6 ms·

A, a week ago NZ got the first Delta, today we have 107, stats people think cases are peaking. We have a hard, near total lockdown as no one want this loose, it

A, a week ago NZ got the first Delta, today we have 107, stats people think cases are peaking. We have a hard, near total lockdown as no one want this loose, it would kill 10000 plus.

vixen99 5y ago
And where is the cost/benefit analysis for this? It would be nice if we could see the avoidance of simplistic 'instant expert' logic that fails to take into account the overall effect of a course of action. With lockdowns, consequent suicides, financial ruin, non-treatment of cancer, heart disease and a host of other conditions & adverse scenarios are ignored. Does this mean there is a balance in favor of not imposing lockdowns; who knows? No one knows if a CB analysis is absent. The latter should include effect of vaccination and the ameliorative effects of an ever-widening range of medicines which have been shown in many peer-reviewed clinical studies to save lives and reduce the severity of the disease. But governments set their face against this. One wonders why. Finally it should be noted that Covid-19 is not smallpox (lethality about 30%). Huge numbers of people who have competent immune function remain either asymptomatic or totally immune to the virus (lethality 0.007% - 5.4% or more depending on age and co-morbidity).
- eesmith 5y ago
  The overall suicide rate appears to be unchanged. Quoting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ : > In the first few months of the viral pandemic, there were scattered media reports of individual instances of suicide ostensibly related to the effect of COVID-19 and several articles published in scientific journals that principally relied on such media reports ... > Analyses of actual suicide rates during the COVIDE-19 pandemic based on national and regional/local health statistics from across the world, however, provide a different picture. A majority of such comprehensive data-based studies report a modest reduction in total suicide rates whereas the remainder report no significant net increase in suicide rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 : "The only reliable recent data available on suicides in England - from the University of Manchester - has found that rates have not risen during lockdown." Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-been-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-suicide-rates/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-... : "Now we have reports from several countries, based on national or state-level suicide data. They come from Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Peru, Norway and Sweden—high income countries in most cases—and they carry a consistent message. Suicide rates have not risen."
  - NoPie 5y ago
    But drug overdose rates seem to have increased, so the fact that suicide rates are flat doesn't tell us much. Suicide is relative very rare. Even antidepresant drug trials find it very difficult to establish if they increase suicidality because of rarity. There are some antidepresants that are thought to increase suicides in children and still can be prescribed because of some improvement in the quality of life. Lockdowns however where mostly bad except in some cases. I think that some young people who spend a lot of time playing games were happy. Incidentally they are also the ones who are most active online.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      It invalidates the assertion that that suicides are a consequence of lockdown.
      - NoPie 5y ago
        Not yet. It could be that pandemics actually decrease suicides as some people who would have killed themselves, die from the disease. Or by the effect that pandemics cause more empathy between people that reduce suicide rates. But by introducing lockdowns this gain is erased. But even if it has no effect, the harm of lockdowns can be in other ways. The drug overdose deaths and increased alcoholism for example seems to be true. Any suicides can still follow after several years.
        eesmith 5y ago
        vixen99 wrote: "With lockdowns, consequent suicides ... are ignored" There is no evidence that there are consequent suicides. Nor that they are ignored. You write "not yet" .... a hand-wavy statement which instantly adds FUD any topic. It could be that lockdowns cause people to suddenly die 3 years years later. I could make up lots of "it could be" scenarios. Unsupported claims, with evidence contrary to the claim, should not be used to make policy decisions. And this is a hypothetical about making a policy decision.
NoPie 5y ago
There will be more than 10000 who will die prematurely due to obesity, smoking and alcohol use every year. Strick measures would definitely reduce these numbers considerably. I wonder why we don't implement them?
- eesmith 5y ago
  Oh no, we can't stop all bad things in the world, so we have to throw up our hands and give up. Yes, let's also reduce premature deaths due to obesity, smoking and alcohol use. You write that like you think it's farcical, but many people advocate for exactly that. One problem is that many companies make lot of companies make a lot of money pushing sugary foods, tobacco, and alcohol. That money affords political power preventing stricter laws. John Oliver, for example, did a segment on Last Week Tonight about how tobacco companies prevent change, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_(Last_Week_Tonight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_(Last_Week_Tonight) , with examples of how, for example, PMI sued Uruguay at the WTO to prevent including obligatory health warnings on tobacco boxes. There was no Big Iron Lung opposing the polio vaccine.
  - NoPie 5y ago
    Yes, if lockdowns are too restrictive and barely make any difference, then we should stop demanding them. People smoke, drink alcohol and eat junk food would never accept the level of restrictions we had with lockdowns. One thing is to put a warning on a box, a different things is to actually prohibit buying that box and smoking with a high penalty. And vaccines are much more effective and considerably less intrusive than any NPIs. The problem is that people so much overemphasised their effect and actively resisted vaccine challenge studies (with volunteers deliberately wanting to get infected) to speed up vaccine trials. The whole world could have been vaccinated by now and delta variant booster be ready by now.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      And if lockdowns are not too restrictive and make a difference, they we should demand them, right? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Research and case studies have shown that lockdowns are effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, therefore flattening the curve.[4] The World Health Organization's recommendation on curfews and lockdowns is that they should be short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted. To achieve a balance between restrictions and normal life, the WHO recommends a response to the pandemic that consists of strict personal hygiene, effective contact tracing, and isolating when ill. As I pointed out elsewhere here, "lockdown" is a broad term. Do not change the goalposts. You wondered why we don't implement method to reduce deaths due to obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco. I gave you one a very clear reason. I most assuredly did not say that prohibiting the sales of tobacco, with a high penalty, was the only way to reduce those deaths. And I pointed to tobacco companies specifically fighting putting warnings on a box.

A, a week ago NZ got the first Delta, today we have 107, stats people think cases are peaking. We have a hard, near total lockdown as no one want this loose, it would kill 10000 plus.

vixen99 5y ago

And where is the cost/benefit analysis for this? It would be nice if we could see the avoidance of simplistic 'instant expert' logic that fails to take into account the overall effect of a course of action. With lockdowns, consequent suicides, financial ruin, non-treatment of cancer, heart disease and a host of other conditions & adverse scenarios are ignored. Does this mean there is a balance in favor of not imposing lockdowns; who knows? No one knows if a CB analysis is absent. The latter should include effect of vaccination and the ameliorative effects of an ever-widening range of medicines which have been shown in many peer-reviewed clinical studies to save lives and reduce the severity of the disease. But governments set their face against this. One wonders why. Finally it should be noted that Covid-19 is not smallpox (lethality about 30%). Huge numbers of people who have competent immune function remain either asymptomatic or totally immune to the virus (lethality 0.007% - 5.4% or more depending on age and co-morbidity).

eesmith 5y ago
The overall suicide rate appears to be unchanged. Quoting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ : > In the first few months of the viral pandemic, there were scattered media reports of individual instances of suicide ostensibly related to the effect of COVID-19 and several articles published in scientific journals that principally relied on such media reports ... > Analyses of actual suicide rates during the COVIDE-19 pandemic based on national and regional/local health statistics from across the world, however, provide a different picture. A majority of such comprehensive data-based studies report a modest reduction in total suicide rates whereas the remainder report no significant net increase in suicide rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 : "The only reliable recent data available on suicides in England - from the University of Manchester - has found that rates have not risen during lockdown." Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-been-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-suicide-rates/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-... : "Now we have reports from several countries, based on national or state-level suicide data. They come from Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Peru, Norway and Sweden—high income countries in most cases—and they carry a consistent message. Suicide rates have not risen."
- NoPie 5y ago
  But drug overdose rates seem to have increased, so the fact that suicide rates are flat doesn't tell us much. Suicide is relative very rare. Even antidepresant drug trials find it very difficult to establish if they increase suicidality because of rarity. There are some antidepresants that are thought to increase suicides in children and still can be prescribed because of some improvement in the quality of life. Lockdowns however where mostly bad except in some cases. I think that some young people who spend a lot of time playing games were happy. Incidentally they are also the ones who are most active online.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    It invalidates the assertion that that suicides are a consequence of lockdown.
    - NoPie 5y ago
      Not yet. It could be that pandemics actually decrease suicides as some people who would have killed themselves, die from the disease. Or by the effect that pandemics cause more empathy between people that reduce suicide rates. But by introducing lockdowns this gain is erased. But even if it has no effect, the harm of lockdowns can be in other ways. The drug overdose deaths and increased alcoholism for example seems to be true. Any suicides can still follow after several years.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        vixen99 wrote: "With lockdowns, consequent suicides ... are ignored" There is no evidence that there are consequent suicides. Nor that they are ignored. You write "not yet" .... a hand-wavy statement which instantly adds FUD any topic. It could be that lockdowns cause people to suddenly die 3 years years later. I could make up lots of "it could be" scenarios. Unsupported claims, with evidence contrary to the claim, should not be used to make policy decisions. And this is a hypothetical about making a policy decision.

NoPie 5y ago

There will be more than 10000 who will die prematurely due to obesity, smoking and alcohol use every year. Strick measures would definitely reduce these numbers considerably. I wonder why we don't implement them?

eesmith 5y ago
Oh no, we can't stop all bad things in the world, so we have to throw up our hands and give up. Yes, let's also reduce premature deaths due to obesity, smoking and alcohol use. You write that like you think it's farcical, but many people advocate for exactly that. One problem is that many companies make lot of companies make a lot of money pushing sugary foods, tobacco, and alcohol. That money affords political power preventing stricter laws. John Oliver, for example, did a segment on Last Week Tonight about how tobacco companies prevent change, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_(Last_Week_Tonight) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_(Last_Week_Tonight) , with examples of how, for example, PMI sued Uruguay at the WTO to prevent including obligatory health warnings on tobacco boxes. There was no Big Iron Lung opposing the polio vaccine.
- NoPie 5y ago
  Yes, if lockdowns are too restrictive and barely make any difference, then we should stop demanding them. People smoke, drink alcohol and eat junk food would never accept the level of restrictions we had with lockdowns. One thing is to put a warning on a box, a different things is to actually prohibit buying that box and smoking with a high penalty. And vaccines are much more effective and considerably less intrusive than any NPIs. The problem is that people so much overemphasised their effect and actively resisted vaccine challenge studies (with volunteers deliberately wanting to get infected) to speed up vaccine trials. The whole world could have been vaccinated by now and delta variant booster be ready by now.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    And if lockdowns are not too restrictive and make a difference, they we should demand them, right? Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Research and case studies have shown that lockdowns are effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, therefore flattening the curve.[4] The World Health Organization's recommendation on curfews and lockdowns is that they should be short-term measures to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health workers who are exhausted. To achieve a balance between restrictions and normal life, the WHO recommends a response to the pandemic that consists of strict personal hygiene, effective contact tracing, and isolating when ill. As I pointed out elsewhere here, "lockdown" is a broad term. Do not change the goalposts. You wondered why we don't implement method to reduce deaths due to obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco. I gave you one a very clear reason. I most assuredly did not say that prohibiting the sales of tobacco, with a high penalty, was the only way to reduce those deaths. And I pointed to tobacco companies specifically fighting putting warnings on a box.