5 ms·

> Our actual response to COVID has had huge second order negative effects, like killing the economy, for no real benefit. You need to include that in your analy

> Our actual response to COVID has had huge second order negative effects, like killing the economy, for no real benefit. You need to include that in your analysis. There's strong evidence that the economy suffers whether or not governments institute lockdowns, mostly because people choose not to go out on their own. For example, take a look at the Swedish unemployment rate over the past year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/527418/sweden-monthly-unemployment-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/527418/sweden-monthly-un... > I didn't say "the FDA", I said "institutions" in general. That includes both government organizations like the CDC and the WHO and the mainstream media. The CDC didn't lie either, AFAIK. The WHO is irrelevant in this case because they're not in charge of approving vaccines in the US. > Oh, you want me to reinvent society from scratch? > You're right that I don't have a working alternative society in my back pocket, but our current society is clearly not working. The first thing to do if you're in a hole is to stop digging. There's no need to reinvent society from scratch, but if you criticize a situation harshly it's best to have your desired alternative in mind: what, exactly, do you want people to start or stop doing?

pdonis 6y ago
> the economy suffers whether or not governments institute lockdowns, mostly because people choose not to go out on their own Yes, in a free country many people will choose to curtail activities. But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions, including many businesses that (a) aren't linked by any real data to COVID transmission, (b) are taking precautions to protect their customers, and (c) still have plenty of customers who would like to go there. Not to mention (d) allowing "essential" businesses to stay open, but "essential" often means "has political connections" rather than really being essential, and (e) politicians notoriously violating the very lockdown rules they impose on everyone else. Which causes further secondary damage by further eroding people's trust in institutions. > The CDC didn't lie either, AFAIK. To be fair, the CDC hasn't done a lot of public communication either--most of that has been Fauci, who works for NIH, not CDC. But the NIH is a government institution too. And the things he said were trumpeted by the media, who I also included in "institutions": Masks are bad--no wait, masks are good! Lockdowns are bad--no wait, lockdowns are essential! The herd immunity threshold is 60%--no wait, 65% to 70%--no wait, 70% to 80%, or is it 70% to 80% to 85%? Fauci admitted to the New York Times that he was just making up those numbers based on no actual science, just on what he thought would manipulate people into doing what he thought was a good idea. > The WHO is irrelevant in this case because they're not in charge of approving vaccines in the US. We're talking about second order effects. The WHO refused to even admit there was a pandemic until March 11, by which time Europe was already weeks into exponential growth and the US was not far behind. No wonder people in January and February 2020 weren't thinking in terms of a vaccine (or, for that matter, of shutting down international travel to stop the spread, which the WHO advised against).
- potatoz2 6y ago
  > But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions There's strong evidence hard lockdowns lower the spread of the virus. See, for example, the correlation of lockdowns and cases in France. Allowing people to make their own choices doesn't work to deal with a pandemic because a very small subset of the population can cause the vast majority of cases, negating any personal effort made by the rest. The argument isn't that institutions are perfect and never make mistakes (or politicians), but rather that overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation. > To be fair, the CDC hasn't done a lot of public communication either The CDC (and the FDA) have published tons of documents about recommendations, vaccine efficacy, etc. > Masks are bad--no wait, masks are good! Lockdowns are bad--no wait, lockdowns are essential! As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. This is exactly what you should expect from your institutions: give you the best info available at the time. This is the full quote: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” In April, the CDC (which, as I said, _does_ do public communication) changed this recommendation to instead push wearing masks https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... Remember that initially it was not clear that Covid was highly airborne. At the time, folks were recommending disinfecting groceries. This doesn't mean the advice at the time was bad, that's hindsight bias.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. > As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. That would be fine if that's what happened. But it isn't. The guidance had nothing to do with getting more information, and everything to do with trying to manipulate people into doing what the "experts" wanted them to do by misinforming them. The mask quote you give is a perfect example: there was good reason to be walking around with a mask (my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say). No protection is perfect (even an N95 is not perfect), but a mask is a lot better than nothing (even if not all virus particles are kept out, drastically reducing how many get into your upper respiratory tract makes a huge difference). But no, our nanny state "experts" were afraid we might touch our face so they lied to us. (They were also afraid health care providers would run short of PPE. But if governments are going to be authoritarian, they can just put themselves at the front of the line for however much PPE the health care providers need, without having to lie or manipulate anybody.)

pdonis 6y ago

> the economy suffers whether or not governments institute lockdowns, mostly because people choose not to go out on their own Yes, in a free country many people will choose to curtail activities. But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions, including many businesses that (a) aren't linked by any real data to COVID transmission, (b) are taking precautions to protect their customers, and (c) still have plenty of customers who would like to go there. Not to mention (d) allowing "essential" businesses to stay open, but "essential" often means "has political connections" rather than really being essential, and (e) politicians notoriously violating the very lockdown rules they impose on everyone else. Which causes further secondary damage by further eroding people's trust in institutions. > The CDC didn't lie either, AFAIK. To be fair, the CDC hasn't done a lot of public communication either--most of that has been Fauci, who works for NIH, not CDC. But the NIH is a government institution too. And the things he said were trumpeted by the media, who I also included in "institutions": Masks are bad--no wait, masks are good! Lockdowns are bad--no wait, lockdowns are essential! The herd immunity threshold is 60%--no wait, 65% to 70%--no wait, 70% to 80%, or is it 70% to 80% to 85%? Fauci admitted to the New York Times that he was just making up those numbers based on no actual science, just on what he thought would manipulate people into doing what he thought was a good idea. > The WHO is irrelevant in this case because they're not in charge of approving vaccines in the US. We're talking about second order effects. The WHO refused to even admit there was a pandemic until March 11, by which time Europe was already weeks into exponential growth and the US was not far behind. No wonder people in January and February 2020 weren't thinking in terms of a vaccine (or, for that matter, of shutting down international travel to stop the spread, which the WHO advised against).

potatoz2 6y ago
> But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions There's strong evidence hard lockdowns lower the spread of the virus. See, for example, the correlation of lockdowns and cases in France. Allowing people to make their own choices doesn't work to deal with a pandemic because a very small subset of the population can cause the vast majority of cases, negating any personal effort made by the rest. The argument isn't that institutions are perfect and never make mistakes (or politicians), but rather that overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation. > To be fair, the CDC hasn't done a lot of public communication either The CDC (and the FDA) have published tons of documents about recommendations, vaccine efficacy, etc. > Masks are bad--no wait, masks are good! Lockdowns are bad--no wait, lockdowns are essential! As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. This is exactly what you should expect from your institutions: give you the best info available at the time. This is the full quote: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” In April, the CDC (which, as I said, _does_ do public communication) changed this recommendation to instead push wearing masks https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... Remember that initially it was not clear that Covid was highly airborne. At the time, folks were recommending disinfecting groceries. This doesn't mean the advice at the time was bad, that's hindsight bias.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. > As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. That would be fine if that's what happened. But it isn't. The guidance had nothing to do with getting more information, and everything to do with trying to manipulate people into doing what the "experts" wanted them to do by misinforming them. The mask quote you give is a perfect example: there was good reason to be walking around with a mask (my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say). No protection is perfect (even an N95 is not perfect), but a mask is a lot better than nothing (even if not all virus particles are kept out, drastically reducing how many get into your upper respiratory tract makes a huge difference). But no, our nanny state "experts" were afraid we might touch our face so they lied to us. (They were also afraid health care providers would run short of PPE. But if governments are going to be authoritarian, they can just put themselves at the front of the line for however much PPE the health care providers need, without having to lie or manipulate anybody.)