3 ms·

> 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 th

by 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
rurban 6y ago
> a) reinfections The rate of reinfections is neglegible. > 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. Unscientific. In fact followup mutations in such an epidemic always mutate to less severe variants (lower IFR) with sometimes higher infection rates (higher R). Because the patient doesn't recognize it as such, and therefore it can spread more. The mutations loose critical parts all over. Damaging is the only the reemergence of the cold weather, people staying inside.

by barumi 6y ago

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

rurban 6y ago

> a) reinfections The rate of reinfections is neglegible. > 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. Unscientific. In fact followup mutations in such an epidemic always mutate to less severe variants (lower IFR) with sometimes higher infection rates (higher R). Because the patient doesn't recognize it as such, and therefore it can spread more. The mutations loose critical parts all over. Damaging is the only the reemergence of the cold weather, people staying inside.