3 ms·

> I cannot for the life of me fathom why the impending death of 60,000 fellow citizens, and 600,000 disabled with chronic illness wouldn't convince someone that

> I cannot for the life of me fathom why the impending death of 60,000 fellow citizens, and 600,000 disabled with chronic illness wouldn't convince someone that a vaccine is needed ASAP. I deliberately wrote that a _rushed_ vaccine is not needed. All the side effects need to be carefully considered. Even some vaccines that weren't necessarily rushed proved to have really horrible side effects when deployed to the population at scale. I'm simply saying Stockholm is probably approaching 50% immunity soon (T-cell + antibody). If you isolate the outlier event that is the very poor treatment at the elderly homes at the start of the outbreak, causing a huge part of our deaths numbers, you get a completely different picture.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
It’s not clear you get permanent COVID immunity, just like you don’t get lifelong flu immunity. The Swedish gamble may become a cycle of unneeded deaths. And people gave you solid evidence that Sewdish numbers are not the result of early elderly outlier events. You should stop claiming that in so many posts when it seems untrue.
- anoncake 6y ago
  If there is no permanent COVID immunity, a vaccine won't give it to you either and we might as well stop delaying the inevitable now.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    That’s just nuts. Just like people get flu shots every year to prevent widespread outbreaks, a Covid vaccine that gives temp immunity would save millions of lives. Why do you think there’s such a big deal about people getting annual flu vaccine shots, especially the most vulnerable?
    - anoncake 6y ago
      There are 7.8 billion people on Earth. A vaccine that saves a few million isn't worth making billions put their lives on hold plus all the collateral damage that causes.
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        Pandemics of this size in the past destroyed economies as people decided to hide, so you're going to get that damage no matter what. By getting it under control, the damage is minimized as many countries that followed best practices has shown. Those countries that tried to do what you suggest are the ones with the longest economic downturns. You should read about pandemics of the past. And as very solid evidence from experts, the famous IGM economists poll of most of the world's top economists covered this exact question [1], which I'll repeat: "Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk" 100% of them selected Strongly Agree (41%) or Agree (39%) or Uncertain (14%), not a single vote on any part of the Disagree spectrum, which is nearly unheard of for a question in economics, and these responses were also rated highly confident. Check other questions and polls to see how rare this strong of a response is. Shortsighted action ignorant of the history of economics almost always makes things worse. Have a good day. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-cr...
        anoncake 6y ago
        Not everything is about the economy.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

It’s not clear you get permanent COVID immunity, just like you don’t get lifelong flu immunity. The Swedish gamble may become a cycle of unneeded deaths. And people gave you solid evidence that Sewdish numbers are not the result of early elderly outlier events. You should stop claiming that in so many posts when it seems untrue.

anoncake 6y ago
If there is no permanent COVID immunity, a vaccine won't give it to you either and we might as well stop delaying the inevitable now.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  That’s just nuts. Just like people get flu shots every year to prevent widespread outbreaks, a Covid vaccine that gives temp immunity would save millions of lives. Why do you think there’s such a big deal about people getting annual flu vaccine shots, especially the most vulnerable?
  - anoncake 6y ago
    There are 7.8 billion people on Earth. A vaccine that saves a few million isn't worth making billions put their lives on hold plus all the collateral damage that causes.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      Pandemics of this size in the past destroyed economies as people decided to hide, so you're going to get that damage no matter what. By getting it under control, the damage is minimized as many countries that followed best practices has shown. Those countries that tried to do what you suggest are the ones with the longest economic downturns. You should read about pandemics of the past. And as very solid evidence from experts, the famous IGM economists poll of most of the world's top economists covered this exact question [1], which I'll repeat: "Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk" 100% of them selected Strongly Agree (41%) or Agree (39%) or Uncertain (14%), not a single vote on any part of the Disagree spectrum, which is nearly unheard of for a question in economics, and these responses were also rated highly confident. Check other questions and polls to see how rare this strong of a response is. Shortsighted action ignorant of the history of economics almost always makes things worse. Have a good day. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/ http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-cr...
      - anoncake 6y ago
        Not everything is about the economy.