected since most of the spread happens within households, and let the majority of the population whose risk of death from the virus is a fraction of a percent go about their lives as usual?
That way, we wouldn't have the damage to the economy, the increased suicides and drug overdoses causes by the lockdowns, and increased cancer and heart disease deaths due to people not being allowed to get cancer screenings and heart surgery.
There's also a human element to this: some of the elderly are starting to speak out, and they're saying that they don't have much time left, and they don't want to spend what time they do have stuck at home alone. Some of them have even explicitly said they'd rather take their chances with the virus than not be able to see their loved ones. Unfortunately, they don't have that option as governments have made the choice for them.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Sure, but don't dismiss the other source if they give the same advice.
One difference is that my doctor can't fine or jail me if I consult another doctor and do what they say instead.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No. Can you sum up how it's relevant to politician's not following the rules?
If ivermectin works as a prophylactic, wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to give it to the most vulnerable so they don't get the virus, and give it to everyone who lives in the same household as someone infected since most of the spread happens within households, and let the majority of the population whose risk of death from the virus is a fraction of a percent go about their lives as usual?
Then go ahead and do a mass study on this and use it.
It's from June. Why are there only 200 participants and why hasn't the world picked up on this yet? You could make an absolute fortune of this!One difference is that my doctor can't fine or jail me if I consult another doctor and do what they say instead.
Depends. If your other doctor tells you to endanger other people, you might well be.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why are there only 200 participants and why hasn't the world picked up on this yet?
These are both good questions, which I unfortunately can't answer, but I would hope that you're not interpreting the lack of a wider study and widespread use as evidence that it doesn't work.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You could make an absolute fortune of this!
It's no longer under patent, so I doubt that.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why are there only 200 participants and why hasn't the world picked up on this yet?
These are both good questions, which I unfortunately can't answer, but I would hope that you're not interpreting the lack of a wider study and widespread use as evidence that it doesn't work.
I don’t take it as evidence, but I take it as a hint lacking other explanations.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You could make an absolute fortune of this!
It's no longer under patent, so I doubt that.
That just means you don’t have a monopoly on selling it.
Pfizer is going to make a ton of money selling the Biontech vaccine. The Moderna vaccine is going to make a ton of money, too, because even though that’s no longer the only supplier there is huge demand and multiple producers are needed for supply.
Any simple and cheap proven solution would be guaranteed millions of sales.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That just means you don’t have a monopoly on selling it.
Pfizer is going to make a ton of money selling the Biontech vaccine. The Moderna vaccine is going to make a ton of money, too, because even though that’s no longer the only supplier there is huge demand and multiple producers are needed for supply.
Any simple and cheap proven solution would be guaranteed millions of sales.That is all true, but they will make a lot more money from a new vaccine than from a generic pill.
-
Please remember this is General, not the garage.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That just means you don’t have a monopoly on selling it.
Pfizer is going to make a ton of money selling the Biontech vaccine. The Moderna vaccine is going to make a ton of money, too, because even though that’s no longer the only supplier there is huge demand and multiple producers are needed for supply.
Any simple and cheap proven solution would be guaranteed millions of sales.That is all true, but they will make a lot more money from a new vaccine than from a generic pill.
Of course, but that doesn't preclude someone else from beating them with something simpler/cheaper/non-patented.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Just like immature teenagers, politicians are so used to thinking that normal rules don't apply to them
That isn’t exclusive to immature teenagers and politicians — large numbers of people feel that way, usually in the sense of “But it won’t be so bad if I am the one doing it, because I have a good reason.” Unlike all the other people breaking the rules, because obviously they don’t have a good reason.
-
@izzion said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
You're effectively supporting the "We must do something! This is something so let's do it! argument here. You're just attacking people for calling out ineffective measures as ineffective.
Driving us towards pursuing ineffective strategies like you are is doing exactly what you say you don't want.No, I'm arguing for effective measures, compared to people who argue at the same time that all measures are ineffective and we don't need any measures in the first place.
Sorry, that wasn't clear, since we'd been talking about stuff like not allowing people to walk outside.
I thought we're talking about cases just being false positives but for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
Judging by the results of New York and California, either
- People spread the virus when they go to get food or other essentials that are "exceptions" to the lockdown rules, meaning lockdowns don't work because of the exceptions that you have to have to not kill everyone of starvation.
- Some fraction of people ignore the lockdowns, meaning lockdowns don't work because they're not enforceable except for the honor system and even a small fraction of people violating the lockdown means the price paid by everyone else was worthless.
Either, or, or , seems like a pretty good case study for "things we did and are doing that aren't worth the candle"
Judging from the number of cars I saw while doing (1), I'd say (2)'s "fraction" is a significantly large number. And this is in CA!
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That is all true, but they will make a lot more money from a new vaccine than from a generic pill.
Not all of the medical companies are in the race for developing a new vaccine, so they should benefit from selling any alternative.
-
Better be prepared for your exams:
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That isn’t exclusive to immature teenagers and politicians — large numbers of people feel that way, usually in the sense of “But it won’t be so bad if I am the one doing it, because I have a good reason.”
This is also why there are pro-life activist who have abortions. A large fraction of the population is surprisingly bad at empathizing and ridiculously self-centered.
-
@JBert said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Better be prepared for exams
Cheat sheets inside the hazmut suit?
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It depends how you define a lockdown working.
The "flatten the curve" lockdowns worked at the time, even if a minority of people ignored them.
What we have now (certainly in the UK, but I suspect elsewhere too) just seems like a panicked response and it's difficult to say if it works when you don't know what it's supposed to achieve.
The stricter the lockdown, the better it works (and the more severe the social and economic impacts are). If more people, politicians especially included, obeyed lockdown (and masking) rules, the severity required for combatting a particular virulence would be lessened. But they don't, not in aggregate, and too many politicians (from all parties it seems) have forgotten that they need to lead by setting a good example personally. The more senior the failure to set a good example, the more there is general rule breaking and the more severe measures will have to be if the virus is to be controlled at all.
Why control it? Well, look at the death and debilitation rates for this disease. Then, if you want, compute the economic impacts of those two rates given that, untreated, nearly everyone will get it...
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
And that's EXACTLY why I argued for an absolute, complete, full, total lockdown of literally everything at all except food production (but NOT restaurants and NOT grocery stores), utilities, hospitals and package delivery services (so people don't starve to death when litereally every single grocery store is shut down). Anything, and I mean anything short of that was guaranteed to fail to contain the virus.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
for the sake of argument: if people can't leave their house, how are the they supposed to spread the virus?
And that's EXACTLY why I argued for an absolute, complete, full, total lockdown of literally everything at all except food production (but NOT restaurants and NOT grocery stores), utilities, hospitals and package delivery services (so people don't starve to death when litereally every single grocery store is shut down). Anything, and I mean anything short of that was guaranteed to fail to contain the virus.
The problem with such a lockdown is that it'd have to be months long to actually not just postpone the spread, and it'd also need to be world wide. And then it'll also cause complete breakdown of food production because machines break, and spare parts are not being made or delivered.
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The problem with such a lockdown is that it'd have to be months long to actually not just postpone the spread, and it'd also need to be world wide.
If it was as radical as proposed, it should as good as kill it in 3-4 weeks. But the latter point is true. Since you won't get the whole world to do it at once, and successfully at that, you'd need complete lockdown of borders afterwards, or you're quickly back to rinse and repeat.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The problem with such a lockdown is that it'd have to be months long to actually not just postpone the spread, and it'd also need to be world wide.
If it was as radical as proposed, it should as good as kill it in 3-4 weeks. But the latter point is true. Since you won't get the whole world to do it at once, and successfully at that, you'd need complete lockdown of borders afterwards, or you're quickly back to rinse and repeat.
Except families where it may take as long as disease_period*family_members and some people seem to not beat he infection in just a few weeks. To really stop it with lockdowns, you have to lock down until not a single individual can reasonably have the infection anymore, because if there is it will just start over again. A disease can't be beaten by lockdowns without making the cure far, far worse than the disease; only slowed down a bit even if that.
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The problem with such a lockdown is that it'd have to be months long to actually not just postpone the spread, and it'd also need to be world wide.
If it was as radical as proposed, it should as good as kill it in 3-4 weeks. But the latter point is true. Since you won't get the whole world to do it at once, and successfully at that, you'd need complete lockdown of borders afterwards, or you're quickly back to rinse and repeat.
Except families where it may take as long as disease_period*family_members and some people seem to not beat he infection in just a few weeks. To really stop it with lockdowns, you have to lock down until not a single individual can reasonably have the infection anymore, because if there is it will just start over again. A disease can't be beaten by lockdowns without making the cure far, far worse than the disease; only slowed down a bit even if that.
Looking at some the countries that have supposedly "beaten" the disease (at least in the mainstream narrative) is instructive. According to the JHU dashboard:
-
Australia is curently at ~20 daily cases, up from ~10 over the past couple of months; this is comparable to the numbers they had between the initial outbreak and the big flare-up in July/August. This suggests that further flare-ups in the future are likely.
-
New Zealand has seen days with 0 infections, but are still at beween 5 and 10 daily cases, typically. They have not eliminated the disease.
-
China has had periods of no new cases, but have been at ~100 daily cases since early November. I'll leave the question of how much we trust China's reporting open.
-
Singapore has had a run of single-digit daily cases for the past couple of months, but have recently seen them climb to ~30. Given that they've only come out of their first (two-peak) wave in September, I'd say it's still to early to judge where it goes next
South Korea and Japan were supposed to have it under control because masks or whatever, but both are now experiencing full-blown second waves.
-
-
Yet another new COVID strain has been identified:
-
@Zerosquare I wonder if there was any strain-identifying analysis done that did NOT result in a new strain being identified.
-
Probably, but you don't hear about those.
-
@Zerosquare well, yes, there always is some probability. But between the rapid mutations that viruses are known for, the vagueness of the term "strain" itself, and the academic culture of publishing results, quality be damned - how big is this probability really?
-
Couldn't a strain with higher infectiousness be not (only) worse, but easier to detect? And therefore in the long run less dangerous?
I mean, do symptoms appear faster also? If people were to feel it the very next day, it would probably never have taken off. It's too late for that sort of effect to have a considerable difference maintaining the spread now, but generally nature rewards sneaky fuckers. Or am I misunderstanding the relation between contagiousness and viral activity?
-
@Gąska: this new strain appears to be more contagious than the previous UK one (which was itself significantly more contagious than the "old" one) and spreading rapidly. So I don't think it's a case of documenting a minor or obscure mutation just for the sake of publishing something.