5 ms·

Where did all of these leaders get their information about covid from? Surely not from the people who were watching the crisis develop in China. Another stupid

Where did all of these leaders get their information about covid from? Surely not from the people who were watching the crisis develop in China. Another stupid thing: People have been burning down cell towers because they think 5G causes corona. Only to leave their area to be less covered by telephone network, possibly making it harder to reach emergency services. edit: I know many leaders have changed their views to more realistic ones, but I do wonder how they could be so misinformed in the beginning.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Where did all of these leaders get their information about covid from? Surely not from the people who were watching the crisis develop in China. The official information coming out of China was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". Therefore, if you're not going to make a big fuss about the flu, why make one about COVID-19? Quite a few actual virologists took this stance, at least for a while. The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information. That was also before Italy was overwhelmed. Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time. However, the fact remains that it's mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions - kind of like the flu. If the flu kills an otherwise healthy person, which happens all the time, it's not news. COVID-19 is an unprecedented media spectacle, with unprecedented reactions from governments across the world, mob mentality is driving more and more drastic responses. It's not a foregone conclusion that these drastic responses were the right measure. Sweden has done pretty much nothing, yet their graphs don't look any worse than those of other European countries. Perhaps they're covering it all up, but perhaps all of this social distancing, all this shutdown does very little to slow the spread of this disease if just a few people go shopping once a week, if just a few people go to work and carry it home. We don't know, because we don't know how COVID-19 actually spreads. History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information. Don't forget that the price of the shutdown is a major recession, it's not a simple political decision to make. The principle of charity must be applied.
- samizdis 7y ago
  Hear, hear. Nicely put, too.
- FartyMcFarter 7y ago
  There's a vaccine for the flu. There isn't one for Covid-19. Even if it's "only as bad" as the flu, the lack of vaccines makes a huge difference.
  - makomk 7y ago
    The flu vaccine does make a difference, but not a huge one - it has limited effectiveness, especially in people who are most at risk of dying or having serious side-effects.
    - rconti 7y ago
      Fair. In some years the 'effectiveness' (I have no idea how this is measured) is as low as 25%, when they 'guess wrong' as to what the prevalent strains might be. However, it can also reduce symptoms. Shorten the flu, if not eliminate it. All of these things can make a difference at the margins; make a vulnerable person merely sick instead of deadly sick. And most importantly for those vulnerable folks at the highest risk of dying, the vaccine makes them less likely to come in contact with someone who spreads the flu to them in the first place.
- rconti 7y ago
  >The official information coming out of China was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". >Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources. This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China. >The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information. I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well. And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better. >Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time. I seem to recall predictions of crazy R0 values for coronavirus back in early January. I, too, thought it was probably at the "overdone" side of things, again, in early January, before we had more information. But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February. And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March. And even once we spent a month ignoring the devastating consequences in Italy, much of the US hand-waved it away, and explained that they're all old people, and it could never happen here. Then once it started happening here, we started hearing from governors of southern states, explaining how it can't happen THERE because they're not Washington. Or California. And then it became "we're not New York". I'm sorry, but the level of intentional ignorance on this matter has played out over many, many months, over and over again, in precisely the same, predictable pattern. And here you are, claiming nobody could have known, and the alarmists got lucky. >History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information. Wrong.
rasz 7y ago
Boris gets his covid intel from from Dominic Cummings https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser-in-a-hurry-after-his-boss-reveals-he-has-coronavirus-11964540 https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser-in-... Author of herd immunity aka >500K dead at minimum plan spend 10 years in Russia in the nineties. Russia isnt all that fond of UK.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Where did all of these leaders get their information about covid from? Surely not from the people who were watching the crisis develop in China. The official information coming out of China was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". Therefore, if you're not going to make a big fuss about the flu, why make one about COVID-19? Quite a few actual virologists took this stance, at least for a while. The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information. That was also before Italy was overwhelmed. Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time. However, the fact remains that it's mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions - kind of like the flu. If the flu kills an otherwise healthy person, which happens all the time, it's not news. COVID-19 is an unprecedented media spectacle, with unprecedented reactions from governments across the world, mob mentality is driving more and more drastic responses. It's not a foregone conclusion that these drastic responses were the right measure. Sweden has done pretty much nothing, yet their graphs don't look any worse than those of other European countries. Perhaps they're covering it all up, but perhaps all of this social distancing, all this shutdown does very little to slow the spread of this disease if just a few people go shopping once a week, if just a few people go to work and carry it home. We don't know, because we don't know how COVID-19 actually spreads. History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information. Don't forget that the price of the shutdown is a major recession, it's not a simple political decision to make. The principle of charity must be applied.

samizdis 7y ago
Hear, hear. Nicely put, too.
FartyMcFarter 7y ago
There's a vaccine for the flu. There isn't one for Covid-19. Even if it's "only as bad" as the flu, the lack of vaccines makes a huge difference.
- makomk 7y ago
  The flu vaccine does make a difference, but not a huge one - it has limited effectiveness, especially in people who are most at risk of dying or having serious side-effects.
  - rconti 7y ago
    Fair. In some years the 'effectiveness' (I have no idea how this is measured) is as low as 25%, when they 'guess wrong' as to what the prevalent strains might be. However, it can also reduce symptoms. Shorten the flu, if not eliminate it. All of these things can make a difference at the margins; make a vulnerable person merely sick instead of deadly sick. And most importantly for those vulnerable folks at the highest risk of dying, the vaccine makes them less likely to come in contact with someone who spreads the flu to them in the first place.
rconti 7y ago
>The official information coming out of China was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". >Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu". In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources. This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China. >The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information. I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well. And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better. >Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time. I seem to recall predictions of crazy R0 values for coronavirus back in early January. I, too, thought it was probably at the "overdone" side of things, again, in early January, before we had more information. But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February. And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March. And even once we spent a month ignoring the devastating consequences in Italy, much of the US hand-waved it away, and explained that they're all old people, and it could never happen here. Then once it started happening here, we started hearing from governors of southern states, explaining how it can't happen THERE because they're not Washington. Or California. And then it became "we're not New York". I'm sorry, but the level of intentional ignorance on this matter has played out over many, many months, over and over again, in precisely the same, predictable pattern. And here you are, claiming nobody could have known, and the alarmists got lucky. >History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information. Wrong.

rasz 7y ago

Boris gets his covid intel from from Dominic Cummings https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser-in-a-hurry-after-his-boss-reveals-he-has-coronavirus-11964540 https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser-in-... Author of herd immunity aka >500K dead at minimum plan spend 10 years in Russia in the nineties. Russia isnt all that fond of UK.