3 ms·

>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

• 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.
  • matz1 6y ago
    >You've found a fringe group sponsored by an American right-wing think tank So you just dismiss many of epidemiological or public health experts and accused them selling out. >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. Not all public health experts agree, as I just show you the site. Currently it has signature from 11976 medical and public health scientist, 34570 medical practitioners. > 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. They says it difficult to measure harm, and they didn't even attempt to do so. They says Weaker evidence for harms as it's on the individual level. This paragraph pretty much sums up the dismal science of infectious disease epidemiology. It is massively focused only on a few metrics, puts them all into unchallengeable, un-falsifiable models and then dismisses negative impacts as not being "population level". So basically, Sure the restrictions we advised resulted in SOME suicides, SOME domestic violence, SOME horrible mental health impacts, SOME livelihoods destroyed, SOME people dying alone, SOME relationships ending, SOME relationships never starting, SOME educations missed, SOME rights violated, SOME protests quashed etc etc. But none of these issues in isolation was ever as significantly significant as our modelled, unfalsifiable, and tightly qualified impact of ALL of these restrictions on R. Please stop advocating against measures that harm hundreds of thousands of live. Many epidemiological or public health experts oppose the lockdown policy. >As citizens of democratic countries, our place is NOT to question experts recommendations and risk estimates So you only agree the experts that fit your view. Yes, I care more about saving human lives thats why I oppose this lockdown policy. You can't just dismiss economic health. Its closely connected to human lives.
    • tsimionescu 6y ago
      > So you just dismiss many of epidemiological or public health experts and accused them selling out. Yes, there is no reason to listen to propaganda funded by obviously biased sources, when unbiased sources like the WHO and all major national health agencies say otherwise. > So you only agree the experts that fit your view. I agree with unbiased experts, not experts who participate in privately funded propaganda. Show me a national health agency which opposes lockdowns and I'll listen (though there are many more that do). The only one I know of is Sweden's, and there (1) a lockdown would be unconstitutional anyway, and (2) people have voluntarily locked down just as much if not more than in surrounding countries. This is an important aspect you're completely missing: the majority of the population understands the huge risks posed by this virus, and will lockdown anyway. The majority of people don't want to go to work in crowded places, they don't want to go to restaurants, they don't want to spread disease among their employees. Most multinational companies were in fact ahead of government lockdowns, as they also did simple math: lost productivity from employees working from home or in shifts < lost productivity from employees sick or dead or permanently impaired from a disease, at least for employees who are not easily replaceable. So most if not all big companies started observing a lockdown as much as they could in February, regardless of any local regulations.