7 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. The official

> 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.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources. A high death rate in the beginning isn't meaningful. Early on during the Swine Flu, mortality was estimated at 0.5%[1], later estimates were ten times lower[2]. This was described as the "tip of the iceberg" phenomenon in a Q&A on a Harvard website[3] as late as early March. That section was later removed. As for "uncontrolled spread", we've all seen footage of masses of people storming the hospitals in an entirely unsanitary manner, we've seen people getting dragged off the streets, for the crime of having an elevated temperature, then getting force-quarantined in open halls with no regards to safety. If this was an overwhelmed healthcare system, it wasn't clear that the blame could be put on the virus. > This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China. It wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20. In mid-January there were less than 500 confirmed cases and no good estimate on the number of unconfirmed cases. Less than thirty people had died, over the course of two months in which likely a comparable number of people in Wuhan died from Influenza, but didn't make the news. > I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well. They were the alarmists at the time and will forever have been so. Some of their predictions may have turned out correct, others may yet turn out correct, others may turn out incorrect. The Swine Flu, as predicted, could have killed 120 million people[4], but then it didn't, even without any shutdowns. > And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better. Of course their information wasn't any better. Everyone had access to the same information. The difference is in its interpretation, not so much based on luck but personal disposition. Again, not all virologists made the same dire predictions. > 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. Yes, you saw predictions of crazy R0 values that you yourself weren't ready to believe. At the time it wasn't solid information, and it never will have been. > But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February. By mid-February, less than 2000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19, compared to at least 10,000 deaths from Influenza in the US alone. I'm not saying the "flu comparison" is a valid comparison, but at that point in time, it was still allowed to be made, even by experts. > And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March. Neither did most European countries. Even in Italy, there was no nation-wide shutdown until March 9th. > Wrong. Wrong how? Your comment is a good example of an inaccurate historical account, as written by those who ended up on "the right side". [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/ [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/as-coronavirus-spreads-many-questions-and-some-answers-2020022719004 https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.healt... [4] https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-120m-57725/ https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-12...
Freestyler_3 7y ago
We have retirement home with over 50% dead at the moment. They ignored many of the precautions. If the flu did that, I would be much more scared of the flu. If you look at the Chinese action jan-feb then you already know enough. A lot of people knew that, but they rather look at the data that china provides. example: If you see 100 purple cars in a picture, but china data says only 10 purple cars, and they are all old cars. I think this was mostly caused because we have economical leaders: economy, numbers, and studies before action.

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.

gridlockd 7y ago
> In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources. A high death rate in the beginning isn't meaningful. Early on during the Swine Flu, mortality was estimated at 0.5%[1], later estimates were ten times lower[2]. This was described as the "tip of the iceberg" phenomenon in a Q&A on a Harvard website[3] as late as early March. That section was later removed. As for "uncontrolled spread", we've all seen footage of masses of people storming the hospitals in an entirely unsanitary manner, we've seen people getting dragged off the streets, for the crime of having an elevated temperature, then getting force-quarantined in open halls with no regards to safety. If this was an overwhelmed healthcare system, it wasn't clear that the blame could be put on the virus. > This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China. It wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20. In mid-January there were less than 500 confirmed cases and no good estimate on the number of unconfirmed cases. Less than thirty people had died, over the course of two months in which likely a comparable number of people in Wuhan died from Influenza, but didn't make the news. > I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well. They were the alarmists at the time and will forever have been so. Some of their predictions may have turned out correct, others may yet turn out correct, others may turn out incorrect. The Swine Flu, as predicted, could have killed 120 million people[4], but then it didn't, even without any shutdowns. > And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better. Of course their information wasn't any better. Everyone had access to the same information. The difference is in its interpretation, not so much based on luck but personal disposition. Again, not all virologists made the same dire predictions. > 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. Yes, you saw predictions of crazy R0 values that you yourself weren't ready to believe. At the time it wasn't solid information, and it never will have been. > But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February. By mid-February, less than 2000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19, compared to at least 10,000 deaths from Influenza in the US alone. I'm not saying the "flu comparison" is a valid comparison, but at that point in time, it was still allowed to be made, even by experts. > And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March. Neither did most European countries. Even in Italy, there was no nation-wide shutdown until March 9th. > Wrong. Wrong how? Your comment is a good example of an inaccurate historical account, as written by those who ended up on "the right side". [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/ [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/as-coronavirus-spreads-many-questions-and-some-answers-2020022719004 https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.healt... [4] https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-120m-57725/ https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-12...

Freestyler_3 7y ago

We have retirement home with over 50% dead at the moment. They ignored many of the precautions. If the flu did that, I would be much more scared of the flu. If you look at the Chinese action jan-feb then you already know enough. A lot of people knew that, but they rather look at the data that china provides. example: If you see 100 purple cars in a picture, but china data says only 10 purple cars, and they are all old cars. I think this was mostly caused because we have economical leaders: economy, numbers, and studies before action.