3 ms·

the average takes 18 months does absolutely mean you look deeper if you come out above average on the coattails of unprecedented new medical and epidemiological

the average takes 18 months does absolutely mean you look deeper if you come out above average on the coattails of unprecedented new medical and epidemiological technologies and practices

majormajor 4y ago
I mean, we're in a thread discussing a bunch of money allocated to look deeper into one aspect, and there have been continual studies throughout the pandemic, so I'm not sure who opposes the point of looking deeper. But I think that you're actually claiming you know the answer: "How much did we spend on covid with a 30 month achievement to show for it?" You seem pretty certain with that phrasing that the actions taken were either ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. Without any broader discussion other than "here is a stat on past pandemics" and "here is a stat on current spending." That's not looking deeper. You complain about a different commenter pointing that there have been much worse ones as well. But you aren't actually doing much different other than saying "sometimes they don't last as long, what did we do wrong???" There's been a lot of discussion and study of transmission rate vs fatality rate vs incubation period etc that covers how this particular disease is different than many of the ones in that "average", and how that should change your expectations, go look it up. This is directly relevant to your "we actually were told that what was recommended was expected to shorten this black swan pandemic" thing - the data that early recommendations on was preliminary, and as more results came in, policies changed. March 2020 was different than September 2020 was different than March 2021 was different than October 2021 was different than post-spring-2022... Cause otherwise your "it could've been better" is backed up with not much more than anyone else's "it could've been worse."

the average takes 18 months does absolutely mean you look deeper if you come out above average on the coattails of unprecedented new medical and epidemiological technologies and practices

majormajor 4y ago

I mean, we're in a thread discussing a bunch of money allocated to look deeper into one aspect, and there have been continual studies throughout the pandemic, so I'm not sure who opposes the point of looking deeper. But I think that you're actually claiming you know the answer: "How much did we spend on covid with a 30 month achievement to show for it?" You seem pretty certain with that phrasing that the actions taken were either ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. Without any broader discussion other than "here is a stat on past pandemics" and "here is a stat on current spending." That's not looking deeper. You complain about a different commenter pointing that there have been much worse ones as well. But you aren't actually doing much different other than saying "sometimes they don't last as long, what did we do wrong???" There's been a lot of discussion and study of transmission rate vs fatality rate vs incubation period etc that covers how this particular disease is different than many of the ones in that "average", and how that should change your expectations, go look it up. This is directly relevant to your "we actually were told that what was recommended was expected to shorten this black swan pandemic" thing - the data that early recommendations on was preliminary, and as more results came in, policies changed. March 2020 was different than September 2020 was different than March 2021 was different than October 2021 was different than post-spring-2022... Cause otherwise your "it could've been better" is backed up with not much more than anyone else's "it could've been worse."