6 ms·

Had a quick look at your comment history on this topic, at this point if you are still in denial about the basic nature of COVID-19 and how wrong you have been

Had a quick look at your comment history on this topic, at this point if you are still in denial about the basic nature of COVID-19 and how wrong you have been then I guess I have a pretty good idea how worried to be about accusations of being disingenuous!

salmon30salmon 6y ago
My opinions have changed. I think that the t-cell immunity buzz we had in the Summer is not as impactful as I first thought, though it still has an impact. I have always thought that COVID-19 is a dangerous infection, especially to the elderly. Actually let me list what I think, since you seem interested enough in my opinion to spelunk my comment history: - COVID-19 is a dangerous infection. The degree of risk and severity is directly correlated to age. - For those below ~30 years old, the infection is between as to much less dangerous than some strains of influenza. - Between 30-60, the infection is appreciably more dangerous than the flu, but not severely so - Over 60 the infection is far more dangerous than the flu, and extreme precautions are warranted - The projections of disease modelers were incredibly off the mark early on, by orders of magnitude. The models are better today. - The fatality rate was grossly overestimated. Early in the pandemic, we had numbers around 1-3% IFR (not CFR). This was also off by an order of magnitude. Real IFR will end up around .3-.5%. Deadly than the flu, but again with the burden on older people - Most public health measures we are deploying were created for pandemic influenza. They do not necessarily apply in the same ways to pandemic coronaviruses. - Masks clearly work to reduce the spread of infections. Not mandating masks is a terrible idea, and governments who have avoided it thus far will be judged harshly - Influenza has around a 15-20% asymptomatic rate. Coronavirus has twice that. This causes huge problems for contact tracing though it is clearly not impossible - We over-focused on surface spread and panicked people into disinfecting everything, while ignoring aerosol spread - We over-focused on spread between strangers and in public, and downplayed the real risk, which is spread within families and those who live in close quarters - This alone caused imbalanced risk assessments for people. Eating at a restaurant with proper distancing and ventilation IS safer than having an indoor neighborhood block party without masks. - Lockdowns require an exit strategy that is something beyond "more lockdowns". - Lockdowns are a great public health strategy if they are incredibly short lived and adhered to - It was clear in March that the only way out of the pandemic was immunity, be it natural or vaccine enhanced. Lockdowns should have been thrown out the window at that time - The goal posts were constantly moved from curve flattening to deaths to raw case counts - Metrics for reopening should have been clear from the start and based entirely upon hospital capacity - Ignoring the impacts of the lockdown is close-minded thinking that has and will continue to cost lives - Essentially, we knew by April at the latest that eradication was no longer a possibility, and that we should have switched from eradication to mitigation - Mitigation would include targeted restrictions based upon age risk - Mitigation also requires acceptance that cases will increase and deaths will occur, but the goal is to reduce those, we can't aim for elimination. The cost is too great and the odds are too low - Public health officials shot themselves in the foot several times throughout the pandemic - While I understand why masks were downplayed originally, that was a terrible mistake. Saying "masks work, but we need them for our medical heroes" or some shit would have been better - Maybe that would have made masks "cool" instead of a political signaling tool (again, I 100% support mask mandates) - Outside spread was confused by the support of the civil rights protests in the Spring. We knew then and continue to know that outside spread is very unlikely and that the protests were safe. But at the same time we were shaming people at the beach. Both were safe, and to declare one safer than the other based upon the ontology of the events was a terrible mistake - The media spread fear and panic before it was warranted. Constant updates on death counts outside of context was a dangerous game. - Related, most locations locked down too early. Locking down prior to community spread is a waste of resources and good will. - As said above, lockdowns needs to be applied carefully. Too soon and you blow all good will as time goes on. Too late and you may make it worse by forcing people indoors - Locking down before community spread exists had the effect of costing states and people millions up millions of dollars with little helpful impact - The pandemic became a political tool for the left and the right, both wielding it to the extremes. The left was virtually arguing that this was apocalyptic, the right was saying it was the flu. Both are clearly wrong, and the extremism caused public trust to tank as both arguments were easily falsifiable. Once this occurred, early in March, we lost any chance of actually combating the virus in a smart, sustainable way. Again, anyone who was paying attention would have known that the lockdown strategy would need to extend until there is a vaccine. Nothing would materially change month to month as the lockdowns dragged on. The "just two more weeks" crowd caused a ton of fatigue in people who were earnestly wanting to help stop the pandemic. We needed leadership from the beginning explaining the tradeoffs. Explaining that lockdowns would need to continue intermittently until there was a vaccine. We needed honest leaders telling us clearly that lockdowns do not protect you forever, and once the lockdown ends you are as vulnerable as ever. Both of those mistakes led to people, again, distrusting the public health officials. We were told we needed to lockdown to stop the spread, and we did so. And then people kept getting sick and dying. Because it was sold as a panacea to the pandemic, when that turned out to not be the case people thought, "fool me once shame on you..." and gave the good ol' middle finger to the public health officials. Again, I don't agree with this attitude but I understand it. It is frustrating to lose your job in the name of safety only to see everyone still die. Celebrating Europe all summer long when it was so obvious to anyone who thought about it that another wave was coming was shortsighted. We spent all summer saying "if only we could be more like them!" in the United Stats, only to see them end up in the same situation as us in the Fall. Now people are saying, "so you advocated for strict Euro-style lockdowns, and they are in the same boat now.." Today, lockdowns almost make sense. We have a clear exit strategy with a vaccine around the corner. Except, we already burned all resources and good will locking down too early. I am not a crazy COVID denier. I am a realist who understands data and human nature.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  I appreciate the detailed response, my reaction to this is: you are much like a climate-change denier that has moved from the position "climate change isn't real" to "ok, it is real but we can't do anything about it" to "we can do something but it is just too hard and too expensive" .. deep down in their heart I think such folks just never accepted that it is real. The fact of the matter is that we have plenty of evidence from around the world that suppression is possible and practical and doesn't cost nearly as much as the economic costs of letting the virus run rampant. Pretending that demographics is important in the success of Vietnam when Japan has the worst demographics in the world next to maybe Italy is.. well.. you know the word I would be reaching for! The arguments about "blowing goodwill" are mostly overturned by the evidence that we actually have of high compliance in very restrictive regimes. "We can't impose China-style lockdowns" is immediately undermined by the Australian lockdowns that were both politically bold (in the face of domestic political resistance from federal politicians!) and extreme but very effective and enjoyed popular support.. in the home country of the owner of the leading anti-lockdown propagandist of the world! (Not to mention Italy & France imposing lockdowns for extended periods that were never approached in scale anywhere in the US and were not a problem.) Both-sides-ism is silly. If at this point you can't concede that the "left" (if you accept that framing) was mostly right you are not paying attention to the results. In the "blue" jurisdictions that are struggling the issues arise from popular "business-friendly" Democrats undermining health advice. One side of the US political spectrum is wildly irresponsible and the other is not, don't pretend otherwise. > "Metrics for reopening should have been clear from the start and based entirely upon hospital capacity" I mean, sure, but that is a condemnation of your earlier positions as expressed then in real time, right? This sort of ties into your assessment of the media, it doesn't really have anything to do with your opinions about the virus or appropriate responses. If you think the situation in "Europe" right at this moment is the same as "the US" it seems like you might be misinformed. Finland and Norway are in a much different position than France and Belgium, who are in a different position than the Czech Republic. But all of them are in a better position than Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The idea that starting a 2nd or 3rd wave from a lower base is a bad idea seems kind of deranged. I think you think of yourself as a realist but there is lots of evidence that you have underestimated what is possible as well as the capacity of human nature to do what's right. The information is out there, just look at it. ETA: "- Mitigation would include targeted restrictions based upon age risk" We've got mountains of evidence that letting the virus run in younger populations endangers older people, that just doesn't work.

salmon30salmon 6y ago

My opinions have changed. I think that the t-cell immunity buzz we had in the Summer is not as impactful as I first thought, though it still has an impact. I have always thought that COVID-19 is a dangerous infection, especially to the elderly. Actually let me list what I think, since you seem interested enough in my opinion to spelunk my comment history: - COVID-19 is a dangerous infection. The degree of risk and severity is directly correlated to age. - For those below ~30 years old, the infection is between as to much less dangerous than some strains of influenza. - Between 30-60, the infection is appreciably more dangerous than the flu, but not severely so - Over 60 the infection is far more dangerous than the flu, and extreme precautions are warranted - The projections of disease modelers were incredibly off the mark early on, by orders of magnitude. The models are better today. - The fatality rate was grossly overestimated. Early in the pandemic, we had numbers around 1-3% IFR (not CFR). This was also off by an order of magnitude. Real IFR will end up around .3-.5%. Deadly than the flu, but again with the burden on older people - Most public health measures we are deploying were created for pandemic influenza. They do not necessarily apply in the same ways to pandemic coronaviruses. - Masks clearly work to reduce the spread of infections. Not mandating masks is a terrible idea, and governments who have avoided it thus far will be judged harshly - Influenza has around a 15-20% asymptomatic rate. Coronavirus has twice that. This causes huge problems for contact tracing though it is clearly not impossible - We over-focused on surface spread and panicked people into disinfecting everything, while ignoring aerosol spread - We over-focused on spread between strangers and in public, and downplayed the real risk, which is spread within families and those who live in close quarters - This alone caused imbalanced risk assessments for people. Eating at a restaurant with proper distancing and ventilation IS safer than having an indoor neighborhood block party without masks. - Lockdowns require an exit strategy that is something beyond "more lockdowns". - Lockdowns are a great public health strategy if they are incredibly short lived and adhered to - It was clear in March that the only way out of the pandemic was immunity, be it natural or vaccine enhanced. Lockdowns should have been thrown out the window at that time - The goal posts were constantly moved from curve flattening to deaths to raw case counts - Metrics for reopening should have been clear from the start and based entirely upon hospital capacity - Ignoring the impacts of the lockdown is close-minded thinking that has and will continue to cost lives - Essentially, we knew by April at the latest that eradication was no longer a possibility, and that we should have switched from eradication to mitigation - Mitigation would include targeted restrictions based upon age risk - Mitigation also requires acceptance that cases will increase and deaths will occur, but the goal is to reduce those, we can't aim for elimination. The cost is too great and the odds are too low - Public health officials shot themselves in the foot several times throughout the pandemic - While I understand why masks were downplayed originally, that was a terrible mistake. Saying "masks work, but we need them for our medical heroes" or some shit would have been better - Maybe that would have made masks "cool" instead of a political signaling tool (again, I 100% support mask mandates) - Outside spread was confused by the support of the civil rights protests in the Spring. We knew then and continue to know that outside spread is very unlikely and that the protests were safe. But at the same time we were shaming people at the beach. Both were safe, and to declare one safer than the other based upon the ontology of the events was a terrible mistake - The media spread fear and panic before it was warranted. Constant updates on death counts outside of context was a dangerous game. - Related, most locations locked down too early. Locking down prior to community spread is a waste of resources and good will. - As said above, lockdowns needs to be applied carefully. Too soon and you blow all good will as time goes on. Too late and you may make it worse by forcing people indoors - Locking down before community spread exists had the effect of costing states and people millions up millions of dollars with little helpful impact - The pandemic became a political tool for the left and the right, both wielding it to the extremes. The left was virtually arguing that this was apocalyptic, the right was saying it was the flu. Both are clearly wrong, and the extremism caused public trust to tank as both arguments were easily falsifiable. Once this occurred, early in March, we lost any chance of actually combating the virus in a smart, sustainable way. Again, anyone who was paying attention would have known that the lockdown strategy would need to extend until there is a vaccine. Nothing would materially change month to month as the lockdowns dragged on. The "just two more weeks" crowd caused a ton of fatigue in people who were earnestly wanting to help stop the pandemic. We needed leadership from the beginning explaining the tradeoffs. Explaining that lockdowns would need to continue intermittently until there was a vaccine. We needed honest leaders telling us clearly that lockdowns do not protect you forever, and once the lockdown ends you are as vulnerable as ever. Both of those mistakes led to people, again, distrusting the public health officials. We were told we needed to lockdown to stop the spread, and we did so. And then people kept getting sick and dying. Because it was sold as a panacea to the pandemic, when that turned out to not be the case people thought, "fool me once shame on you..." and gave the good ol' middle finger to the public health officials. Again, I don't agree with this attitude but I understand it. It is frustrating to lose your job in the name of safety only to see everyone still die. Celebrating Europe all summer long when it was so obvious to anyone who thought about it that another wave was coming was shortsighted. We spent all summer saying "if only we could be more like them!" in the United Stats, only to see them end up in the same situation as us in the Fall. Now people are saying, "so you advocated for strict Euro-style lockdowns, and they are in the same boat now.." Today, lockdowns almost make sense. We have a clear exit strategy with a vaccine around the corner. Except, we already burned all resources and good will locking down too early. I am not a crazy COVID denier. I am a realist who understands data and human nature.

JamisonM 6y ago
I appreciate the detailed response, my reaction to this is: you are much like a climate-change denier that has moved from the position "climate change isn't real" to "ok, it is real but we can't do anything about it" to "we can do something but it is just too hard and too expensive" .. deep down in their heart I think such folks just never accepted that it is real. The fact of the matter is that we have plenty of evidence from around the world that suppression is possible and practical and doesn't cost nearly as much as the economic costs of letting the virus run rampant. Pretending that demographics is important in the success of Vietnam when Japan has the worst demographics in the world next to maybe Italy is.. well.. you know the word I would be reaching for! The arguments about "blowing goodwill" are mostly overturned by the evidence that we actually have of high compliance in very restrictive regimes. "We can't impose China-style lockdowns" is immediately undermined by the Australian lockdowns that were both politically bold (in the face of domestic political resistance from federal politicians!) and extreme but very effective and enjoyed popular support.. in the home country of the owner of the leading anti-lockdown propagandist of the world! (Not to mention Italy & France imposing lockdowns for extended periods that were never approached in scale anywhere in the US and were not a problem.) Both-sides-ism is silly. If at this point you can't concede that the "left" (if you accept that framing) was mostly right you are not paying attention to the results. In the "blue" jurisdictions that are struggling the issues arise from popular "business-friendly" Democrats undermining health advice. One side of the US political spectrum is wildly irresponsible and the other is not, don't pretend otherwise. > "Metrics for reopening should have been clear from the start and based entirely upon hospital capacity" I mean, sure, but that is a condemnation of your earlier positions as expressed then in real time, right? This sort of ties into your assessment of the media, it doesn't really have anything to do with your opinions about the virus or appropriate responses. If you think the situation in "Europe" right at this moment is the same as "the US" it seems like you might be misinformed. Finland and Norway are in a much different position than France and Belgium, who are in a different position than the Czech Republic. But all of them are in a better position than Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The idea that starting a 2nd or 3rd wave from a lower base is a bad idea seems kind of deranged. I think you think of yourself as a realist but there is lots of evidence that you have underestimated what is possible as well as the capacity of human nature to do what's right. The information is out there, just look at it. ETA: "- Mitigation would include targeted restrictions based upon age risk" We've got mountains of evidence that letting the virus run in younger populations endangers older people, that just doesn't work.