4 ms·

>A million people died in the US died from Covid. This claim is absurd and invented. Firstly, it takes two seconds to discover that the reporting requirements

by 0xy 3y ago

>A million people died in the US died from Covid. This claim is absurd and invented. Firstly, it takes two seconds to discover that the reporting requirements for Covid "deaths" do not say that Covid must be the primary cause of death, or even a contributing factor. Reporting standards stated clearly that anyone who dies and happens to also have Covid can be included as a "Covid death". There are numerous cases of this occurring with people who were already terminally ill, people who had a motorcycle accident and other absurdities. When the federal government financially incentivizes hospitals and medical institutions to inflate numbers that are loosely monitored, all of them will have their finger on the scale. There's documented evidence. >we knew next to nothing about the virus at the time We knew that lockdowns would destroy the economy, destroy the lives of children and irreversibly steal an entire generation. We also knew that Covid affected primarily old and severely unwell people, with obesity and other serious health conditions. With this in mind, why wasn't the lockdown aimed at the old and the obese, the people who were seriously at risk? A 15 year old had functionally zero risk yet took the entire brunt of the lockdowns. A 85 year old with obesity has massively inflated risk yet trades nothing off (they've lived their lives already). Trading the lives of young people to save old people is despicable. When a boat is sinking, the first people off are children. Why weren't children prioritized here?

micromacrofoot 3y ago
So how many people do you think really died from covid? 500,000? 100,000? how many more would have died without the lockdowns? In your eyes, how many more deaths would have been acceptable if the economy would be stronger today? We spent nearly $2 trillion in Iraq for a decade. 9/11 was the catalyst, and 3,000 people died. I'm not saying you're wrong for being frustrated. But to me these are all separate problems. The lockdowns almost certainly provided additional death. I think that's a noble cause. It wasn't only the elderly, even with lockdowns thousand of kids lost parents. No amount of being in school can fix that. Now where's the $2 trillion for tutoring these kids and helping them catch up? that's what I'm mad about.
- arp242 3y ago
  I feel a single "deaths" number is not that useful of a metric, and something like "life years lost" would be better. A healthy 20 year old would lose ~60 years; a diabetic obese 60-year old much less. Of course we should take reasonable efforts to protect those more vulnerable to disease, but with more nuanced data like this you can better decide what "reasonable" is.
thebruce87m 3y ago
The claims about motorcycle deaths counting as covid deaths were what the deniers were spreading at the time. We now look back at excess mortality to know how many extra people died: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
- 303uru 3y ago
  The funny/not-at-all-funny part is that excess deaths likely underestimates as lockdowns reduce all cause mortality in a lot of other areas. But arguing with these anti-science folks is about as useful as slamming my head into the wall, so I'm out.
earthling8118 3y ago
It's 2023 and we're still making attempts at discrediting covid deaths? Wow. The economy was not "destroyed" nor were childrens' lives. You know what was destroyed? One of my loved one's sense of smell. And it was definitely covid's doing. I could never call that "functionally zero" risk. We're talking one of the few senses people have and it can be gone with no hope. You might not value that much but I don't want to deny anyone their senses. Trading the lives and senses of anyone to watch numbers go up in a spreadsheet is despicable.
- arp242 3y ago
  > Trading the lives and senses of anyone to watch numbers go up in a spreadsheet is despicable. Yet this is what we all do every day, from traffic to food safety, to public spending on health care, etc. These sort of trade-offs exist everywhere. Every single time you take a flight or step in a car you are literally contributing to the death of people. None of this is hugely controversial, except ... in the case of COVID. And it's not about "numbers", during great economic recessions quality of life does decline, sometimes greatly so. IMHO "destroy the economy", "destroy the lives of children", etc. is hugely overstating matters, but it did have a negative impact on many aspects. Were lockdowns a good or bad trade-off? You can reasonably disagree on that. But to deny the trade-off exists in the first place is unhelpful.

by 0xy 3y ago

micromacrofoot 3y ago

So how many people do you think really died from covid? 500,000? 100,000? how many more would have died without the lockdowns? In your eyes, how many more deaths would have been acceptable if the economy would be stronger today? We spent nearly $2 trillion in Iraq for a decade. 9/11 was the catalyst, and 3,000 people died. I'm not saying you're wrong for being frustrated. But to me these are all separate problems. The lockdowns almost certainly provided additional death. I think that's a noble cause. It wasn't only the elderly, even with lockdowns thousand of kids lost parents. No amount of being in school can fix that. Now where's the $2 trillion for tutoring these kids and helping them catch up? that's what I'm mad about.

arp242 3y ago
I feel a single "deaths" number is not that useful of a metric, and something like "life years lost" would be better. A healthy 20 year old would lose ~60 years; a diabetic obese 60-year old much less. Of course we should take reasonable efforts to protect those more vulnerable to disease, but with more nuanced data like this you can better decide what "reasonable" is.

thebruce87m 3y ago

The claims about motorcycle deaths counting as covid deaths were what the deniers were spreading at the time. We now look back at excess mortality to know how many extra people died: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...

303uru 3y ago
The funny/not-at-all-funny part is that excess deaths likely underestimates as lockdowns reduce all cause mortality in a lot of other areas. But arguing with these anti-science folks is about as useful as slamming my head into the wall, so I'm out.

earthling8118 3y ago

It's 2023 and we're still making attempts at discrediting covid deaths? Wow. The economy was not "destroyed" nor were childrens' lives. You know what was destroyed? One of my loved one's sense of smell. And it was definitely covid's doing. I could never call that "functionally zero" risk. We're talking one of the few senses people have and it can be gone with no hope. You might not value that much but I don't want to deny anyone their senses. Trading the lives and senses of anyone to watch numbers go up in a spreadsheet is despicable.

arp242 3y ago
> Trading the lives and senses of anyone to watch numbers go up in a spreadsheet is despicable. Yet this is what we all do every day, from traffic to food safety, to public spending on health care, etc. These sort of trade-offs exist everywhere. Every single time you take a flight or step in a car you are literally contributing to the death of people. None of this is hugely controversial, except ... in the case of COVID. And it's not about "numbers", during great economic recessions quality of life does decline, sometimes greatly so. IMHO "destroy the economy", "destroy the lives of children", etc. is hugely overstating matters, but it did have a negative impact on many aspects. Were lockdowns a good or bad trade-off? You can reasonably disagree on that. But to deny the trade-off exists in the first place is unhelpful.