7 ms·

I agree - there may be some good stuff here (for all I know) but there's too much obvious unhinged polemic to take it seriously on its face. Someone with strong

I agree - there may be some good stuff here (for all I know) but there's too much obvious unhinged polemic to take it seriously on its face. Someone with stronger mental hinges will need to pick through this and tell us how things shake out.

bshipp 4y ago
- darkerside 4y ago
  > ignore how much worse it would have been if lockdowns were not implemented, if air travel continued, and if we treated it like the flu This is some pretty heavy speculation. I agree the article was plenty biased (what isn't, as we've all learned these days), but I don't think it's a meritless argument, and it certainly isn't the straw man that you painted.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    Everything we know about infection science suggests that it would have been a lot worse. Travel restrictions dramatically reduce inter regional spread and lockdowns help reduce the number of people catching COVID locally. Given what we know about how the virus spreads it is basically impossible to argue these measures weren’t effective. There can be some degree of uncertainty over effect size but even comparative studies looking at similar regions that practiced good or bad lockdown policies had shown large effects. Of course anti-vaxxers want to compare bad lockdown policies in rural Utah to good ones in NYC and ignore population density and major factors that cause increased spread that are independent of lockdown policy. But real scientists can do better science than that. Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      No, lockdowns and masking had no effect independent of things like population density, that's been proven beyond doubt now. Even the German government formally reached that conclusion and they are some of the most fanatical maskers and lockdowners out there! What we (read: governments and academics) "know" about infection is clearly wrong. The predictions don't match real world outcomes. Germ theory is incomplete. "Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more." Great. Go and read critically the studies and data sets on these topics and you'll see why you need to revise your position.
      - civilized 4y ago
        Could you name one of these beyond doubt studies or link to the German government reporting this decision?
        origin_path 4y ago
        Germany, writeup of a leaked draft 'expert' report: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft Lockdowns. A study of stringency index vs all US states outcomes: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-associated-with-covid-19-death-rate-across-us-states-but-is-associated-with-higher-unemployment/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-... Another, but for Europe: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?log... It's old but not much changed: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANCET-LOCKDOWN-NO-MORTALITY-BENEFIT-A-country-level-analysis-measuring-the-impact-of-government-actions.pdf https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANC... Examples of obvious failures (note that any example is enough to invalidate lockdown as a working theory of disease control, because it doesn't have any complications that could explain exceptions where it doesn't work): 1. Netherlands, end of 2021. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-lockdown-was-a-complete-failure/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-loc... 2. Sweden. Has some of the best results in Europe despite lockdown/COVID theory saying it should have had by far the worst. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pandemic-league-table-of-23-rich-countries/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pand... 3. Shanghai. No study needed for this one, just look at the reported case numbers and how the world's most nightmarish lockdown had no visible effect whatsoever. But really, please, just start reading and researching stuff yourself. This stuff is all like lockdowns 101. People on HN aggressively flag and downvote people who point out true things about COVID or the response to it (see how this post was voted down within seconds and the one you replied to is now flagged). It's tiring to always be asked to cite sources for things that are well known now for years amongst those who care enough to ask the questions and go looking for answers.
    - darkerside 4y ago
      Lockdown was helpful in blunting the peak(s), purely based on hospitalization, with the additional curve ball that we had to predict hospitalization because it was a lagging indicator. Lockdown in NY may have made things worse. We sent kids home from college to the elderly, reduced our hospitalization staff at the worst time, and turned nursing homes into hotbeds.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    >This is some pretty heavy speculation it's actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing"
    - darkerside 4y ago
      I'm not saying it wasn't bad. I'm calling out the assumption that it would have been worse without certain actions.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        those aren't assumptions, they are actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing" what do you think happens when 1 more covid patient comes in, just a single one? it becomes yet more work for those on the ground monitoring and tending to them, thus making things worse.
- dmix 4y ago
  This is an equal or more radical stance than even the article takes on most things. There’s hardly been any reckoning about what went wrong during COVID, it’s a bit of a stretch of project a decade from now there will be a serious anti-government backlash. It’s just as likely the same organizations which implemented these policies will close ranks and still be staffed by much of the same people and not much will change. Besides some think pieces and political narratives. Just look at the rhetorical blowback following the Iraq wars for example. That was 10x louder and more politically acceptable than critiquing vaccine mandates and masks and it still took 1.5 decades to end the actual wars, little real change in Patriot act or intelligence agencies in practice, and any real long term anti-intervention stance is mostly just circumstance of it being mostly peaceful. I doubt there will be anything much more significant comparatively in the health agencies and politically if another pandemic happens in the next decade. The narrative is very much in their favour, there’s no bloodbath coming for their jobs, let’s be honest.
  - GenerocUsername 4y ago
    There should be for Iraq, and there should be for this. It's important to be that voice for any cause you believe in, it's easy to speak up when everyone agrees with you, but that's never once shifted any dynamic
- civilized 4y ago
  I have the strange opinion that US COVID policy was terrible, but it wouldn't have made much difference if it had been excellent. The choices that mattered were mostly those that expedited or delayed the vaccine. A canny gambler might have gotten us the vaccine several months earlier, maybe blunting the horrible toll of the first winter. But the type of human who would have been willing to try that never gets anywhere near any real power in today's federal government. The system is incorrigibly biased against change of any kind, and would rather be gored by a charging rhino than risk stepping out of the way. Maybe universal masking with actual masks (not cloth rubbish) would have helped slow the spread better prior to the vaccine deployment.
  - Zak 4y ago
    My experiences in Germany, where most public transit has had an FFP2 (similar to N95) mask mandate for many months makes me question the effectiveness of mandates. It should work; Germans have a reputation for following the rules, and there is a very good supply of the mandated masks. In reality, I'm not impressed. The number of unmasked people is substantial, and enforcement is limited. Non-filtering surgical masks are also common, and exactly once, I heard a train conductor politely ask a passenger with a surgical mask to wear a filtering mask next time. Ironically, the same mandate did not apply to staff, and the conductor was also wearing a surgical mask. I also see a lot of people wearing the correct type of mask incorrectly, not covering the nose, or with very loose bands that cannot possibly result in an effective seal. I think I'd prefer a request to a mandate at this point. I'll wear FFP3 masks and do a quick leak test every time I put them on. People who pretend to wear masks to satisfy a mandate can stop pretending.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >We are going to hear about why the COVID response was incorrect for decades and how it stole a generation. Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. When you do something this extreme you must be able to justify it. Imagine if an individual put the same restrictions as governments created onto another person. Eg don't allow them to go to school or leave their home etc. How would the legal system treat this individual? They would need an extremely good justification for it, otherwise they would probably go to prison.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    > Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. I never got why people who hold this opinion, despite it being an unpopular one, just announce it as if it's universally believed. As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. You personally believe there should be a different trade-off point than others do, that's all.
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      >As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. Which is why it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards. Then you can tell whether somebody overstepped their authority. You can't just declare an emergency and then unilaterally decide that everything was done For The Greater Good and must never be questioned. If you impose your will onto others then you must have an extremely good justification for it. A justification that others analyze and criticize.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ?
checker 4y ago
The author is affiliated with Virginia Governor Youngkin. There is definitely an agenda being pushed here, probably for Youngkin. Interesting that the author is calling for an end to political games within the CDC when he's playing one himself. Pandemics are hard. If the CDC doesn't present a unified public voice, then a large chunk of the population will latch on to the people they agree with, and no policy would be effective. So I can understand how it came to this. Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here). And not everyone is going to trust them and they will be blamed for any mistakes. Sometimes there isn't time to do the science, so it ends up being an educated guess at maximizing reward vs risk. It's not a position I would want to hold.
- cm2187 4y ago
  There is still a lack of common sense. Anyone who looked at the age distribution of covid patients and deaths knows that there are hardly any children getting sick from covid, and everything I heard points to the few ones having almost always other severe diseases (cancer, etc), so covid being the drop in the bucket. They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially. The same applies to mask mandates. The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections. At the same time we are told new variants (omicron) are many times more contagious that the variants the masks were not really stopping in the first place. Mask mandates have become a similar security theatre than bugging old ladies with their liquids at airport security. The problem is that on insisting on measures that even laymen can tell are bullshit, they are undermining the credibility they will need the day there is something that needs to be done that will make a difference. Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    these objections have been raised and shot down plenty of times. for example, the framing "there are hardly any children getting sick from covid" disregards the utility of reducing children as a transmission vector, and "The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections" disregards the protection they afford by arbitrarily labeling it as "marginal" >No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading I don't know from where you draw this conclusion, considering his track record of doing it previously in Ukraine in 2014, and Georgia before that, and given his moving of an entire army to the border, and subsequently issuing threatening ultimatums to the world they knew the world would never subjugate themselves to
rebuilder 4y ago
Take a look at the rest of the site, it’s obviously more political propaganda than news. Whatever reasonable points there may be in this article - and there may well be some - are purely incidental.

bshipp 4y ago

darkerside 4y ago
> ignore how much worse it would have been if lockdowns were not implemented, if air travel continued, and if we treated it like the flu This is some pretty heavy speculation. I agree the article was plenty biased (what isn't, as we've all learned these days), but I don't think it's a meritless argument, and it certainly isn't the straw man that you painted.
- TimPC 4y ago
  Everything we know about infection science suggests that it would have been a lot worse. Travel restrictions dramatically reduce inter regional spread and lockdowns help reduce the number of people catching COVID locally. Given what we know about how the virus spreads it is basically impossible to argue these measures weren’t effective. There can be some degree of uncertainty over effect size but even comparative studies looking at similar regions that practiced good or bad lockdown policies had shown large effects. Of course anti-vaxxers want to compare bad lockdown policies in rural Utah to good ones in NYC and ignore population density and major factors that cause increased spread that are independent of lockdown policy. But real scientists can do better science than that. Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    No, lockdowns and masking had no effect independent of things like population density, that's been proven beyond doubt now. Even the German government formally reached that conclusion and they are some of the most fanatical maskers and lockdowners out there! What we (read: governments and academics) "know" about infection is clearly wrong. The predictions don't match real world outcomes. Germ theory is incomplete. "Reading critically will eliminate 90% of the badly biased junk arguments out there. We should practice that skill more." Great. Go and read critically the studies and data sets on these topics and you'll see why you need to revise your position.
    - civilized 4y ago
      Could you name one of these beyond doubt studies or link to the German government reporting this decision?
      - origin_path 4y ago
        Germany, writeup of a leaked draft 'expert' report: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft https://www.eugyppius.com/p/bundestag-expert-committee-draft Lockdowns. A study of stringency index vs all US states outcomes: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-associated-with-covid-19-death-rate-across-us-states-but-is-associated-with-higher-unemployment/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/05/stringency-index-is-not-... Another, but for Europe: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?log... It's old but not much changed: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANCET-LOCKDOWN-NO-MORTALITY-BENEFIT-A-country-level-analysis-measuring-the-impact-of-government-actions.pdf https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.-LANC... Examples of obvious failures (note that any example is enough to invalidate lockdown as a working theory of disease control, because it doesn't have any complications that could explain exceptions where it doesn't work): 1. Netherlands, end of 2021. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-lockdown-was-a-complete-failure/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-netherlands-omicron-loc... 2. Sweden. Has some of the best results in Europe despite lockdown/COVID theory saying it should have had by far the worst. https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pandemic-league-table-of-23-rich-countries/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/sweden-ranked-third-in-pand... 3. Shanghai. No study needed for this one, just look at the reported case numbers and how the world's most nightmarish lockdown had no visible effect whatsoever. But really, please, just start reading and researching stuff yourself. This stuff is all like lockdowns 101. People on HN aggressively flag and downvote people who point out true things about COVID or the response to it (see how this post was voted down within seconds and the one you replied to is now flagged). It's tiring to always be asked to cite sources for things that are well known now for years amongst those who care enough to ask the questions and go looking for answers.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    Lockdown was helpful in blunting the peak(s), purely based on hospitalization, with the additional curve ball that we had to predict hospitalization because it was a lagging indicator. Lockdown in NY may have made things worse. We sent kids home from college to the elderly, reduced our hospitalization staff at the worst time, and turned nursing homes into hotbeds.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  >This is some pretty heavy speculation it's actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing"
  - darkerside 4y ago
    I'm not saying it wasn't bad. I'm calling out the assumption that it would have been worse without certain actions.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      those aren't assumptions, they are actually the conclusion of countless qualified experts, like the ones who were working double shifts in hospitals that were so overloaded with COVID patients that they had to open up field hospitals or convert entire floors to "bonus COVID wing" what do you think happens when 1 more covid patient comes in, just a single one? it becomes yet more work for those on the ground monitoring and tending to them, thus making things worse.
dmix 4y ago
This is an equal or more radical stance than even the article takes on most things. There’s hardly been any reckoning about what went wrong during COVID, it’s a bit of a stretch of project a decade from now there will be a serious anti-government backlash. It’s just as likely the same organizations which implemented these policies will close ranks and still be staffed by much of the same people and not much will change. Besides some think pieces and political narratives. Just look at the rhetorical blowback following the Iraq wars for example. That was 10x louder and more politically acceptable than critiquing vaccine mandates and masks and it still took 1.5 decades to end the actual wars, little real change in Patriot act or intelligence agencies in practice, and any real long term anti-intervention stance is mostly just circumstance of it being mostly peaceful. I doubt there will be anything much more significant comparatively in the health agencies and politically if another pandemic happens in the next decade. The narrative is very much in their favour, there’s no bloodbath coming for their jobs, let’s be honest.
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  There should be for Iraq, and there should be for this. It's important to be that voice for any cause you believe in, it's easy to speak up when everyone agrees with you, but that's never once shifted any dynamic
civilized 4y ago
I have the strange opinion that US COVID policy was terrible, but it wouldn't have made much difference if it had been excellent. The choices that mattered were mostly those that expedited or delayed the vaccine. A canny gambler might have gotten us the vaccine several months earlier, maybe blunting the horrible toll of the first winter. But the type of human who would have been willing to try that never gets anywhere near any real power in today's federal government. The system is incorrigibly biased against change of any kind, and would rather be gored by a charging rhino than risk stepping out of the way. Maybe universal masking with actual masks (not cloth rubbish) would have helped slow the spread better prior to the vaccine deployment.
- Zak 4y ago
  My experiences in Germany, where most public transit has had an FFP2 (similar to N95) mask mandate for many months makes me question the effectiveness of mandates. It should work; Germans have a reputation for following the rules, and there is a very good supply of the mandated masks. In reality, I'm not impressed. The number of unmasked people is substantial, and enforcement is limited. Non-filtering surgical masks are also common, and exactly once, I heard a train conductor politely ask a passenger with a surgical mask to wear a filtering mask next time. Ironically, the same mandate did not apply to staff, and the conductor was also wearing a surgical mask. I also see a lot of people wearing the correct type of mask incorrectly, not covering the nose, or with very loose bands that cannot possibly result in an effective seal. I think I'd prefer a request to a mandate at this point. I'll wear FFP3 masks and do a quick leak test every time I put them on. People who pretend to wear masks to satisfy a mandate can stop pretending.
Aerroon 4y ago
>We are going to hear about why the COVID response was incorrect for decades and how it stole a generation. Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. When you do something this extreme you must be able to justify it. Imagine if an individual put the same restrictions as governments created onto another person. Eg don't allow them to go to school or leave their home etc. How would the legal system treat this individual? They would need an extremely good justification for it, otherwise they would probably go to prison.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > Of course you're going to hear about it, because the response to it trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society. I never got why people who hold this opinion, despite it being an unpopular one, just announce it as if it's universally believed. As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. You personally believe there should be a different trade-off point than others do, that's all.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    >As if most people don't believe "freedoms and rights" have limitations when they start affecting those of others. Which is why it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards. Then you can tell whether somebody overstepped their authority. You can't just declare an emergency and then unilaterally decide that everything was done For The Greater Good and must never be questioned. If you impose your will onto others then you must have an extremely good justification for it. A justification that others analyze and criticize.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > it is very important to analyze the situation afterwards which such analysis, conducted by who, concluded with the following quote: "the response ... trampled on the freedoms and rights of our modern society" ?

checker 4y ago

The author is affiliated with Virginia Governor Youngkin. There is definitely an agenda being pushed here, probably for Youngkin. Interesting that the author is calling for an end to political games within the CDC when he's playing one himself. Pandemics are hard. If the CDC doesn't present a unified public voice, then a large chunk of the population will latch on to the people they agree with, and no policy would be effective. So I can understand how it came to this. Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here). And not everyone is going to trust them and they will be blamed for any mistakes. Sometimes there isn't time to do the science, so it ends up being an educated guess at maximizing reward vs risk. It's not a position I would want to hold.

cm2187 4y ago
There is still a lack of common sense. Anyone who looked at the age distribution of covid patients and deaths knows that there are hardly any children getting sick from covid, and everything I heard points to the few ones having almost always other severe diseases (cancer, etc), so covid being the drop in the bucket. They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially. The same applies to mask mandates. The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections. At the same time we are told new variants (omicron) are many times more contagious that the variants the masks were not really stopping in the first place. Mask mandates have become a similar security theatre than bugging old ladies with their liquids at airport security. The problem is that on insisting on measures that even laymen can tell are bullshit, they are undermining the credibility they will need the day there is something that needs to be done that will make a difference. Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  these objections have been raised and shot down plenty of times. for example, the framing "there are hardly any children getting sick from covid" disregards the utility of reducing children as a transmission vector, and "The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections" disregards the protection they afford by arbitrarily labeling it as "marginal" >No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading I don't know from where you draw this conclusion, considering his track record of doing it previously in Ukraine in 2014, and Georgia before that, and given his moving of an entire army to the border, and subsequently issuing threatening ultimatums to the world they knew the world would never subjugate themselves to

rebuilder 4y ago

Take a look at the rest of the site, it’s obviously more political propaganda than news. Whatever reasonable points there may be in this article - and there may well be some - are purely incidental.