4 ms·

>The USA has the highest number of deaths from Covid of any country on Earth, by far The number include people who die with covid not just due to covid. So its

by matz1 6y ago

>The USA has the highest number of deaths from Covid of any country on Earth, by far The number include people who die with covid not just due to covid. So its inflated. > How you can look at those numbers and think "yeah, but wearing a mask is, like, annoying" is beyond reason. Not just mask but also the business capacity restriction, business not allowed to open, kids not going to school in person, unemployment, bankruptcy, delayed treatment for other diseases, some suicides, some domestic violence, some horrible mental health impacts, some livelihoods destroyed, some people dying alone, some relationships ending, some relationships never starting, etc All those for the risk of covid ? Yeah very very not worth it. >there are many restrictions that we accept to make driving safer Right, but even then still many people die, and that number can be reduced by banning car altogether but the damage is not worth it. Similarly for covid, there are huge downside due to lockdown. The risk due to lockdown compared to the risk of covid ? very very not worth it. Both option is sucks but the point it to choose the less sucks among it. If for you, you think the risk is worth it and you want to isolate yourself then its fine I won't force you but the issue is if you trying to force other people to isolate too. If I can choose I would gladly choose to live in the country like Sweeden, where life pretty much normal and hardly any masks or any other country without any restriction right now.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> The number include people who die with covid not just due to covid. So its inflated. There is no significant difference between people dying WITH a systemic disease and people dying OF a systemic disease. And there is no over-reporting in the USA compared to most other countries, so the comparison still makes sense. And even if HALF the reported numbers were wrong (the reality is probably closer to 0.01% or something), it would still be a viral disease much worse than any other active in the wealthy world today. > Similarly for covid, there are huge downside due to lockdown. The risk due to lockdown compared to the risk of covid ? very very not worth it. You are acting as if the mild restrictions in place today are as extreme as banning cars. I've already pointed out that the extreme response would be state-wide, military enforced, house arrest for everyone except emergency personnel - that would be the 0 deaths alternative. Instead, in all places that actually care about public health, we have mild restrictions to control the spread of the virus. This includes Sweden by the way, which has a lockdown more or less as much as everywhere else, except it is more self-imposed since their constitution doesn't allow for a legally-enforced one. > If for you, you think the risk is worth it and you want to isolate yourself then its fine I won't force you but the issue is if you trying to force other people to isolate too. It's not about what I think. We have people specialized in assessing these risks, and they have ALL said, everywhere in the world, that we must wear masks and isolate. The risks from isolation, which are also understood and absolutely exist, DO NOT outweigh the risks of the disease. And this is not me saying it, it is doctors and policy makers everywhere in the world. Do you think the UK WANTS to close its economy? Or France or Germany or Norway? Do you think they WANT to keep their schools closed? Or is it much more believable that they have looked at the risks, they have looked at hospital capacity, and have understood, unlike you, that Covid19 is much worse than the hardships caused by lockdowns? And while there are some valid concerns about the impact of lockdowns on all sorts of problems, there is absolutely no excuse for not wearing a mask. Not doing is simply irresponsible and unhygienic, and must be strongly punished by legal and social means.
- matz1 6y ago
  >And even if HALF the reported numbers were wrong (the reality is probably closer to 0.01% or something), it would still be a viral disease much worse than any other active in the wealthy world today. It is bad but in the grand scheme of thing its not bad, at least compared to the downside of lockdown. >You are acting as if the mild restrictions in place today are as extreme as banning cars. Its an analogy, my point is about choosing the less bad option among non ideal option. you can't compare it exactly, maybe not as extreme as banning cars, but I'm comparing : A. risk of lockdown B. risk of covid A < B > they have ALL said, everywhere in the world, that we must wear masks and isolate Many dr/scientist/epidemiologist have oppose the lockdown policy https://gbdeclaration.org/ https://gbdeclaration.org/ >Do you think the UK WANTS to close its economy? Or France or Germany or Norway? Do you think they WANT to keep their schools closed? Then Don't >Or is it much more believable that they have looked at the risks, they have looked at hospital capacity, and have understood, unlike you, that Covid19 is much worse than the hardships caused by lockdowns? I can't know exactly what is their motivation is or simply failures of policy making. If they really looked at the risk then they wouldn't do lockdown. Here is an example from UK gov regarding lockdown https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925854/S0769_Summary_of_effectiveness_and_harms_of_NPIs.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... from the final paragraph "The evidence base into the effectiveness and harms of these interventions is generally weak. However, the urgency of the situation is such that we cannot wait for better quality evidence before making decisions" So basically: They don't have any idea but lets just give it a go.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > Many dr/scientist/epidemiologist have oppose the lockdown policy https://gbdeclaration.org/ https://gbdeclaration.org/ You've found a fringe group sponsored by an American right-wing think tank, the kind who would sell their grandma for parts if they thought it would increase profits. The letter proposes a ludicrous plan, that all serious epidemiologists [who are not sold out] oppose: > The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis. They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions, and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood. Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way." You also bizarrely claim: > I can't know exactly what is their motivation is or simply failures of policy making. If they really looked at the risk then they wouldn't do lockdown. When in fact, again, all public health experts agree that lockdowns, masks and social distancing are crucial to avoid an even larger tragedy than today. > So basically: They don't have any idea but lets just give it a go. No, they recognize the limits of current knowledge and propose ways to improve it and make sure the decisions are also measured and held to account. But there is no option to just wait - they've actually tried that initially, with disastrous consequences (it's one of the reasons why the UK is one of the worse hit countries). The rest of the document does detail exactly the current knowledge and risk estimates and effectiveness estimates that they've based their decision on. Perhaps the key phrase is actually here: > Population vs individual-level impactsSome of the interventions here can have a significant impact on the individuals who are affected, but a relatively minor effect at the population level as they are comparativelyrare. Whilst we have tried to maintain a population-level approach (e.g. evidenced through our use of the population indicatorR) the weaker, anecdotal or theoretical arguments on the evidence for harms is often at the individual-level. Adding up these individual potential harms is more difficult. The model provided by ONS does attempt to do this, though as with all models there are limitations to its scope and accuracy. Please stop advocating against measures that save hundreds of thousands of lives. Neither you nor I are epidemiological or public health experts, so let's stop pretending we know better than the experts. As citizens of democratic countries, our place is NOT to question experts recommendations and risk estimates - it is only to decide whether we care more about saving human lives or economic health, and I think in most countries, for the majority of people, the answer is clear.

by matz1 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

> The number include people who die with covid not just due to covid. So its inflated. There is no significant difference between people dying WITH a systemic disease and people dying OF a systemic disease. And there is no over-reporting in the USA compared to most other countries, so the comparison still makes sense. And even if HALF the reported numbers were wrong (the reality is probably closer to 0.01% or something), it would still be a viral disease much worse than any other active in the wealthy world today. > Similarly for covid, there are huge downside due to lockdown. The risk due to lockdown compared to the risk of covid ? very very not worth it. You are acting as if the mild restrictions in place today are as extreme as banning cars. I've already pointed out that the extreme response would be state-wide, military enforced, house arrest for everyone except emergency personnel - that would be the 0 deaths alternative. Instead, in all places that actually care about public health, we have mild restrictions to control the spread of the virus. This includes Sweden by the way, which has a lockdown more or less as much as everywhere else, except it is more self-imposed since their constitution doesn't allow for a legally-enforced one. > If for you, you think the risk is worth it and you want to isolate yourself then its fine I won't force you but the issue is if you trying to force other people to isolate too. It's not about what I think. We have people specialized in assessing these risks, and they have ALL said, everywhere in the world, that we must wear masks and isolate. The risks from isolation, which are also understood and absolutely exist, DO NOT outweigh the risks of the disease. And this is not me saying it, it is doctors and policy makers everywhere in the world. Do you think the UK WANTS to close its economy? Or France or Germany or Norway? Do you think they WANT to keep their schools closed? Or is it much more believable that they have looked at the risks, they have looked at hospital capacity, and have understood, unlike you, that Covid19 is much worse than the hardships caused by lockdowns? And while there are some valid concerns about the impact of lockdowns on all sorts of problems, there is absolutely no excuse for not wearing a mask. Not doing is simply irresponsible and unhygienic, and must be strongly punished by legal and social means.

matz1 6y ago
>And even if HALF the reported numbers were wrong (the reality is probably closer to 0.01% or something), it would still be a viral disease much worse than any other active in the wealthy world today. It is bad but in the grand scheme of thing its not bad, at least compared to the downside of lockdown. >You are acting as if the mild restrictions in place today are as extreme as banning cars. Its an analogy, my point is about choosing the less bad option among non ideal option. you can't compare it exactly, maybe not as extreme as banning cars, but I'm comparing : A. risk of lockdown B. risk of covid A < B > they have ALL said, everywhere in the world, that we must wear masks and isolate Many dr/scientist/epidemiologist have oppose the lockdown policy https://gbdeclaration.org/ https://gbdeclaration.org/ >Do you think the UK WANTS to close its economy? Or France or Germany or Norway? Do you think they WANT to keep their schools closed? Then Don't >Or is it much more believable that they have looked at the risks, they have looked at hospital capacity, and have understood, unlike you, that Covid19 is much worse than the hardships caused by lockdowns? I can't know exactly what is their motivation is or simply failures of policy making. If they really looked at the risk then they wouldn't do lockdown. Here is an example from UK gov regarding lockdown https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925854/S0769_Summary_of_effectiveness_and_harms_of_NPIs.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... from the final paragraph "The evidence base into the effectiveness and harms of these interventions is generally weak. However, the urgency of the situation is such that we cannot wait for better quality evidence before making decisions" So basically: They don't have any idea but lets just give it a go.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > Many dr/scientist/epidemiologist have oppose the lockdown policy https://gbdeclaration.org/ https://gbdeclaration.org/ You've found a fringe group sponsored by an American right-wing think tank, the kind who would sell their grandma for parts if they thought it would increase profits. The letter proposes a ludicrous plan, that all serious epidemiologists [who are not sold out] oppose: > The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis. They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions, and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood. Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way." You also bizarrely claim: > I can't know exactly what is their motivation is or simply failures of policy making. If they really looked at the risk then they wouldn't do lockdown. When in fact, again, all public health experts agree that lockdowns, masks and social distancing are crucial to avoid an even larger tragedy than today. > So basically: They don't have any idea but lets just give it a go. No, they recognize the limits of current knowledge and propose ways to improve it and make sure the decisions are also measured and held to account. But there is no option to just wait - they've actually tried that initially, with disastrous consequences (it's one of the reasons why the UK is one of the worse hit countries). The rest of the document does detail exactly the current knowledge and risk estimates and effectiveness estimates that they've based their decision on. Perhaps the key phrase is actually here: > Population vs individual-level impactsSome of the interventions here can have a significant impact on the individuals who are affected, but a relatively minor effect at the population level as they are comparativelyrare. Whilst we have tried to maintain a population-level approach (e.g. evidenced through our use of the population indicatorR) the weaker, anecdotal or theoretical arguments on the evidence for harms is often at the individual-level. Adding up these individual potential harms is more difficult. The model provided by ONS does attempt to do this, though as with all models there are limitations to its scope and accuracy. Please stop advocating against measures that save hundreds of thousands of lives. Neither you nor I are epidemiological or public health experts, so let's stop pretending we know better than the experts. As citizens of democratic countries, our place is NOT to question experts recommendations and risk estimates - it is only to decide whether we care more about saving human lives or economic health, and I think in most countries, for the majority of people, the answer is clear.