4 ms·

No idea why you're getting downvoted - they have no control group and as you say there's 'depression' in their symptoms they count for. I'm pretty sure 'depress

No idea why you're getting downvoted - they have no control group and as you say there's 'depression' in their symptoms they count for. I'm pretty sure 'depression' (which I'm sure they don't count as clinically depressed, but 'im feeling more depressed') went up significantly in the whole population last year. Also PLoS one is basically not peer reviewed - they accept every paper after a short review.

emodendroket 5y ago
That part is fine but the part where he instead diagnoses everyone with having been driven crazy by the (by implication misguided) coronavirus response is not really thoughtful in my opinion.
- abystander 5y ago
  > the part where he instead diagnoses everyone with having been driven crazy [...] is not really thoughtful I said you could expect "significant" depression if there's de facto (in some countries de jure) criminalizing of social activity. I think you're the one who's not being thoughtful about characterizing arguments here. I believe the policy is often misguided/short-sighted but I never said that, you're extrapolating that valid criticism of the policy would be a discredit for officials.
buu700 5y ago
No idea why you're getting downvoted Speculation: conflation of his reasonable and factual statement with the ostensibly similar far-right talking point that the cure (social distancing) is worse than the disease.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > far-right talking point Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking point. None of our response was in any playbook for this level of threat. We threw out all our pandemic planning in a fit on hysteria and panic. To this day we cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all, let alone enough to justify their social costs. Same with social distancing or even masks for that matter. The fact that all this can be considered an uncontrolled experiment on unwilling participants is not "far right" thinking.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    > Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking point. You're absolutely right. This kind of misinformation isn't limited to the far right. > To this day we cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all, LOL, what? This is a truly astonishingly statement. Literally every place that instituted lockdowns saw a drop in COVID transmission, and every place that reduced or eliminated lockdowns saw an increase. This isn't even controversial. It's an application of the basic germ theory of infectious transmission. You can't seriously be making this claim in good faith, can you?
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      I am absolutely making this claim in good faith. Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? They don’t exist. To date I’ve yet to see a single cost benefit analysis done for any of this. It simply wasn’t allowed to be done… you’d get shouted down by the mob. It worries me greatly how little critical thinking has been applied to the last 17+ months. It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Show me the proof this stuff worked… and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, which makes it incredibly ethically (and morally) challenged. The last 17 months have shown me the depths of what humanity can do when gripped with fear and hysteria… it is pretty terrifying.
      - CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? And predictably the goalposts shift. First it was that we "cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all". Now it's that the results don't "justify their immense costs to society". > and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, Again: Lockdowns are a basic application of germ theory. The only way they could not work is if infection didn't pass from human to human but was transmitted via miasma or aether. You could absolutely make valid arguments for or against specific lockdown policy choices (i.e. capacity limits, sizes of gatherings, types of businesses affected, etc). But lockdowns in general? There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. I honestly refuse to spend any time citing data for you, as I do not believe for a second that you're arguing in good faith. If you really wanted to find facts, you could easily dig them up. That you haven't done so tells me everything about your willingness to question your own beliefs.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
Because the entire comment is clearly phrased to be antagonistic? "de facto criminalization of social activity"? Are they trying to troll people? Because that's how you troll people.
- abystander 5y ago
  What would the average pro-lockdown person say if someone hosted a party or even got together with someone for coffee without a mask? They'd be calling for jail. I've heard this enough throughout the pandemic.
msamwald 5y ago
> Also PLoS one is basically not peer reviewed - they accept every paper after a short review. That is absolutely not true, PLOS ONE has proper peer-review, their review guidelines just focus on technical soundness and de-emphasize subjective noteworthiness. (As a personal anecdote, I managed to get one of my papers rejected from PLOS ONE once...)

emodendroket 5y ago

That part is fine but the part where he instead diagnoses everyone with having been driven crazy by the (by implication misguided) coronavirus response is not really thoughtful in my opinion.

abystander 5y ago
> the part where he instead diagnoses everyone with having been driven crazy [...] is not really thoughtful I said you could expect "significant" depression if there's de facto (in some countries de jure) criminalizing of social activity. I think you're the one who's not being thoughtful about characterizing arguments here. I believe the policy is often misguided/short-sighted but I never said that, you're extrapolating that valid criticism of the policy would be a discredit for officials.

buu700 5y ago

No idea why you're getting downvoted Speculation: conflation of his reasonable and factual statement with the ostensibly similar far-right talking point that the cure (social distancing) is worse than the disease.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> far-right talking point Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking point. None of our response was in any playbook for this level of threat. We threw out all our pandemic planning in a fit on hysteria and panic. To this day we cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all, let alone enough to justify their social costs. Same with social distancing or even masks for that matter. The fact that all this can be considered an uncontrolled experiment on unwilling participants is not "far right" thinking.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking point. You're absolutely right. This kind of misinformation isn't limited to the far right. > To this day we cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all, LOL, what? This is a truly astonishingly statement. Literally every place that instituted lockdowns saw a drop in COVID transmission, and every place that reduced or eliminated lockdowns saw an increase. This isn't even controversial. It's an application of the basic germ theory of infectious transmission. You can't seriously be making this claim in good faith, can you?
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    I am absolutely making this claim in good faith. Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? They don’t exist. To date I’ve yet to see a single cost benefit analysis done for any of this. It simply wasn’t allowed to be done… you’d get shouted down by the mob. It worries me greatly how little critical thinking has been applied to the last 17+ months. It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Show me the proof this stuff worked… and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, which makes it incredibly ethically (and morally) challenged. The last 17 months have shown me the depths of what humanity can do when gripped with fear and hysteria… it is pretty terrifying.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? And predictably the goalposts shift. First it was that we "cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all". Now it's that the results don't "justify their immense costs to society". > and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, Again: Lockdowns are a basic application of germ theory. The only way they could not work is if infection didn't pass from human to human but was transmitted via miasma or aether. You could absolutely make valid arguments for or against specific lockdown policy choices (i.e. capacity limits, sizes of gatherings, types of businesses affected, etc). But lockdowns in general? There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. I honestly refuse to spend any time citing data for you, as I do not believe for a second that you're arguing in good faith. If you really wanted to find facts, you could easily dig them up. That you haven't done so tells me everything about your willingness to question your own beliefs.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

Because the entire comment is clearly phrased to be antagonistic? "de facto criminalization of social activity"? Are they trying to troll people? Because that's how you troll people.

abystander 5y ago
What would the average pro-lockdown person say if someone hosted a party or even got together with someone for coffee without a mask? They'd be calling for jail. I've heard this enough throughout the pandemic.

msamwald 5y ago

> Also PLoS one is basically not peer reviewed - they accept every paper after a short review. That is absolutely not true, PLOS ONE has proper peer-review, their review guidelines just focus on technical soundness and de-emphasize subjective noteworthiness. (As a personal anecdote, I managed to get one of my papers rejected from PLOS ONE once...)