5 ms·

> Whether or not you agree with his approach, Anders Tegnell described the lockdown model used in most of Europe as "not sustainable," I don't think I trust th

by ardy42 6y ago

> Whether or not you agree with his approach, Anders Tegnell described the lockdown model used in most of Europe as "not sustainable," I don't think I trust the judgements of the epidemiologist responsible for Sweden's strategy. > There will always be some level of violations. Borders are more porous than people think Obviously, but those are things that can be managed. > The mental cost of lockdown is also higher than people originally thought. Maybe the mental cost of a shambolic pandemic response is also pretty high, too? > "Listen to the experts" really meant "listen to epidemiologists," but this is their first time trying this at this scale, and it ignores psychologists and economists, even though those forces are going to be major drivers of behavior. The non-outlier epidemiologists are the right experts to trust right now. If a town is about to be overtaken by the front lines of a war, you don't ask the economists about the economic cost of closing main street or the psychologists about the emotional costs of forcing people from their homes. You listen to the people who understand war and evacuate the civilian population. You don't tell people to stay put and keep their shops open while the shells fly because some economist's model predicted unemployment and reduced growth if they leave.

throwmeaway_pls 6y ago
I think you are catastrophizing. We’re talking about a mild respiratory infection in 99+% of people. Censor me if you’d like. Every day fewer people care. There is nothing you can do to change that.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > We’re talking about a mild respiratory infection in 99+% of people. It kills 1% to 3% of people that get it, and many of the others have a pretty bad time. The fact that many people can get it with only mild symptoms actually makes it worse, because it means the disease is less self-limiting, and overall more deadly. And even if you got the statistic right, it's not telling the story you seem to want it to. A car that will only start 99 days out of 100 is not a reliable car. A car that doesn't kill its passengers 99% of the time is not safe car, and may actually be one of the most dangerous cars ever made. > Censor me if you’d like. Every day fewer people care. There is nothing you can do to change that. Yep. Stupid and selfish people are a fact of life, unfortunately. That's why the law needs punishments.
  - neekleer 6y ago
    CFR is a tentative metric. IFR is finalized at the end of a pandemic, and it was always suspected it could be between 0.1% and 0.41%. The WHO estimated 750,000,000 have had the virus. Reexamine your numbers. You don't seem to understand that Fauci was made infamous for suggesting a 3.4% mortality rate. That opened the door for economic-minded people like Scott Atlas to ask for a reality check. It's incredible that you are taking the stance that the non-pharmaceutical interventions were not strict enough. Lockdowns were never a fully-vetted strategy since their interesting origins in 2006 under the Bush admin. They were likely to do untold harm because of this failing. Epidemiologists at large did not endorse any such policy. A UK official already admitted they went with the idea because they were in a panic. Consider this: you kind of sound like the dad that insists his daughter will never date because she will never be allowed to leave the house. You've outsmarted all those stupid and selfish teen boys.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > people like Scott Atlas The politically-active neuroradiologist, whose main qualification appears to be that he says what the president wants to hear? > It's incredible that you are taking the stance that the non-pharmaceutical interventions were not strict enough. Lockdowns were never a fully-vetted strategy since their interesting origins in 2006 under the Bush admin. They were likely to do untold harm because of this failing. Lockdowns actually worked in China and in other countries, and those places have had far fewer deaths per capita [1] and are also now economically in far better shape. It's a hugely embarrassing situation for the US. [1] even assuming their numbers are being massaged.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Please stop fear mongering and spreading misinformation. The overall infection fatality rate is under 1%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
    - dehrmann 6y ago
      You're pointing to the "Infection Fatality Ratio" for the "Current Best Estimate," right? 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054 So to grandparent's claim that "it kills 1% to 3%" is only true for people ~65 and older.

by ardy42 6y ago

throwmeaway_pls 6y ago

I think you are catastrophizing. We’re talking about a mild respiratory infection in 99+% of people. Censor me if you’d like. Every day fewer people care. There is nothing you can do to change that.

ardy42 6y ago
> We’re talking about a mild respiratory infection in 99+% of people. It kills 1% to 3% of people that get it, and many of the others have a pretty bad time. The fact that many people can get it with only mild symptoms actually makes it worse, because it means the disease is less self-limiting, and overall more deadly. And even if you got the statistic right, it's not telling the story you seem to want it to. A car that will only start 99 days out of 100 is not a reliable car. A car that doesn't kill its passengers 99% of the time is not safe car, and may actually be one of the most dangerous cars ever made. > Censor me if you’d like. Every day fewer people care. There is nothing you can do to change that. Yep. Stupid and selfish people are a fact of life, unfortunately. That's why the law needs punishments.
- neekleer 6y ago
  CFR is a tentative metric. IFR is finalized at the end of a pandemic, and it was always suspected it could be between 0.1% and 0.41%. The WHO estimated 750,000,000 have had the virus. Reexamine your numbers. You don't seem to understand that Fauci was made infamous for suggesting a 3.4% mortality rate. That opened the door for economic-minded people like Scott Atlas to ask for a reality check. It's incredible that you are taking the stance that the non-pharmaceutical interventions were not strict enough. Lockdowns were never a fully-vetted strategy since their interesting origins in 2006 under the Bush admin. They were likely to do untold harm because of this failing. Epidemiologists at large did not endorse any such policy. A UK official already admitted they went with the idea because they were in a panic. Consider this: you kind of sound like the dad that insists his daughter will never date because she will never be allowed to leave the house. You've outsmarted all those stupid and selfish teen boys.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > people like Scott Atlas The politically-active neuroradiologist, whose main qualification appears to be that he says what the president wants to hear? > It's incredible that you are taking the stance that the non-pharmaceutical interventions were not strict enough. Lockdowns were never a fully-vetted strategy since their interesting origins in 2006 under the Bush admin. They were likely to do untold harm because of this failing. Lockdowns actually worked in China and in other countries, and those places have had far fewer deaths per capita [1] and are also now economically in far better shape. It's a hugely embarrassing situation for the US. [1] even assuming their numbers are being massaged.
- nradov 6y ago
  Please stop fear mongering and spreading misinformation. The overall infection fatality rate is under 1%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    You're pointing to the "Infection Fatality Ratio" for the "Current Best Estimate," right? 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054 So to grandparent's claim that "it kills 1% to 3%" is only true for people ~65 and older.