3 ms·

The end of each wave aligns neatly with restrictions that lower the exponential. You're being disingenuous. And if we want to be technical it's a sigmoid, but

by fer 5y ago

The end of each wave aligns neatly with restrictions that lower the exponential. You're being disingenuous. And if we want to be technical it's a sigmoid, but we only see the exponential part of it.

effie 5y ago
It does not matter whether the curve is exponential or not. What matters is whether sick people get adequate care and whether hospital personnel gets adequate rest and pay. With more covid specialized hospitals, both restrictions could be weaker and more people could be saved. Many governments just do not want to put effort and money towards that. Some of them even talk about reducing hospitals and let thousands of doctors and nurses quit (Slovakia). It is disgusting and reveals what kind of people are in charge.
prohobo 5y ago
I know you're insinuating that the restrictions work. That's a very bold claim. Two things I'd like to know about the restrictions: 1) Do they actually work 2) Are they worth it (cost/benefit) You say "the end of each wave aligns neatly with restrictions" - can you prove that it's not just that the restrictions follow the waves? You know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I haven't seen any real discussion of this by governments, they just claim it works. Obviously each country does restrictions their own way, but I feel like the concept of "lockdowns" is pretty ubiquitous, and if you're going to do something that seems stupid, you should have a lot of supporting evidence for its efficacy. So far I haven't seen much persuasive evidence in support of lockdowns or masking, but people keep throwing it at me like it's gospel. They don't seem to think Sweden or Florida are real, or any of the other places that never did lockdowns. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that lockdowns are putting millions of people into starvation. I haven't seen any governments put out cost/benefit analysis, probably because it wouldn't look very good. I wonder honestly whether you, and others like you, are arguing in good faith. The truth is I'm not necessarily against many of the restrictions - if it turned out they were actually appropriate and worth it. The problem is that the way you argue, the incentives involved, and the reality of the outcomes, I don't believe a fucking word you say. You'd have to provide indisputable evidence at this point, and you'd have to really make me want to hear it.
- fer 5y ago
  > I know you're insinuating that the restrictions work. That's a very bold claim. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 And that's just the most cited, most exhaustive study on effectiveness of restrictions. Some work, some don't, but certainly most do. Do you have any study at hand that indicates that restrictions generally don't work?

by fer 5y ago

The end of each wave aligns neatly with restrictions that lower the exponential. You're being disingenuous. And if we want to be technical it's a sigmoid, but we only see the exponential part of it.

effie 5y ago

It does not matter whether the curve is exponential or not. What matters is whether sick people get adequate care and whether hospital personnel gets adequate rest and pay. With more covid specialized hospitals, both restrictions could be weaker and more people could be saved. Many governments just do not want to put effort and money towards that. Some of them even talk about reducing hospitals and let thousands of doctors and nurses quit (Slovakia). It is disgusting and reveals what kind of people are in charge.

prohobo 5y ago

I know you're insinuating that the restrictions work. That's a very bold claim. Two things I'd like to know about the restrictions: 1) Do they actually work 2) Are they worth it (cost/benefit) You say "the end of each wave aligns neatly with restrictions" - can you prove that it's not just that the restrictions follow the waves? You know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I haven't seen any real discussion of this by governments, they just claim it works. Obviously each country does restrictions their own way, but I feel like the concept of "lockdowns" is pretty ubiquitous, and if you're going to do something that seems stupid, you should have a lot of supporting evidence for its efficacy. So far I haven't seen much persuasive evidence in support of lockdowns or masking, but people keep throwing it at me like it's gospel. They don't seem to think Sweden or Florida are real, or any of the other places that never did lockdowns. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that lockdowns are putting millions of people into starvation. I haven't seen any governments put out cost/benefit analysis, probably because it wouldn't look very good. I wonder honestly whether you, and others like you, are arguing in good faith. The truth is I'm not necessarily against many of the restrictions - if it turned out they were actually appropriate and worth it. The problem is that the way you argue, the incentives involved, and the reality of the outcomes, I don't believe a fucking word you say. You'd have to provide indisputable evidence at this point, and you'd have to really make me want to hear it.

fer 5y ago
> I know you're insinuating that the restrictions work. That's a very bold claim. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 And that's just the most cited, most exhaustive study on effectiveness of restrictions. Some work, some don't, but certainly most do. Do you have any study at hand that indicates that restrictions generally don't work?