5 ms·

Your original statement was: > "I appreciate Covid is still a threat to some elderly and/or sick people. To the majority of us, it isn't ... and wasn't ... eve

Your original statement was: > "I appreciate Covid is still a threat to some elderly and/or sick people. To the majority of us, it isn't ... and wasn't ... ever " The fact that it doubled everyone's risk of dying disproves that. I understand that it's unlikely for a young, healthy person to die in any given year but they should still wear seatbelts, or stop smoking if doing those things doubles their likelihood of death. >I'm not sure that peer-reviewed research deserves to be put on a pedestal. I'm unaware of any better alternative. Twitter and blog posts certainly aren't it. >It's pretty unfortunate if a "cure" ends up killing more people than the disease It would be pretty bold to make that claim. Do you have any reliable source to indicate that it was? I'm aware that many people speculated to that effect, often loudly. I've never seen any evidence though. That said, the fact that this is Financial Times article kind of gives it away. It's reasonable (if a bit monstrous) to say that you think your income is more important than other peoples lives, but if that's what you mean you should state it plainly. > We can and should trust doctors at an individual level, but at planet scale we need to listen to statisticians too. I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. Statistics are like bikinis. What they display is important, but what they conceal is vital. To me, statements like this feel like another way of saying "There are things more important than human life."

logifail 3y ago
> The fact that it doubled everyone's risk of dying disproves that. It really doesn't. > It would be pretty bold to make that claim. Do you have any reliable source to indicate that it was? "Pandemics kill people in two ways, said Chris Whitty at the start of the Covid outbreak: directly and indirectly, via disruption. He was making the case for caution amidst strong public demand for lockdown, stressing the tradeoffs. While Covid deaths were counted daily, the longer-term effects would take years to come through. The only real way of counting this would be to look at ‘excess deaths’, i.e. how many more people die every month (or year) compared to normal. That data is now coming through."[0] EDIT - adding: "COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs. “This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.” " and "The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States." and "The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’ to control future pandemics." [0] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-excess-deaths-a-look-at-the-data/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-excess-... [1] https://iea.org.uk/media/lockdowns-were-a-costly-failure-finds-new-iea-book/ https://iea.org.uk/media/lockdowns-were-a-costly-failure-fin...
- stevenAthompson 3y ago
  I think we may just have different assumptions buried in the heart of our respective worldviews. To me it is axiomatic that the value of a human life is not something that can be measured in dollars. All lives that can be saved, should be saved unless doing so would cost more lives. To the "Institute of Economic Affairs" it's probably axiomatic that a humans only value is in their economic worth. The elderly that died therefore had little value in the first place. Their loss would mean little to that worldview. When I see statements from the article like the ones below I see it as absolute proof that we made the right decisions, or at least something close to the right decisions. When the authors saw it they concluded that these lives were too expensive. A concept I find completely alien. >Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent; >Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent; >Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent; >Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and >School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > To me it is axiomatic that the value of a human life is not something that can be measured in dollars. That's a laudable view. If you were put in charge, how would you formulate policy for managing a resource-constrained health system? > I see it as absolute proof that we made the right decisions, or at least something close to the right decisions Have you seen the excess deaths data for Europe 2020-2022? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqb9qDsWAAELo-m?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqb9qDsWAAELo-m?format=jpg&name=... [EDIT: changed to the English version...]
    - stevenAthompson 3y ago
      > If you were put in charge, how would you formulate policy for managing a resource-constrained health system? I would delegate those decisions to healthcare subject matter experts. I'm not qualified to make those sorts of decisions. Neither are politicians, economists, or statisticians on their own. It is a big, complicated subject and just being generally clever isn't enough to qualify someone for that type of thing. > Have you seen the excess deaths data for Europe 2020-2022? I had not, and it's concerning. I don't think it automatically counts as proof that covid interventions did more harm than the disease though. For example, I've seen other papers that suggest excess deaths are actually proof that covid deaths were wildly underreported, especially early on. That and the paper you linked earlier are certainly enough to suggest we need more research to determine which interventions worked, and which didn't, with greater certainty. This won't be the last pandemic. I may fully read the book by the statistician you cited earlier. I think he touches on the subject of those excess deaths a bit.

logifail 3y ago

> The fact that it doubled everyone's risk of dying disproves that. It really doesn't. > It would be pretty bold to make that claim. Do you have any reliable source to indicate that it was? "Pandemics kill people in two ways, said Chris Whitty at the start of the Covid outbreak: directly and indirectly, via disruption. He was making the case for caution amidst strong public demand for lockdown, stressing the tradeoffs. While Covid deaths were counted daily, the longer-term effects would take years to come through. The only real way of counting this would be to look at ‘excess deaths’, i.e. how many more people die every month (or year) compared to normal. That data is now coming through."[0] EDIT - adding: "COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs. “This study is the first all-encompassing evaluation of the research on the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on mortality,” according to one of the study’s co-authors, Dr. Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.” " and "The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States." and "The research concludes that, unless substantial alternative evidence emerges, lockdowns should be ‘rejected out of hand’ to control future pandemics." [0] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-excess-deaths-a-look-at-the-data/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-excess-... [1] https://iea.org.uk/media/lockdowns-were-a-costly-failure-finds-new-iea-book/ https://iea.org.uk/media/lockdowns-were-a-costly-failure-fin...

stevenAthompson 3y ago
I think we may just have different assumptions buried in the heart of our respective worldviews. To me it is axiomatic that the value of a human life is not something that can be measured in dollars. All lives that can be saved, should be saved unless doing so would cost more lives. To the "Institute of Economic Affairs" it's probably axiomatic that a humans only value is in their economic worth. The elderly that died therefore had little value in the first place. Their loss would mean little to that worldview. When I see statements from the article like the ones below I see it as absolute proof that we made the right decisions, or at least something close to the right decisions. When the authors saw it they concluded that these lives were too expensive. A concept I find completely alien. >Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent; >Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent; >Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent; >Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and >School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.
- logifail 3y ago
  > To me it is axiomatic that the value of a human life is not something that can be measured in dollars. That's a laudable view. If you were put in charge, how would you formulate policy for managing a resource-constrained health system? > I see it as absolute proof that we made the right decisions, or at least something close to the right decisions Have you seen the excess deaths data for Europe 2020-2022? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqb9qDsWAAELo-m?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fqb9qDsWAAELo-m?format=jpg&name=... [EDIT: changed to the English version...]
  - stevenAthompson 3y ago
    > If you were put in charge, how would you formulate policy for managing a resource-constrained health system? I would delegate those decisions to healthcare subject matter experts. I'm not qualified to make those sorts of decisions. Neither are politicians, economists, or statisticians on their own. It is a big, complicated subject and just being generally clever isn't enough to qualify someone for that type of thing. > Have you seen the excess deaths data for Europe 2020-2022? I had not, and it's concerning. I don't think it automatically counts as proof that covid interventions did more harm than the disease though. For example, I've seen other papers that suggest excess deaths are actually proof that covid deaths were wildly underreported, especially early on. That and the paper you linked earlier are certainly enough to suggest we need more research to determine which interventions worked, and which didn't, with greater certainty. This won't be the last pandemic. I may fully read the book by the statistician you cited earlier. I think he touches on the subject of those excess deaths a bit.