4 ms·

Man is this article weak and bloated. It needs pages and pages to make two points: 1: Going for herd immunity has caused more infections and deaths in countri

Man is this article weak and bloated. It needs pages and pages to make two points: 1: Going for herd immunity has caused more infections and deaths in countries that tried. 2: We are not sure if once infected people will stay immune. The first point is completely nonsensical. Of course more people are infected when you allow more people to be infected. That idea of this approach is that you come out ahead in the long run. The second is a valid point.

watwut 6y ago
The first point is not completely nonsensical. The treatment methods improve over time, even if we don't have cure. People being sick later have better chance. The healthcare system overload happening or not does matter a lot too. People not being sick at the same time matter.
- TooCreative 6y ago
  Imagine they said that investing money is a bad idea. And their argument is that people who tried had less money to spend in the short term. Then I come and say "Duh! That is the point of investing.". Now you point out all the great stuff one could buy in the short term. Yes. That is the point of investing. You trade a negative effect in the short term for a positive effect in the long term. Nobody ever said it is a free lunch.
  - barumi 6y ago
    You failed to make any point about the reason why stating the fact that covid19 kills is nonsense. In fact, the way you chose to frame the consequences of allowing an epidemic to spread as "point out all the great stuff one could [do otherwise] in the short term" makes it quite clear that your point, focused on your own personal convenience alone, is absurd to begin with.
barumi 6y ago
> The first point is completely nonsensical. Of course more people are infected when you allow more people to be infected. Sadly it is not nonsense to state the fact that Sweden's approach caused more deaths than what would otherwise have happened. The reason is quite simple: some people somehow believe the opposite. There's a crackpot section of society that somehow and unexplainedly believe that lockdowns and wearing masks and any change to their personal routine causes more harm than a disease that already killed over a million patients. Then there are the inconvenient facts that: a) patients do get reinfected, b) allowing an epidemic to run wild creates conditions for it to mutate and change in unpredictable ways, including becoming more deadly and damaging than what it is right now.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > Sadly it is not nonsense to state the fact that Sweden's approach caused more deaths than what would otherwise have happened. Counterfactual unfalsifiable claptrap. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wouldn't be certain either way. > allowing an epidemic to run wild creates conditions for it to mutate and change in unpredictable ways WHO put out an estimate a couple of weeks ago that 750 million people worldwide could have been infected. And yet the IFR keeps going down. I'm gonna estimate the odds of it turning into airborne ebola at this point at 0%.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > Counterfactual unfalsifiable claptrap. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wouldn't be certain either way. I'm sad to say that your comment just reads as "I don't like that fact and it bothers me that others acknowledge it". > WHO put out an estimate a couple of weeks ago that 750 million people worldwide could have been infected. And yet the IFR keeps going down. I'm gonna estimate the odds of it turning into airborne ebola at this point at 0%. This statement is just purely ignorant and wrong. Several covid19 strains have already been identified, including a particular strain that brought changes to the virus that greatly increases their spread rate, to the point that since it's appearance it outspread and became the world's leading strain https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6
- 6y ago

watwut 6y ago

The first point is not completely nonsensical. The treatment methods improve over time, even if we don't have cure. People being sick later have better chance. The healthcare system overload happening or not does matter a lot too. People not being sick at the same time matter.

TooCreative 6y ago
Imagine they said that investing money is a bad idea. And their argument is that people who tried had less money to spend in the short term. Then I come and say "Duh! That is the point of investing.". Now you point out all the great stuff one could buy in the short term. Yes. That is the point of investing. You trade a negative effect in the short term for a positive effect in the long term. Nobody ever said it is a free lunch.
- barumi 6y ago
  You failed to make any point about the reason why stating the fact that covid19 kills is nonsense. In fact, the way you chose to frame the consequences of allowing an epidemic to spread as "point out all the great stuff one could [do otherwise] in the short term" makes it quite clear that your point, focused on your own personal convenience alone, is absurd to begin with.

barumi 6y ago

> The first point is completely nonsensical. Of course more people are infected when you allow more people to be infected. Sadly it is not nonsense to state the fact that Sweden's approach caused more deaths than what would otherwise have happened. The reason is quite simple: some people somehow believe the opposite. There's a crackpot section of society that somehow and unexplainedly believe that lockdowns and wearing masks and any change to their personal routine causes more harm than a disease that already killed over a million patients. Then there are the inconvenient facts that: a) patients do get reinfected, b) allowing an epidemic to run wild creates conditions for it to mutate and change in unpredictable ways, including becoming more deadly and damaging than what it is right now.

henrikschroder 6y ago
> Sadly it is not nonsense to state the fact that Sweden's approach caused more deaths than what would otherwise have happened. Counterfactual unfalsifiable claptrap. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wouldn't be certain either way. > allowing an epidemic to run wild creates conditions for it to mutate and change in unpredictable ways WHO put out an estimate a couple of weeks ago that 750 million people worldwide could have been infected. And yet the IFR keeps going down. I'm gonna estimate the odds of it turning into airborne ebola at this point at 0%.
- barumi 6y ago
  > Counterfactual unfalsifiable claptrap. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wouldn't be certain either way. I'm sad to say that your comment just reads as "I don't like that fact and it bothers me that others acknowledge it". > WHO put out an estimate a couple of weeks ago that 750 million people worldwide could have been infected. And yet the IFR keeps going down. I'm gonna estimate the odds of it turning into airborne ebola at this point at 0%. This statement is just purely ignorant and wrong. Several covid19 strains have already been identified, including a particular strain that brought changes to the virus that greatly increases their spread rate, to the point that since it's appearance it outspread and became the world's leading strain https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6
6y ago