4 ms·

> Policy should only be made in response to actual outcomes the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy is that if you wait for the results of the

> Policy should only be made in response to actual outcomes the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy is that if you wait for the results of the variant you may have a situation where you are unable to contain or curtail the virus enough to not overwhelm the hospital systems. deaths and hospitalizations are a very lagging indicator of the effects

adam_arthur 5y ago
It's been weeks since the variant started to spread. If outcomes were noticeably worse than Delta, it would be evident by now. It being milder or the same is better supported by the evidence. You can think of any hypothetical worst case and make irrational policy on the basis. Maybe next year's flu strain will cause any who catch it to die one year from infection?
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  I don’t think I’ve seen any suggestion that outcomes are worse, or policies made with that assumption. At the moment, the evidence we have available suggests that Omicron is much more transmissible than Delta, and between 0-30% less likely to result in hospitalisation. It certainly seems like policy is being made with that in mind.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Most evidence I see suggests it's many fewer hospitalizations. Stats from a recent Denmark study show 60% fewer https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1472691431336726535?t=jydMaZAfg4DVB7rjS4pqCg&s=19 https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14726914313367265... But people don't want good news with covid. They want to fearmonger as if we can eliminate 100% of cases through authoritarian policy. Which think I don't need to state, will never happen, regardless if 100% of society is vaccinated with a booster and we perpetually lockdown. It's an endemic disease, that's life. Zero heed is paid to the extremely costly second order effects of these extreme policies. One of which was a massive increase in wealth inequality, by the way
    - freemint 5y ago
      fewer then what in what population?
      - adam_arthur 5y ago
        Why don't you read the link in the post?
        rsfern 5y ago
        You mentioned a study, but there’s no DOI, journal, or preprint link… do you mean the blog post linked in the Twitter thread? Edit: I guess I don’t see why there would be time for a DOI or peer review, but I could see there being time for a preprint. Why wouldn’t you just link to the primary source when it’s ambiguous like this?
    - matthewmacleod 5y ago
      I’m very happy to see more evidence that suggests the severity may be lower, but it is still very early days. I honestly don’t recognise your portrayal of fearmongering or a desire for negative news. In fact I’ve been particularly surprised by the response to this variant in some circles, which is to hop right on to the tiniest shred of potential positive evidence as a cast-iron guarantee that it’s no big deal. Everybody really wants this to go away, and there is extensive debate in every country about the second-order effects of control measures.
      - adam_arthur 5y ago
        By and large the people advocating extreme caution with covid are looking at policy from a single variable perspective. The population looks at multiple variables. IE their quality of life, their financial situation, their desire for social connection. Any policy that looks at a single or small number or variables, vs the holistic system is a policy that's not "following the science". If you drive through the south of the US, you'll find that nobody masks and they live life as if covid never existed. And their health outcomes are basically exactly the same as NY or CA. So what effect do these policies have? The science shows, basically nothing other than harming quality of life
- Retric 5y ago
  No, people often take over a month to die from COVID, we simply haven’t had enough time to collect data especially when the first few cases represent a tiny sample. This is one of those enough information ask again later situations.
phkahler 5y ago
>> the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy... We know that vitamin D helps prevent this kind of thing. We know that most (Americans) are deficient in the winter months. There is evidence to support the idea that it is protective against Covid-19. It is also very safe to take even if you're not deficient. I have yet to see a PSA or recommendation on this. That could have been proactive rather than lagging. What I have seen is newer research suggesting that vit D doesnt help, but always with some caviotte like "in people who are not deficient" or one where they administered high doses to people already on ventilators.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Evidence on vitamin D is equivocal. [0][1] Experts disagree on how to interpret the various studies that have come out that do not all show the same results. On the other hand, an official proclamation that people should ensure their vitamin D levels are okay would cause a rush on it with many people taking much more than they should. We've seen this with other medications that have not been systematically shown to help COVID but still obtain meme-like status. Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use, but has resulted in overdoses [2] and a spike in calls to poison control centers over its use [3] Maybe there's a middle ground there on something like vitamin D, which as you say is often deficient. But it's a fine line to walk when the evidence is uncertain about its impact on COVID. [0] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup... [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-and-vitamin-d/faq-20493088 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doctors-warn-ineffective-not-safe-1625340 https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doct... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    > Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful. There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries. But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are. Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.

adam_arthur 5y ago

It's been weeks since the variant started to spread. If outcomes were noticeably worse than Delta, it would be evident by now. It being milder or the same is better supported by the evidence. You can think of any hypothetical worst case and make irrational policy on the basis. Maybe next year's flu strain will cause any who catch it to die one year from infection?

matthewmacleod 5y ago
I don’t think I’ve seen any suggestion that outcomes are worse, or policies made with that assumption. At the moment, the evidence we have available suggests that Omicron is much more transmissible than Delta, and between 0-30% less likely to result in hospitalisation. It certainly seems like policy is being made with that in mind.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Most evidence I see suggests it's many fewer hospitalizations. Stats from a recent Denmark study show 60% fewer https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1472691431336726535?t=jydMaZAfg4DVB7rjS4pqCg&s=19 https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14726914313367265... But people don't want good news with covid. They want to fearmonger as if we can eliminate 100% of cases through authoritarian policy. Which think I don't need to state, will never happen, regardless if 100% of society is vaccinated with a booster and we perpetually lockdown. It's an endemic disease, that's life. Zero heed is paid to the extremely costly second order effects of these extreme policies. One of which was a massive increase in wealth inequality, by the way
  - freemint 5y ago
    fewer then what in what population?
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Why don't you read the link in the post?
      - rsfern 5y ago
        You mentioned a study, but there’s no DOI, journal, or preprint link… do you mean the blog post linked in the Twitter thread? Edit: I guess I don’t see why there would be time for a DOI or peer review, but I could see there being time for a preprint. Why wouldn’t you just link to the primary source when it’s ambiguous like this?
  - matthewmacleod 5y ago
    I’m very happy to see more evidence that suggests the severity may be lower, but it is still very early days. I honestly don’t recognise your portrayal of fearmongering or a desire for negative news. In fact I’ve been particularly surprised by the response to this variant in some circles, which is to hop right on to the tiniest shred of potential positive evidence as a cast-iron guarantee that it’s no big deal. Everybody really wants this to go away, and there is extensive debate in every country about the second-order effects of control measures.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      By and large the people advocating extreme caution with covid are looking at policy from a single variable perspective. The population looks at multiple variables. IE their quality of life, their financial situation, their desire for social connection. Any policy that looks at a single or small number or variables, vs the holistic system is a policy that's not "following the science". If you drive through the south of the US, you'll find that nobody masks and they live life as if covid never existed. And their health outcomes are basically exactly the same as NY or CA. So what effect do these policies have? The science shows, basically nothing other than harming quality of life
Retric 5y ago
No, people often take over a month to die from COVID, we simply haven’t had enough time to collect data especially when the first few cases represent a tiny sample. This is one of those enough information ask again later situations.

phkahler 5y ago

>> the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy... We know that vitamin D helps prevent this kind of thing. We know that most (Americans) are deficient in the winter months. There is evidence to support the idea that it is protective against Covid-19. It is also very safe to take even if you're not deficient. I have yet to see a PSA or recommendation on this. That could have been proactive rather than lagging. What I have seen is newer research suggesting that vit D doesnt help, but always with some caviotte like "in people who are not deficient" or one where they administered high doses to people already on ventilators.

ineedasername 5y ago
Evidence on vitamin D is equivocal. [0][1] Experts disagree on how to interpret the various studies that have come out that do not all show the same results. On the other hand, an official proclamation that people should ensure their vitamin D levels are okay would cause a rush on it with many people taking much more than they should. We've seen this with other medications that have not been systematically shown to help COVID but still obtain meme-like status. Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use, but has resulted in overdoses [2] and a spike in calls to poison control centers over its use [3] Maybe there's a middle ground there on something like vitamin D, which as you say is often deficient. But it's a fine line to walk when the evidence is uncertain about its impact on COVID. [0] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup... [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-and-vitamin-d/faq-20493088 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doctors-warn-ineffective-not-safe-1625340 https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doct... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
- weaksauce 5y ago
  > Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful. There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries. But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are. Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.