13 ms·

(1) Is generic and not entirely true. Long term effects are indeed present but only in those genetically predisposed. Doesn't apply to the majority. (2) Actual

(1) Is generic and not entirely true. Long term effects are indeed present but only in those genetically predisposed. Doesn't apply to the majority. (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. They only have 4 beds with respirators and almost never had more than 2-3 people at a time there. The city is being locked down the second time because we have 5 infected in 20k. We also had in the region of 20 (real) COVID deaths since March. All over 80. There is no complete picture as all hospitals and clinics have a financial incentive to declare COVID deaths as opposed to anything else. Some do keep internal unofficial stats but even those are rare.

airstrike 6y ago
> (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else"
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It's about as valid an argument as appealing to the pictures of "overwhelmed hospitals". Yes, we've all seen those pictures. We've also seen pictures of empty emergency care units that were created in anticipation of a wave of illnesses that didn't materialize. In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. That may change as we move into the second winter season, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Of course, but you need a significant amount of hospitals to be overwhelmed to cause significant excess death. Remember, we're trying to minimize excess death of all causes, not just COVID-19. > Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that. Sure, but that insight doesn't really help. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Given that neither Brazil nor Sweden had a lockdown and given that neither of their healthcare systems collapsed as some models predicted, my guess would be that a lockdown isn't necessary to prevent such a collapse.
      - bonzini 6y ago
        Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sweden could be a special case, but Brazil literally had 0.1% of its population wiped out. In Manaus there were five time as many excess deaths as confirmed COVID deaths. If that's not healthcare collapsing I don't know what it is.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        > Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sure, you may have very high excess death in a few areas, but unless you think people from New York are somehow more important than everyone else, all excess deaths must be weighted equally. Remember, we're trying to optimize for all-cause mortality across the entire country. > Sweden could be a special case, but Brazil literally had 0.1% of its population wiped out. Every year, Brazil loses 0.65% of its population to all-cause mortality. COVID-Mortality in Brazil may be high, but it is pretty much on par with Chile, which has had a severe lockdown. > In Manaus there were five time as many excess deaths as confirmed COVID deaths. If that's not healthcare collapsing I don't know what it is. Yes, for a brief period, hospitals in certain cities did indeed get overwhelmed. That's very visible. What isn't visible is people that would suffer and die in the next years because their livelihoods were destroyed because of a lockdown of questionable efficacy. In Chile, you have starving protestors clashing with the police. In Brazil, approval for Bolsonaro is at the highest since his presidency started. Put two and two together.
- White_Wolf 6y ago
  If I were to use the "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else" logic I would say something sily like: - "We tested positive(including at blood tests for the exact strain) and none of us had any simptoms so nobody is dead or even sick. It's all a lie."
jariel 6y ago
2 is obviously a real concern, where the cases spiked the hospitals ran into serious trouble - and they will spike if left unchecked. Also, consider that they have to mostly shut down the rest of the hospital due to staffing issues - but also the highly infectious nature of COVID. Left unchecked, every hospital will hit their limits quickly. That'a a distinguishing characteristic of this one. Edit: here is what the curve looks like without suppression measures in place. In NYC they came essentially to capacity very quickly. Imagine if that curve had of kept going, it would have been very bad. It's the same R0 everywhere, the 'effective R' will come down to the difference being the age and relative health of the population, and of course other suppressive measures being taken. [1] https://forward.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary-region https://forward.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary-region [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

airstrike 6y ago

> (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else"

gridlockd 6y ago
It's about as valid an argument as appealing to the pictures of "overwhelmed hospitals". Yes, we've all seen those pictures. We've also seen pictures of empty emergency care units that were created in anticipation of a wave of illnesses that didn't materialize. In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. That may change as we move into the second winter season, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Of course, but you need a significant amount of hospitals to be overwhelmed to cause significant excess death. Remember, we're trying to minimize excess death of all causes, not just COVID-19. > Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that. Sure, but that insight doesn't really help. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Given that neither Brazil nor Sweden had a lockdown and given that neither of their healthcare systems collapsed as some models predicted, my guess would be that a lockdown isn't necessary to prevent such a collapse.
    - bonzini 6y ago
      Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sweden could be a special case, but Brazil literally had 0.1% of its population wiped out. In Manaus there were five time as many excess deaths as confirmed COVID deaths. If that's not healthcare collapsing I don't know what it is.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        > Excess death in places where hospitals were overwhelmed (Lombardy, NYC, Madrid) was so many standard deviations above normal values that I am not even sure how we can be having this discussion. Sure, you may have very high excess death in a few areas, but unless you think people from New York are somehow more important than everyone else, all excess deaths must be weighted equally. Remember, we're trying to optimize for all-cause mortality across the entire country. > Sweden could be a special case, but Brazil literally had 0.1% of its population wiped out. Every year, Brazil loses 0.65% of its population to all-cause mortality. COVID-Mortality in Brazil may be high, but it is pretty much on par with Chile, which has had a severe lockdown. > In Manaus there were five time as many excess deaths as confirmed COVID deaths. If that's not healthcare collapsing I don't know what it is. Yes, for a brief period, hospitals in certain cities did indeed get overwhelmed. That's very visible. What isn't visible is people that would suffer and die in the next years because their livelihoods were destroyed because of a lockdown of questionable efficacy. In Chile, you have starving protestors clashing with the police. In Brazil, approval for Bolsonaro is at the highest since his presidency started. Put two and two together.
White_Wolf 6y ago
If I were to use the "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else" logic I would say something sily like: - "We tested positive(including at blood tests for the exact strain) and none of us had any simptoms so nobody is dead or even sick. It's all a lie."

jariel 6y ago

2 is obviously a real concern, where the cases spiked the hospitals ran into serious trouble - and they will spike if left unchecked. Also, consider that they have to mostly shut down the rest of the hospital due to staffing issues - but also the highly infectious nature of COVID. Left unchecked, every hospital will hit their limits quickly. That'a a distinguishing characteristic of this one. Edit: here is what the curve looks like without suppression measures in place. In NYC they came essentially to capacity very quickly. Imagine if that curve had of kept going, it would have been very bad. It's the same R0 everywhere, the 'effective R' will come down to the difference being the age and relative health of the population, and of course other suppressive measures being taken. [1] https://forward.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary-region https://forward.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary-region [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page