6 ms·

We’re sadly living through the same thing right now

by financetechbro 10mo ago

username135 10mo ago
Time is a flat circle
- kristianp 10mo ago
  Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again.
  - cevn 9mo ago
    I win again, Lews Therin..
colechristensen 10mo ago
And people won't point to the actual causes: - The COVID free-money needed to be less and to end sooner - The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change. We needed restrictions ONLY during spikes and more consideration needed to be given to the long term economic effects of COVID policies. An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader https://wgntv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/01/tuedeath.jpg https://wgntv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/01/tuedeat... The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition. We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
- ares623 10mo ago
  I was in NZ during COVID. I was adamantly pro-lockdowns. In hindsight, it was a very selfish view. It benefitted my family directly and I was more than happy to follow the rules and scoff at those that didn’t. I won’t claim to know what the appropriate response level should have been back then. But it is very clear that the whole affair has hurt and damaged people and society irreparably. The only winners are the wealthy who scooped up assets at never-before seen interest rates.
  - wkat4242 10mo ago
    Yeah the lockdowns have really damaged my mental health. And the mask mandates even more so due to ancient trauma (where I nearly suffocated and have very bad associations with breathing that feels obstructed). But that's a very personal reason that I understand couldn't be accommodated for back in those days. I don't know if it was worth it or necessary but tbh I just try to forget the whole phase ever happened. For me it was a few lost life years and I'm still trying to get back to where I was mentally. I do feel those things were really overlooked back in the day. But I'm also glad I'm not the one making such decisions which can't be easy. The only thing I have an outspoken opinion about were the curfews we had here. Meaning the available time for things like shopping was more compressed and thus the shops were a lot busier than normal which was super counterproductive. And it didn't stop partygoers because they simply slept over.
- CTDOCodebases 10mo ago
  Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem. > The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner What would we have been optimizing for here? GDP? Deaths? ICU Capacity? Lifestyle? Or would we weight them? If so would we take 2nd and 3rd order effects into consideration? > An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader I lived in a country/state that did this during the pandemic. It wasn't a case of restrictions on, restrictions off. It was more a dialing back or ramping up of restrictions. If you look at other countries that did this you will still find the wave pattern. If I had to guess that is related to immunity after exposure. What would change however is the height of the peaks. With it's political/media landscape I don't know if the approach you suggest could have been applied effectively in the USA. Ultimately what drives cases/deaths is human behavior and the virus itself. Those who thought covid was an issue were taking precautions regardless of the restrictions. > The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change. This is a gross simplification of the whole pandemic. If I was to narrativize it I would say that over time as exposure to the virus increased it became less deadly so the vast majority of the people who were already prone to dying via covid had done so already. > The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition. This is more a comment on the political/media landscape than the response to covid itself. People have to operate within the system. If they present any sort of nuanced idea then they are persecuted by roughly 50% of the population whose narrative it infringes upon. > We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here) The WHO was very clear at the beginning of the pandemic about the risks of the virus. For wealthy countries whose hospitals were "lean and mean" a high number of cases would cause immense pressure on these hospitals resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths not just from covid but from other things that would result from a limited ICU capacity. By this I mean life saving operations getting cancelled because there was no capacity in the ICU. It's also worth mentioning the restrictions pared with the financial aid allowed people to stay at home and not engage in any risk taking activities. To summarize I think it's easy to arm chair quarterback the response to the pandemic. It's like most of politics. We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem. The "masks are ineffective" narrative at the beginning of the pandemic was a classic example of this.
- marcosdumay 10mo ago
  If you are talking about the US, the COVID money needed to be distributed to the people, not to rich investors to buy stock and land.
  - colechristensen 10mo ago
    ... $900+ billion dollars in the US were given directly to the people.
    - marcosdumay 10mo ago
      If you use the most restrictive definition of money available, they printed 16 trillions: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

We’re sadly living through the same thing right now

username135 10mo ago

Time is a flat circle

kristianp 10mo ago
Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again.
- cevn 9mo ago
  I win again, Lews Therin..

colechristensen 10mo ago

And people won't point to the actual causes: - The COVID free-money needed to be less and to end sooner - The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change. We needed restrictions ONLY during spikes and more consideration needed to be given to the long term economic effects of COVID policies. An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader https://wgntv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/01/tuedeath.jpg https://wgntv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/01/tuedeat... The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition. We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)

ares623 10mo ago
I was in NZ during COVID. I was adamantly pro-lockdowns. In hindsight, it was a very selfish view. It benefitted my family directly and I was more than happy to follow the rules and scoff at those that didn’t. I won’t claim to know what the appropriate response level should have been back then. But it is very clear that the whole affair has hurt and damaged people and society irreparably. The only winners are the wealthy who scooped up assets at never-before seen interest rates.
- wkat4242 10mo ago
  Yeah the lockdowns have really damaged my mental health. And the mask mandates even more so due to ancient trauma (where I nearly suffocated and have very bad associations with breathing that feels obstructed). But that's a very personal reason that I understand couldn't be accommodated for back in those days. I don't know if it was worth it or necessary but tbh I just try to forget the whole phase ever happened. For me it was a few lost life years and I'm still trying to get back to where I was mentally. I do feel those things were really overlooked back in the day. But I'm also glad I'm not the one making such decisions which can't be easy. The only thing I have an outspoken opinion about were the curfews we had here. Meaning the available time for things like shopping was more compressed and thus the shops were a lot busier than normal which was super counterproductive. And it didn't stop partygoers because they simply slept over.
CTDOCodebases 10mo ago
Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem. > The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner What would we have been optimizing for here? GDP? Deaths? ICU Capacity? Lifestyle? Or would we weight them? If so would we take 2nd and 3rd order effects into consideration? > An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader I lived in a country/state that did this during the pandemic. It wasn't a case of restrictions on, restrictions off. It was more a dialing back or ramping up of restrictions. If you look at other countries that did this you will still find the wave pattern. If I had to guess that is related to immunity after exposure. What would change however is the height of the peaks. With it's political/media landscape I don't know if the approach you suggest could have been applied effectively in the USA. Ultimately what drives cases/deaths is human behavior and the virus itself. Those who thought covid was an issue were taking precautions regardless of the restrictions. > The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change. This is a gross simplification of the whole pandemic. If I was to narrativize it I would say that over time as exposure to the virus increased it became less deadly so the vast majority of the people who were already prone to dying via covid had done so already. > The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition. This is more a comment on the political/media landscape than the response to covid itself. People have to operate within the system. If they present any sort of nuanced idea then they are persecuted by roughly 50% of the population whose narrative it infringes upon. > We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here) The WHO was very clear at the beginning of the pandemic about the risks of the virus. For wealthy countries whose hospitals were "lean and mean" a high number of cases would cause immense pressure on these hospitals resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths not just from covid but from other things that would result from a limited ICU capacity. By this I mean life saving operations getting cancelled because there was no capacity in the ICU. It's also worth mentioning the restrictions pared with the financial aid allowed people to stay at home and not engage in any risk taking activities. To summarize I think it's easy to arm chair quarterback the response to the pandemic. It's like most of politics. We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem. The "masks are ineffective" narrative at the beginning of the pandemic was a classic example of this.
marcosdumay 10mo ago
If you are talking about the US, the COVID money needed to be distributed to the people, not to rich investors to buy stock and land.
- colechristensen 10mo ago
  ... $900+ billion dollars in the US were given directly to the people.
  - marcosdumay 10mo ago
    If you use the most restrictive definition of money available, they printed 16 trillions: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL