6 ms·

What were your thoughts on it in February 2020?

by culi 5y ago

lozenge 5y ago
Less developed than today, can the persistent downplayers honestly say the same?
dekhn 5y ago
in feb 2020 I knew this wasn't going to be an existential crisis (IE, it wasn't going to kill 90% of people,and if the economy tanked, it wouldn't be because the virus itself was so virulent) and that ultimately it would begin to look more like other persistent viruses. This whole thing has played out more or less like I expected based on my prior experience with viruses. I am not happy that the people announced this did so with scare tactics (specific wording) rather than emotionless facts.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Ok, but that leaves the option that it kills up to 10% of the people and I can guarantee you that if that ends up being the case a lot of people will feel that we should have probably taken things a bit more serious in March 2020. Emotionless facts can be scary in their own right.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    10% of what people? That doesn't match up with any stats that I'm aware of. Unless you mean "it kills up to 10% of people within certain population demographics" which is my point- and it's entirely uninteresting. I think US public health officials and generally in europe the leadership all pursued the most reasonable path and it's unlikely we could have reduced the overall death load significantly through any intervention short of extreme isolation. It is very unlikely that mainstream science will conclude, in a decade, that we could have taken actions that would have greatly reduced the spread and impact, without also applying highly restrictive rules.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > Unless you mean "it kills up to 10% of people within certain population demographics" which is my point- and it's entirely uninteresting. Then I don't think we're going to end up being in agreement. To me the world isn't a science experiment where some outcomes are interesting and others are uninteresting when it comes to the deaths of millions of people. Call me a softie if you wish.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        Please point to the source of your 10% stat. Obviously it's terrible that millions of people died. But then, millions of people died from the black plague, many die from car accidents, and preventable (via lifestyle changes) diseases. As an ex-scientist I work hard to take the long view on disease- that is, billions of years. Once you adopt this perspective and look at COVID, you realize that many aspects of it have been overreported in the press and that led many people to overestimate its relative danger compared to many other things we face on a regular basis. The current reporting about the newest virus is a great example- the language is scary, but we have absolutely no data to tell us that this will have any global impact, nor that this represents any sort of phase change into a new situation.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Your own comment. 100% - 90% = 10% and that was marked as just a possibility. > As an ex-scientist I work hard to take the long view on disease- that is, billions of years. That's fine, but that timescale is not the timescale at which our lives are unfolding. > Once you adopt this perspective and look at COVID, you realize that many aspects of it have been overreported in the press and that led many people to overestimate its relative danger compared to many other things we face on a regular basis. Well, even if I take the most conservative figures I end up with millions of 'front-loaded' deaths, and 100's of thousands of deaths where 'premature' is probably an accurate figure. And that's before we get to take into account that this is long from being over. > The current reporting about the newest virus is a great example- the language is scary, but we have absolutely no data to tell us that this will have any global impact, nor that this represents any sort of phase change into a new situation. That is absolutely true. But at the same time we also don't have any data for the opposite: that this will not affect things at all. Policy makers are in a bind, anything they do that helps will come with a price tag, the cost of doing nothing is likely political suicide, the cost of doing too much is going to come at the price of a massive global recession (and possibly set the stage for future wars). So now we get this stretched out slow motion train wreck, which is far from ideal as well. What would you suggest we do instead?
dham 5y ago
Bill Maher said it best. "Before you get sick you are sick. This is a very sick country, still is, I don't mean mentally, but physically" We were already dying before February 2020. America is fat and we'll never get universal healthcare because people can't take responsibility for their actions. 80% of people who died from this thing were obese. If it hit 40 years ago it would have been nothing or similar to Hong Kong Flu

What were your thoughts on it in February 2020?

by culi 5y ago

What were your thoughts on it in February 2020?

lozenge 5y ago

Less developed than today, can the persistent downplayers honestly say the same?

dekhn 5y ago

in feb 2020 I knew this wasn't going to be an existential crisis (IE, it wasn't going to kill 90% of people,and if the economy tanked, it wouldn't be because the virus itself was so virulent) and that ultimately it would begin to look more like other persistent viruses. This whole thing has played out more or less like I expected based on my prior experience with viruses. I am not happy that the people announced this did so with scare tactics (specific wording) rather than emotionless facts.

jacquesm 5y ago
Ok, but that leaves the option that it kills up to 10% of the people and I can guarantee you that if that ends up being the case a lot of people will feel that we should have probably taken things a bit more serious in March 2020. Emotionless facts can be scary in their own right.
- dekhn 5y ago
  10% of what people? That doesn't match up with any stats that I'm aware of. Unless you mean "it kills up to 10% of people within certain population demographics" which is my point- and it's entirely uninteresting. I think US public health officials and generally in europe the leadership all pursued the most reasonable path and it's unlikely we could have reduced the overall death load significantly through any intervention short of extreme isolation. It is very unlikely that mainstream science will conclude, in a decade, that we could have taken actions that would have greatly reduced the spread and impact, without also applying highly restrictive rules.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Unless you mean "it kills up to 10% of people within certain population demographics" which is my point- and it's entirely uninteresting. Then I don't think we're going to end up being in agreement. To me the world isn't a science experiment where some outcomes are interesting and others are uninteresting when it comes to the deaths of millions of people. Call me a softie if you wish.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Please point to the source of your 10% stat. Obviously it's terrible that millions of people died. But then, millions of people died from the black plague, many die from car accidents, and preventable (via lifestyle changes) diseases. As an ex-scientist I work hard to take the long view on disease- that is, billions of years. Once you adopt this perspective and look at COVID, you realize that many aspects of it have been overreported in the press and that led many people to overestimate its relative danger compared to many other things we face on a regular basis. The current reporting about the newest virus is a great example- the language is scary, but we have absolutely no data to tell us that this will have any global impact, nor that this represents any sort of phase change into a new situation.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Your own comment. 100% - 90% = 10% and that was marked as just a possibility. > As an ex-scientist I work hard to take the long view on disease- that is, billions of years. That's fine, but that timescale is not the timescale at which our lives are unfolding. > Once you adopt this perspective and look at COVID, you realize that many aspects of it have been overreported in the press and that led many people to overestimate its relative danger compared to many other things we face on a regular basis. Well, even if I take the most conservative figures I end up with millions of 'front-loaded' deaths, and 100's of thousands of deaths where 'premature' is probably an accurate figure. And that's before we get to take into account that this is long from being over. > The current reporting about the newest virus is a great example- the language is scary, but we have absolutely no data to tell us that this will have any global impact, nor that this represents any sort of phase change into a new situation. That is absolutely true. But at the same time we also don't have any data for the opposite: that this will not affect things at all. Policy makers are in a bind, anything they do that helps will come with a price tag, the cost of doing nothing is likely political suicide, the cost of doing too much is going to come at the price of a massive global recession (and possibly set the stage for future wars). So now we get this stretched out slow motion train wreck, which is far from ideal as well. What would you suggest we do instead?

dham 5y ago

Bill Maher said it best. "Before you get sick you are sick. This is a very sick country, still is, I don't mean mentally, but physically" We were already dying before February 2020. America is fat and we'll never get universal healthcare because people can't take responsibility for their actions. 80% of people who died from this thing were obese. If it hit 40 years ago it would have been nothing or similar to Hong Kong Flu