5 ms·

The Covid Insanity Has to End

13 points by miles 5y ago

bediger4000 5y ago
Is there any reason to believe that the National Review doesn't write this stuff because they want Trump back? I'm sorry that sounds political, but it seems like a pertinent question.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  NR is antitrump. I don’t think they have much readership left (no pun) at this point.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  NR was a bastion, IIRC, of the largely failed and now also largely purged anti-Trump Republican faction, so its probably not that they want Trump. Though it could be virtue signaling to help get back in the good graces of the Trump-aligned faction, for whom opposition to COVID control measures has become a central issue of factional identity.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > NR was a bastion, IIRC, of the largely failed and now also largely purged anti-Trump Republican faction As you say: Was a bastion. And if the anti-Trump Republican faction is, as you also say, "largely failed and now also largely purged", then it seems at least plausible that it may be purged from the NR too nowadays.
yosito 5y ago
> Trying to strong-arm reluctant people into compliance with increasingly irrational protocols is not working. Since the beginning of the pandemic, I've thought that our institutions are seriously lacking in their ability to influence human behavior. The only explanation I can think of for why we're trying to force people into compliance when we've got the largest and most effective propaganda machines in history is that the people at the reigns of tech companies have no incentives to invest in public health.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  The problem is that all these tech companies profit off "engagement" and medicine-related skepticism, misinformation and the resulting arguing and anger creates much more engagement than if everyone just agreed with any single opinion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Arnt 5y ago
  As an alternative, try this: They believe in democracy, and that the existence of their technical power obliges them to not use it. Noblesse oblige in a modern way.
fancyfredbot 5y ago
The article was doing okay until it used the word "just" in this sentence: "even if we grossly inflated the death rate by using reported cases as a crude metric, it would still be just 1.4 percent"
- nradov 5y ago
  The actual infection fatality rate in the US was never as high as 1.4%. The CDC estimated it at 0.6% back when almost no one was vaccinated. Now with vaccines and improved therapies the fatality rate is much lower. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
  - rurban 5y ago
    The earliest IFR's were always around 0.3%, and nothing much changed since. Officially they inflated the numbers with tricks by factor 10 (ie reporting only the CFR). Statisticians were furious. Severity changed drastically, with Delta suddenly targeting young people and long COVID. But people got vaccinated, IFR stayed low. Now severity is swinging down with Omicron.
Gravityloss 5y ago
What an annoying style of writing. A lot of name calling etc.

13 points by miles 5y ago

Is there any reason to believe that the National Review doesn't write this stuff because they want Trump back? I'm sorry that sounds political, but it seems like a pertinent question.

newbamboo 5y ago
NR is antitrump. I don’t think they have much readership left (no pun) at this point.
dragonwriter 5y ago
NR was a bastion, IIRC, of the largely failed and now also largely purged anti-Trump Republican faction, so its probably not that they want Trump. Though it could be virtue signaling to help get back in the good graces of the Trump-aligned faction, for whom opposition to COVID control measures has become a central issue of factional identity.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > NR was a bastion, IIRC, of the largely failed and now also largely purged anti-Trump Republican faction As you say: Was a bastion. And if the anti-Trump Republican faction is, as you also say, "largely failed and now also largely purged", then it seems at least plausible that it may be purged from the NR too nowadays.

yosito 5y ago

> Trying to strong-arm reluctant people into compliance with increasingly irrational protocols is not working. Since the beginning of the pandemic, I've thought that our institutions are seriously lacking in their ability to influence human behavior. The only explanation I can think of for why we're trying to force people into compliance when we've got the largest and most effective propaganda machines in history is that the people at the reigns of tech companies have no incentives to invest in public health.

Nextgrid 5y ago
The problem is that all these tech companies profit off "engagement" and medicine-related skepticism, misinformation and the resulting arguing and anger creates much more engagement than if everyone just agreed with any single opinion.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Arnt 5y ago
As an alternative, try this: They believe in democracy, and that the existence of their technical power obliges them to not use it. Noblesse oblige in a modern way.

fancyfredbot 5y ago

The article was doing okay until it used the word "just" in this sentence: "even if we grossly inflated the death rate by using reported cases as a crude metric, it would still be just 1.4 percent"

nradov 5y ago
The actual infection fatality rate in the US was never as high as 1.4%. The CDC estimated it at 0.6% back when almost no one was vaccinated. Now with vaccines and improved therapies the fatality rate is much lower. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
- rurban 5y ago
  The earliest IFR's were always around 0.3%, and nothing much changed since. Officially they inflated the numbers with tricks by factor 10 (ie reporting only the CFR). Statisticians were furious. Severity changed drastically, with Delta suddenly targeting young people and long COVID. But people got vaccinated, IFR stayed low. Now severity is swinging down with Omicron.

Gravityloss 5y ago

What an annoying style of writing. A lot of name calling etc.