Coronainsanity

[Gulo Blue]

How is this when the churches have been closed and people have been forbidden to attend funerals?

Or one might say

Not a word’s been spoken

The church bells all are broken

The people can get sick elsewhere. And I don't know how many people are attending these funerals, but they are still being announced.

What I really wouldn't do right now is take a train to the coast. Guess I couldn't if I wanted to. Last one left.

 

[byco42]

The people can get sick elsewhere. And I don't know how many people are attending these funerals, but they are still being announced.

What I really wouldn't do right now is take a train to the coast. Guess I couldn't if I wanted to. Last one left.

You?d share space with The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You?d share space with The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Ok, if I could make that train, I wouldn't worry about covid, but I think it already left.

 

[Spartanmack]

Identity and belonging to a certain group is more important to some people than understanding the world around them. Or maybe a substitute for understanding the world around them (which is admittedly unpleasant).

I mean, if you ALREADY KNOW America is the great moral beacon of democracy, and most bestest country on Earth, it's a little jarring to see how badly we've managed this pandemic and public health in general, right? Politicians from both parties not only failed to keep people safe, but basically passed death sentences on a significant portion of the elderly, particularly those in nursing homes. Can't get much worse than actively killing large numbers of your own people... that's failing 21st Century Government 101.


Amazing how quickly American deaths just became statistics.

No, not at all. It's possible to know that the United States is by far the most equal, egalitarian and greatest nation on earth and also know it's not perfect. It's also possible to know how great the US is and not like the current state or the direction it's going in.

Can you identify some politicians on both sides of the aisle that passed death sentences on people living in nursing homes? From what I've seen, those were all based on orders passed down from governors - all of them from the same side political party.

 

[Spartanmack]

There are 2 ideas floating about that I reject. One is the idea that the economic hit could have been avoided without lockdown rules and the other is that the death toll as it is reflects the trade off we made against the impact to our lives.

Regarding lockdowns: In the original paper with the '2 million deaths', with the caveats that everyone ignored about how their model involved no behavior changes, I believe they said that even if governments didn't take action, people would change their behavior on their own. At least I think that's where I first saw that idea. Either way, I totally believe. There's not remotely as much 'lock down' as there is people voluntarily being cautious. This idea that all of this was avoidable is a total fiction. Half of us were going to reduce exposure anyway.

Regarding the costs of the 'trade off': The 400k dead (or whatever it is now) is how many people died with the degree of behavior changes we implemented. Had we not done everything we did, the deaths would have been higher. Maybe 2 million come to think of it.

lockdowns destroyed the economy and lives in many ways and while there would have been some economic impact without them, it wouldn't be anywhere near the levels we've seen. There's no question about that. All you have to do to see this is look at states with less stringent lockdowns and see how they've fared better economically than states with the strictest lockdowns, which by the way had some of the worst outcomes in terms of infections and deaths. So from the evidence, it appears lockdowns are far more effective at killing economies than the virus. Is the Neil Ferguson/Cambridge paper the source for the 2mm you're using? If so, to claim that the lockdowns have saved as many as 1.6mm lives is an argument that should be rejected as pure nonsense. I think this was discussed here back in March - the guy who has never been right on a single prediction, not even close, who got got caught violating his own lockdown recommendations to cheat on his wife - catching COVID in the process. Doesn't seem like a very reliable way of evaluating the effectiveness of the lockdowns.

 

[Gulo Blue]

lockdowns destroyed the economy and lives in many ways and while there would have been some economic impact without them, it wouldn't be anywhere near the levels we've seen. There's no question about that. All you have to do to see this is look at states with less stringent lockdowns and see how they've fared better economically than states with the strictest lockdowns, which by the way had some of the worst outcomes in terms of infections and deaths. So from the evidence, it appears lockdowns are far more effective at killing economies than the virus. Is the Neil Ferguson/Cambridge paper the source for the 2mm you're using? If so, to claim that the lockdowns have saved as many as 1.6mm lives is just pure nonsense. We discussed this back in March - the guy who has never been right on a single prediction, not even close, who got got caught violating his own lockdown recommendations to cheat on his wife - catching COVID in the process. Comparisons to that number should be outright rejected.

It's not that I'm unwilling to talk about this stuff or anything, but I read what you wrote here and it's just not a conversation. It's not a back and both unless your point was to provide an example of how people read that paper wrong.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Like a robot - sees '2 million deaths paper' - provides response for '2 million deaths paper' - with no understanding of context or meaning. Just the same programmed response for '2 million deaths paper'.

 

[tinselwolverine]

lockdowns destroyed the economy and lives in many ways and while there would have been some economic impact without them, it wouldn't be anywhere near the levels we've seen. There's no question about that. All you have to do to see this is look at states with less stringent lockdowns and see how they've fared better economically than states with the strictest lockdowns, which by the way had some of the worst outcomes in terms of infections and deaths. So from the evidence, it appears lockdowns are far more effective at killing economies than the virus. Is the Neil Ferguson/Cambridge paper the source for the 2mm you're using? If so, to claim that the lockdowns have saved as many as 1.6mm lives is an argument that should be rejected as pure nonsense. I think this was discussed here back in March - the guy who has never been right on a single prediction, not even close, who got got caught violating his own lockdown recommendations to cheat on his wife - catching COVID in the process. Doesn't seem like a very reliable way of evaluating the effectiveness of the lockdowns.

Damn, that’s funny.

Both the sidepiece and the wife are betties.

Must be nice to be the most powerful British dork outside of the royal family.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If anyone else wants me to explain that response in more detail, let me know and I'll do it. But I don't to hijack the thread over this stuff if it's not wanted.

 

[Michchamp]

How is this when the churches have been closed and people have been forbidden to attend funerals?

Or one might say

Not a word?s been spoken

The church bells all are broken

The lyrics to Whiter Shade of Pale might have worked a little better here. more abstract and poetic

 

[Spartanmack]

It's not that I'm unwilling to talk about this stuff or anything, but I read what you wrote here and it's just not a conversation. It's not a back and both unless your point was to provide an example of how people read that paper wrong.

think of it as instructional rather than a conversation then. It was about more than just the paper, which has zero predictive value and is disputed by plenty of reputable epidemiologists - it's not just a lack of context or a misreading of the paper that would lead people to disagree with it, or with you. The best that can be said based on paper is the number of lives saved by lockdowns is somewhere between 0 and 1.6mm (and shrinking) and there's no way of knowing which end of the range is more likely.

The bigger point is this idea that the economic impact is due to voluntary changes in behavior more than lockdowns. That's absurd. There is no way in hell that small businesses would have shut down voluntarily or that they wouldn't have survived anyway because their customers would have shut down. That belief isn't supported by any evidence at all. Sure some people would have locked themselves in their homes, but most people left to their own devices would have just taken reasonable precautions and gone about their lives as best they could. Not everyone lives in fear. People want to go out to eat, go work, school, socialize, be entertained, etc. Spikes in suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, etc aren't because people just decided they shouldn't leave the house.

 

[Spartanmack]

Damn, that?s funny.

Both the sidepiece and the wife are betties.

Must be nice to be the most powerful British dork outside of the royal family.

yeah, especially when you became the most powerful British dork outside the royal family by being wildly wrong on literally every prediction you ever made. Talk about failing up.

edit: btw, it appears you posted the same link 2x - both take me to the same article. The first pic of the mistress makes her look pretty good, but the latter indicate she could use some treadmill time.

 

[Michchamp]

No, not at all. It's possible to know that the United States is by far the most equal, egalitarian and greatest nation on earth and also know it's not perfect. It's also possible to know how great the US is and not like the current state or the direction it's going in.

450,000 and counting, dead. Nobody's perfect! :shrug:

Can you identify some politicians on both sides of the aisle that passed death sentences on people living in nursing homes? From what I've seen, those were all based on orders passed down from governors - all of them from the same side political party.

really? Texas Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick went on TV and said old people should be happy to die if it meant the economy didn't suffer. Geez, pretty much the response of every Southern state, esp. Florida, was awful. TX as well.

 

[Spartanmack]

450,000 and counting, dead. Nobody's perfect! :shrug:

Not even close to what I'm saying and it does nothing to refute the fact that the US is by far the greatest country on earth.

really? Texas Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick went on TV and said old people should be happy to die if it meant the economy didn't suffer. Geez, pretty much the response of every Southern state, esp. Florida, was awful. TX as well.

No he didn't say that and what he did say was in no way a death sentence to elderly people in nursing homes. Try again, if you'd like but you're going to be disappointed - every single governor that forced nursing homes to take COVID patients was a Democrat - and we're finding out that at least one of those states (NY) is way underreporting the deaths in nursing homes from those orders.

Also, the response in Florida wasn't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe - and you would like everyone to believe because it's a Republican state. They stayed relatively open and didn't have nearly as bad outcomes as a lot of states with far more restrictive lockdowns - not bad considering age of the population in Florida, the state is basically God's waiting room.

 

[byco42]

There are 2 ideas floating about that I reject. One is the idea that the economic hit could have been avoided without lockdown rules and the other is that the death toll as it is reflects the trade off we made against the impact to our lives.

I agree. It?s not possible to quantify the impact, and the Imperial College Tables for UK (I don?t see them for the US) still have too many variables to project and actually define the actual measures in the US vs their model.

Regarding lockdowns: In the original paper with the '2 million deaths', with the caveats that everyone ignored about how their model involved no behavior changes, I believe they said that even if governments didn't take action, people would change their behavior on their own. At least I think that's where I first saw that idea. Either way, I totally believe. There's not remotely as much 'lock down' as there is people voluntarily being cautious. This idea that all of this was avoidable is a total fiction. Half of us were going to reduce exposure anyway.

Suppression was never completely applied in the US (though there were/are individual examples of it) as in the model study. And I would have no idea how or if whatever was enacted here can be matched to the study.

Regarding the costs of the 'trade off': The 400k dead (or whatever it is now) is how many people died with the degree of behavior changes we implemented. Had we not done everything we did, the deaths would have been higher. Maybe 2 million come to think of it.

The study does not have the same tables for the US, which would be helpful. GB has 100+ deaths to date, 20% of the 510,000 high estimate. Graph A on page 7 seems to contain all the deaths between April and August of 2020 in the event there was no behavioral changes. Link

 

[byco42]

The lyrics to Whiter Shade of Pale might have worked a little better here. more abstract and poetic

IMO, A Whiter Shade of Pale is highly overrated. Or it just never grabbed me. Or both.

 

[Spartanmack]

IMO, A Whiter Shade of Pale is highly overrated. Or it just never grabbed me. Or both.

more overrated than American Pie?

 

[byco42]

think of it as instructional rather than a conversation then. It was about more than just the paper, which has zero predictive value and is disputed by plenty of reputable epidemiologists - it's not just a lack of context or a misreading of the paper that would lead people to disagree with it, or with you.

I think it’s a contextual thing. It’s not “predictive”; it’s “estimatory” (sic). The paper was released in March. I expect there was some “encouragement” to get it done. Hence the reliance on a previous model based on the flu combined with the few puzzle pieces of data from China and Korea, and some further reference to 1918, especially. So the guy offered a wide range of mitigation scenarios, and R0 ranges, some gamma dust and whatever else statisticians, epididimologists, (sic) and sabermatricians (sic) do to arrive at conclusions that are better than throwing a handful of grass in the air. Heck, I bet that even Rebbiv worked on this study (uncredited)

The bigger point is this idea that the economic impact is due to voluntary changes in behavior more than lockdowns. That's absurd. There is no way in hell that small businesses would have shut down voluntarily or that they wouldn't have survived anyway because their customers would have shut down isn't supported by any evidence at all. Sure some people would have locked themselves in their homes, but most people left to their own devices would have just taken reasonable precautions and gone about their lives as best they could. Not everyone lives in fear. People want to go out to eat, go work, school, socialize, be entertained, etc. Spikes in suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, etc aren't because people just decided they shouldn't leave the house.

I think that the aggregate of the population is wiser than a handful of elected officials, and my main objection to the business closing were which businesses closed.

 

[byco42]

more overrated than American Pie?

I do not agree that American Pie is ?overrated?. It?s no musical masterpiece; that is not its purpose. It?s an anthem to the decay of American Culture and that was obvious from the first listening, even as a 14-year-old adolescent. Decoding it was very entertaining, too.

 

[Gulo Blue]

think that the aggregate of the population is wiser than a handful of elected officials, and my main objection to the business closing were which businesses closed.

Yup. At this point, I understand take out is safer than going to the barber. I don't need the government to specify these things place-by-place, which doesn't always work anyway. If someone builds what amounts to a temporary building on the sidewalk, that's not safer, even if it theoretically satisfies some guideline by 'being outside'.

The population could make these decisions if 30 or 40% didn't hang on every word of a guy that said he likes to downplay it.