4 ms·

>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 th

by 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.
- matz1 6y ago
  If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. >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. If that the case then you don't need lockdown measure. If you need lockdown measure then its shows that majority of people don't want lockdown. >Most multinational companies were in fact ahead of government lockdowns, Like I said if you want to lockdown yourself I'm fine with it, similarly if private company want implement lockdown measure themselves its fine, the issue is you are forcing other people to lockdown.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. No, it is biased towards moneyed interests, who want the low level workforce to work, human life be damned. It is obvious that a right-wing institute that also advocates against climate change can't be trusted to produce objective data, especially not in a propaganda lettet. If you want an unbiased opinion you need to look at the WHO, NHS, and similar institutions, which are all in agreement on the actual science and policy recommendations. Opinion pieces like that letter are simple propaganda. And while the majority of the population will lockdown anyway, especially if they are presented with the actual data, not propaganda about how the disease is not that bad, there are enough fringe groups who refuse that a law and explicit enforcement are necessary.

by matz1 6y ago

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.

matz1 6y ago
If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. >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. If that the case then you don't need lockdown measure. If you need lockdown measure then its shows that majority of people don't want lockdown. >Most multinational companies were in fact ahead of government lockdowns, Like I said if you want to lockdown yourself I'm fine with it, similarly if private company want implement lockdown measure themselves its fine, the issue is you are forcing other people to lockdown.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > If you think that is biased then yes it is biased towards the goal of achieving the best less harm outcome. No, it is biased towards moneyed interests, who want the low level workforce to work, human life be damned. It is obvious that a right-wing institute that also advocates against climate change can't be trusted to produce objective data, especially not in a propaganda lettet. If you want an unbiased opinion you need to look at the WHO, NHS, and similar institutions, which are all in agreement on the actual science and policy recommendations. Opinion pieces like that letter are simple propaganda. And while the majority of the population will lockdown anyway, especially if they are presented with the actual data, not propaganda about how the disease is not that bad, there are enough fringe groups who refuse that a law and explicit enforcement are necessary.