Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

481 - 500 of 517 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
This study is way more useful than the garbage study arguing a stupid point from hindsight. It demonstrates that wearing a mask reduces the R0 of of the virus spread.

Back to that stupid study, we've been droning on for pages now that containing the virus was no longer an option the moment confining it to China failed. Locking things down sooner would have merely pushed back the date when more people get infected. Who really cares if we get infected today, or 2 months from today? We would have saved zero more people by locking down sooner, we'd simply have pushed back their deaths by a couple months.
So you're saying the mortality rate for someone getting COVID today vs 2 months ago is the same?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
So you're saying the mortality rate for someone getting COVID today vs 2 months ago is the same?!?
I'm saying we'll end up with the same total number of deaths 2 years from now regardless, except in one scenario, you wreck the economy earlier and create a bigger hole to dig out of.

I'll go one step further and say that closing things down prematurely undermines the effort to use lockdown as a mitigation strategy, because people have a limited tolerance for the duration of lockdown. In other words, only do it when it's absolutely necessary, otherwise people might not comply with it if it's overused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
I'm saying we'll end up with the same total number of deaths 2 years from now regardless, except in one scenario, you wreck the economy earlier and create a bigger hole to dig out of.

I'll go one step further and say that closing things down prematurely undermines the effort to use lockdown as a mitigation strategy, because people have a limited tolerance for the duration of lockdown. In other words, only do it when it's absolutely necessary, otherwise people might not comply with it if it's overused.
... wrong answer. The right answer is that someone who got infected 2 months ago is much more likely to die than someone who got infected today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
We'll my ears are burning. I await your evidence of that extraordinary claim.
I think the claim of "much more likely" might be overstated, but I have been seeing some articles which suggest that medical science is starting to learn which treatment strategies are more effective. For example:

Most Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Survive with Respiratory Failure Treatment Strategy, Research Finds

The use of rheumatoid arthritis drug sarilumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Study: Most Extreme COVID-19 Cases Can Be Treated With Standard Techniques

We're still groping our way forward - but as time goes on it's inevitable that we'll learn more about what works and what doesn't. So I think it's fair to say that the longer you can hold out before getting COVID-19 the better off you're likely to be.

But it's probably also true that part of the reason we're learning is from the deaths that we've suffered through. If we hadn't had those deaths, we likely wouldn't have learned as much as we have about what treatments to avoid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
Well, time sure proved that study worthless. That's the problem with a novel virus and an enormous number of variables.
I don't think they were worthless at all. Their purpose was to warn of the potential consequences in order to spur action, and they did that. I think the biggest flaw in the "do nothing" projections was the assumption that private individuals would just keep on doing "business as usual" in the face of millions of deaths even though there were no government restrictions. People just aren't that stupid. Well, most of them, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
People just aren't that stupid. Well, most of them, anyway.
I was going to disagree, but good thing you qualified your statement with "Most of them anyway". Someone has to win the Darwin award. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Dr. Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist at Sweden's Public Health Agency....Earlier this month, Tegnell admitted that he is not sure Sweden's strategy was the right call. "I'm not convinced at all - we are constantly thinking about this," he told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.


Sweden is surrounded by Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. They all have lower cases/M, and lower deaths/M. The death rate for Sweden's COVID-19 patients is 2.4-5.5 times higher as well, and 2.1 times as high as the US.

And then there is Iceland with more cases/M than any of them, but Sweden's death rate is 22 times higher.

But redpoint5 assures us this will all even out in two years, so no worries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
Dr. Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist at Sweden's Public Health Agency....Earlier this month, Tegnell admitted that he is not sure Sweden's strategy was the right call. "I'm not convinced at all - we are constantly thinking about this," he told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.
We're not going to know until either (a) a vaccine or treatment is developed quickly, or (b) we go for 2-3 years and are still relying primarily on isolation to keep the virus in check. In case (a) Sweden goofed and let more people die than they needed to. In case (b) they were prescient to acquire herd immunity so that their life could get back closer to normal quickly while everyone else is still struggling.

Anyone who asserts that the Sweden approach is horrible or genius is just blowing smoke. We simply don't know yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
But redpoint5 assures us this will all even out in two years, so no worries.
I've made no assurances. I suspect Sweden will have come out better in 2 years, but it's irrelevant to my main point that continuing to keep business closed assures that people aren't working. It also assures that anyone willing to work despite the risks involved has no say in the matter. Banning willing parties from engaging in the market is authoritarian, and I would expect any anti-facious groups to be marching in protest if their main objective is to oppose fascism.

From our local news today. This slacker spent 51 days just laying around, and he is still not ready to get back to work. I wouldn't guide my behavior based on an anecdote.

I hope it's an anecdote! I find 1-off stories to be most convincing that it represents the population as a whole. Why bother studying a population when you can talk to a single person?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Banning willing parties from engaging in the market is authoritarian, and I would expect any anti-facious groups to be marching in protest if their main objective is to oppose fascism.

I hope it's an anecdote! I find 1-off stories to be most convincing that it represents the population as a whole. Why bother studying a population when you can talk to a single person?
I do not worship the market as you do. If it turns out that researchers come up with treatments that save many thousands of lives going forward, lives that would have been lost because hospitals would have been overwhelmed, and there would have been no access to IV's or ice baths, let alone an effective treatment, so be it. Loosing lives needlessly is monstrous. Governments supporting corporations over people is fascism.

This guy was an outlier. The average length of hospital stay is 1.5-2 weeks. Even at 1.5-2 weeks, if we had not flattened the curve many of those folks would have died without being able to get into a hospital. If it turns out there are no very effective treatments, and no good vaccines, and immunity is short lived or partial, the virus will become a permanent fact of life. Over time, life expectancy will stop going down, and plateau, and conservatives wouldn't need to try to cut Social Security.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
I do not worship the market as you do.
It's not that I worship free markets; it's that I acknowledge that is necessary to allocate labor and resources that modern living demands. I enjoy living past 30 years old, having leisure time, and having the best tools to explore both the physical world, and the informational / theoretical world. Show me a more efficient and ethical way to allocate labor and resources in a non-free market system, and I would probably jump on board.

If it turns out that researchers come up with treatments that save many thousands of lives going forward, lives that would have been lost because hospitals would have been overwhelmed, and there would have been no access to IV's or ice baths, let alone an effective treatment, so be it.
We can't know the results of the decisions not made, though we have proxy examples like in Sweden. Their results wouldn't be the same as if the US had the same approach, but it might be close enough to be reasonably confident. Time will tell.

Loosing lives needlessly is monstrous.
We lose lives needlessly 100% of the time. The speed limit could be set to zero, meaning you stay home and avoid 100% of the auto accidents. It isn't monstrous that a speed limit is set above zero; it's called a trade-off. Setting the limit would be monstrous.

Governments supporting corporations over people is fascism.
There is no difference between corporations and people because they are simply an organization of people. I do not think you understand the definition of fascism. It doesn't have a definition that changes to mean whatever you're against. It has a particular meaning which is a heavy-handed authoritarian regime which seeks to eliminate any dissent.

Corporatism is a problem, but I was talking about fascism. They have different definitions. It's disingenuous to simply associate any word with a negative connotation with the thing you're against and undermines any point attempting to be made.

This guy was an outlier. The average length of hospital stay is 1.5-2 weeks. Even at 1.5-2 weeks, if we had not flattened the curve many of those folks would have died without being able to get into a hospital. If it turns out there are no very effective treatments, and no good vaccines, and immunity is short lived or partial, the virus will become a permanent fact of life. Over time, life expectancy will stop going down, and plateau, and conservatives wouldn't need to try to cut Social Security.
Just to clarify my position, nowhere have I advocated against flattening the curve. In fact, early on that was my argument. I don't see any disagreement about our positions with respect to avoiding overburdening healthcare resources. My opinion differs in that authority should go to the most localized governments since they have the best understanding of their healthcare capacity and needs. Perhaps you feel that the executive branch of the federal government is better equipped to make decisions that affect individual communities? It certainly sounds like you feel that the executive branch should be more trusted to care for my health than me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Perhaps you feel that the executive branch of the federal government is better equipped to make decisions that affect individual communities? It certainly sounds like you feel that the executive branch should be more trusted to care for my health than me.
The job of the executive is to be the face of a nation. Governments will always be the target of corruption. It is the responsibility of the citizens to prevent that from happening. Americans have failed, and we are paying the price. If we were New Zealand, or Sweden, I would be much more hopeful for our future. Who knows? We are the richest, best armed country on the planet, so we may yet come out on the top of the heap, even while tearing ourselves apart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Fauci on the absurdity of herd immunity:

Looking at the trajectory of the outbreak, could America have done anything different to fight the virus?

"Of course. Nobody's perfect. Anybody could have done better. Look at the U.K., they were going to go for herd immunity and that backfired on them," Fauci told Newsweek.

"If you look at the death per capita in Sweden, compared to the death per capita in other Scandinavian countries, Sweden got hit worse. I think their decision to go for herd immunity speaks for itself.

"I declared that herd immunity [as a COVID-19 combat strategy] was absurd at the very beginning here in the U.S., saying 'Are you kidding me? Do you know how many people are gonna die if you wait for herd immunity to come in?' So that was not a good call [in Sweden]," Fauci says.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
Fauci has the benefit of only needing to be concerned with 1 thing; the physical health of Americans. That isn't the only consideration in the world though, which is why Fauci is an advisor and not a decision maker. We could have locked absolutely everyone down and permitted no social activities at the first hint of China having an outbreak. That would have been the best strategy if physical health were the only criteria to consider.

On a different subject, here are comments I made in another forum today in response to "sunlight is the best disinfectant":

Dr. John Campbell has been pointing out the apparent link between low vitamin D levels and incidence of infection and death from early on, stressing the need to further study this. Darker skinned people have been disproportionately harmed by the disease, and the hypothesis is that their lower levels of vitamin D don't boost the immune system as much as those with higher levels of vitamin D.

This is compatible with your observation that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" in that it generates vitamin D naturally when exposed to skin. There's got to be a reason why a dense city like LA or Miami suffered less severely than Seattle or New York, and the common thread seems to be sunlight.

Then we get reports of New Zealand and Australia fairing very well, but they were in summer months when the outbreak occurred. We'll see what happens as they transition through fall and winter. They could be harbingers of our seasonal transition later this year.

Finally, is it possible that part of the reason older people suffer so badly and kids hardly at all is that kids go outside frequently (in the sunlight), and older people do so much less frequently and when they do, cover themselves from the sun? No doubt having a youthful immune system is more advantageous than an older one, but we could have other factors at play that can affect outcomes.
 
481 - 500 of 517 Posts
Top