4 ms·

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 t

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
- wetpaws 5y ago
  False positive good news would be much worse than false negative.

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
wetpaws 5y ago
False positive good news would be much worse than false negative.