4 ms·

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of that is accurate. You sincerely did not notice the 180 degrees turn in the narrative regarding the pandemic, at

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of that is accurate. You sincerely did not notice the 180 degrees turn in the narrative regarding the pandemic, at the beginning and again after the election? However, my point was that the lifting of the strict measures did not lead to the collapse of the healthcare system, which was the justification of the initial measures. Consider also that the local healthcare system has been only a vague shadow of the advanced state of those in more "developed" countries. In a way, what the locals may call a "social experiment", might be one of the few existing empirical test cases for what really happens when measures are (all but) lifted. Arguably it might also be true (although I think to a lesser degree) for some other countries in the region. With what I know first hand, the virus certainly was not eradicated or conquered before or during the election. But the political response/dealings with that is a whole different discussion, and not one I want to have here.

acqq 6y ago
Of course the virus was not "eradicated" had it been the number of new cases would be simply zero. I see that only in Asian countries. The virus however doesn't have to be "eradicated", it's enough to reduce the number of infected people to bring the country to the less dangerous state: we see that happened in most of the European countries, and it happened there too. So after reaching that state, which can be imagined as a "reset", the virus starts to spread more actively again once the measures are lifted, and of course there is a period where nothing "big" is visible. But that is also what we have seen in many European countries at the start of epidemics: the exponential curve has a phase where the number of cases is very low. Only later it gets to be much worse, fast.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  That is a nice plausible theory indeed. In fact, it is one that is quite popular among certain people here too. Only one small snag: I can ensure you, from the info I got first hand from people working inside the healthcare system (on several levels, high enough to see the bigger picture, and also low enough to be confronted with the actual facts and real numbers), that this reset you speak of ... it certainly never took place here.
  - acqq 6y ago
    I don‘t believe you. There‘s no country where the number of cases and deaths didn‘t go down after a strong lockdown. It worked even across the USA in spite of the president demotivating people to do the measures. The lockdowns work. You‘d have to somehow prove your claim for me to believe you.
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      I don't think you even understand me a little. I'm not here to debate you (or anyone). I will point it out, when people respond with something that is either incorrect or not applicable, but more out of courtesy than to convince anyone. It's just because they might not know the relevant local situation as I do. But, I sincerely don't care whether I convince you or not. Your mistakes and ignorance are your own responsibility; your funeral. I don't have to show or prove you anything. I did not say that lockdowns don't work. They certainly did have (some) effect here. On the other hand, the virus did spreading either way, even with some of the most draconian measures taken anywhere. Those were new infections, for months. That in itself might at least suggest that you require extremely disproportionate measures (causing all kinds of damage) to really influence/contain the spread this way. That is, (especially) if you essentially don't test anyone. However, that's a whole different discussion/topic. What I originally pointed out is that it was odd to see how, when all measures were lifted (for whatever the reason), none of the earlier predicted doom scenarios happened. Which should cause at least pause and wonder (or reassessment) whether those predictions/assumptions are actually accurate in the first place. You can throw back in a theory, which wasn't applicable in this particular situation, which I can tell from the details/facts I personally know. Then you can throw a tantrum/fit, while claiming to know some unquestionably truthful/factual, and argue that therefore I must be wrong. Well, maybe your own beliefs are still the actual wrong part here. Mind you, I don't give a shit about any political side or beliefs. Nor was I really bothered with any of the measures (not even the draconian ones, although they should be useful and not just a political tool). However, my big gripe is with people that take what ultimately still are estimations and predictive risk assessments (which in themselves are perfectly okay and reasonable, as long as they get updated with new insights and understandings), and start presenting them as canonical gospel that can not be questioned and should be religiously defended. There should be no place for dogma like that in science (or anywhere, for that matter).

acqq 6y ago

Of course the virus was not "eradicated" had it been the number of new cases would be simply zero. I see that only in Asian countries. The virus however doesn't have to be "eradicated", it's enough to reduce the number of infected people to bring the country to the less dangerous state: we see that happened in most of the European countries, and it happened there too. So after reaching that state, which can be imagined as a "reset", the virus starts to spread more actively again once the measures are lifted, and of course there is a period where nothing "big" is visible. But that is also what we have seen in many European countries at the start of epidemics: the exponential curve has a phase where the number of cases is very low. Only later it gets to be much worse, fast.

elmo2you 6y ago
That is a nice plausible theory indeed. In fact, it is one that is quite popular among certain people here too. Only one small snag: I can ensure you, from the info I got first hand from people working inside the healthcare system (on several levels, high enough to see the bigger picture, and also low enough to be confronted with the actual facts and real numbers), that this reset you speak of ... it certainly never took place here.
- acqq 6y ago
  I don‘t believe you. There‘s no country where the number of cases and deaths didn‘t go down after a strong lockdown. It worked even across the USA in spite of the president demotivating people to do the measures. The lockdowns work. You‘d have to somehow prove your claim for me to believe you.
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    I don't think you even understand me a little. I'm not here to debate you (or anyone). I will point it out, when people respond with something that is either incorrect or not applicable, but more out of courtesy than to convince anyone. It's just because they might not know the relevant local situation as I do. But, I sincerely don't care whether I convince you or not. Your mistakes and ignorance are your own responsibility; your funeral. I don't have to show or prove you anything. I did not say that lockdowns don't work. They certainly did have (some) effect here. On the other hand, the virus did spreading either way, even with some of the most draconian measures taken anywhere. Those were new infections, for months. That in itself might at least suggest that you require extremely disproportionate measures (causing all kinds of damage) to really influence/contain the spread this way. That is, (especially) if you essentially don't test anyone. However, that's a whole different discussion/topic. What I originally pointed out is that it was odd to see how, when all measures were lifted (for whatever the reason), none of the earlier predicted doom scenarios happened. Which should cause at least pause and wonder (or reassessment) whether those predictions/assumptions are actually accurate in the first place. You can throw back in a theory, which wasn't applicable in this particular situation, which I can tell from the details/facts I personally know. Then you can throw a tantrum/fit, while claiming to know some unquestionably truthful/factual, and argue that therefore I must be wrong. Well, maybe your own beliefs are still the actual wrong part here. Mind you, I don't give a shit about any political side or beliefs. Nor was I really bothered with any of the measures (not even the draconian ones, although they should be useful and not just a political tool). However, my big gripe is with people that take what ultimately still are estimations and predictive risk assessments (which in themselves are perfectly okay and reasonable, as long as they get updated with new insights and understandings), and start presenting them as canonical gospel that can not be questioned and should be religiously defended. There should be no place for dogma like that in science (or anywhere, for that matter).