Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.

[Takhisis]

With so many sequels that it would sicken even the Disney executives in charge of Marvel and Lucasfilm, here is the ninth sequel to the original thread, i.e. the tenth thread overall.

Here are/were the previous threads:

Coronavirus: the thread where it all started (Wuhan)
Coronavirus 2: the flattening
Coronavirus 3: the resurgence
Coronavirus 4
Coronavirus E
Coronavirus: awaiting for the next wave
COVID - A light on the horizon?
Coronavirus-Free-the-Jab
Coronavirus: The Great Unmasking

 

[r16]

the reports of a new variant (that could not be identified with existing tests meaning it would gain a Greek letter) in Turkey has been attributed to faults in test material .

edit : spelling .

 

[Samson]

the reports of a new variant (that could not be identified with existing tests meaning it woupd gain a Greek letter) in Turkey has been attributed to faults in test material .

Yeah, they would never accept a Greek letter.

 

[r16]

why ? They would brag for the next 50 years that theirs was deadlier than Delta . Never minding the leadership positions do know Greek in New Turkey , if people are getting the drift ...

 

[Takhisis]

(continued from previous thread)

Ongoing Chinese reluctance to allow an investigation certainly points the finger at the lab.

Not necessarily, but any investigation into their affairs might expose the absolute inoperancy of the surveillance state, which thus loses its only justification: the unchallenged pretence of success.

 

[amadeus]

Arguing that dishonestly isn't arguing at all.

Even if you scale it to population, the difference between the two numbers is still the State of Vermont. The whole state.

I’m still waiting to hear from the original claimant how that is worse than what has happened in other countries, and how their health has been more negatively impacted than countries where it was spread without abandon.

I maintain it was a ludicrous claim.

 

[EnglishEdward]

From previous thread:

from yahoo and the NYT about what happened to a researcher for leaving open the possibility the bug was accidentally released from the lab.

My primary technical news sources on Covid 19 are:

* New Scientist
* Private Eye

And New Scientist reports of a researcher analysing scientific reports published by that chinese lab prior to the pandemic are pretty damming.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even if you scale it to population, the difference between the two numbers is still the State of Vermont. The whole state.

I’m still waiting to hear from the original claimant how that is worse than what has happened in other countries, and how their health has been more negatively impacted than countries where it was spread without abandon.

I maintain it was a ludicrous claim.

The disingenuous assertion is taking the entire volume of COVID deaths as if the presence/lack of lockdown can explain them in binary, and as if the US did not implement lockdowns to various extents (the harshness/duration of which does not appear to predict which states had more/fewer excess deaths very well).

So yeah, implicating the "entire population count of Vermont" in the context of COVID response is disingenuous. We do not know what was the optimal procedure, nor how many excess deaths (total COVID and arising from whatever measures implemented) would result in that hypothetical optimal response compared to what was actually done.

 

[amadeus]

Here is the original claim:

Like I've said, the side effects of lockdown will cause worse health damage than the virus.

Has this been proven in any country?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here is the original claim:


Has this been proven in any country?

Neither that nor the reverse have been "proven" in any country, period.

Lockdowns have impact on immediate and longterm economy performance, and there are actuarial models to use that can estimate resulting deaths. There has also been an impact on education and children's development etc that can't have manifested by now (which was part of said prediction). We don't know how severe that will be. Could be minor, could be significant.

COVID deaths have different standards for recording in different countries, "lockdown" means different things in different places. Every country will have some excess deaths from COVID and some not from COVID, plus long term ramifications both directly from COVID and indirectly as a result of lockdowns/other measures.

If you are looking to minimize excess deaths overall rather than COVID deaths specifically (which should be the broad goal, if you consider deaths bad), then it is worth taking a hard look at lockdown measures and their consequences. Narz might be right, or might not be. Right now, it is merely a prediction and can't be more or less than a prediction. You may disagree with it, we will see what happens.

 

[Takhisis]

Is there any point that you're attempting to make, other than proving individual statements by other posters to be wrong?

 

[Gorbles]

I believe his point is pretending to not realise the link between lockdown measures and reducing Covid cases.

 

[Takhisis]

Lock him in a room private thread with innonimatu and let's move on, then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Has this been proven in any country?

If I were to guess, I'd guess China. But in the actual numbers, the DALYs lost won't be measurable for a long, long time. They went through aggressive lockdowns plus aggressive vaccinations and (I think) had a pretty low covid-19 case count, which means that the lockdowns could easily have caused more damage.

Remember, a successful containment could easily cause more lockdown deaths than covid-19 deaths. When it comes to a pandemic, a successful response looks like an over-reaction in retrospect, because you have to err on the side of being too aggressive. Now, usually I bring this up when talking about money, since you need to flood in resources quickly and then 'success' looks like you spent too much money per individual case. Of course, under-investing means that you spend way more money in the longrun. By analogy, it's always possible to have doused your campfire with less water, so technically there was 'wastage'.

Theoretically, the way to maximize lockdown deaths is to never contain the virus, but also never let it explode. That way, the grind of the lockdowns does all the damage. The alternative, where you just don't lock down quite sufficiently means that you can really let Covid-19 roll through and cause the most damage, but if you can drag that out as well then the lockdown deaths mount. This tends to capture Inno's concern, where we just crank up both sets of damage in perpetuity instead of biting the lockdown bullet harder than we want to.

Once an epidemic gets to a high enough penetration of the society, distinguishing lockdown deaths from pandemic deaths gets very hard. My province's ICU were empty last summer, aggressively so, and so other essential health services weren't being provided. But this spring, those ICUs were full of Covid-19 patients. While a quick snapshot of distinguishing the first as 'lockdown caused' and the 2nd as 'pandemic caused' isn't so hard, it's still hard calculating the damage. Every heart attack patient that failed to get properly treated last summer will show the same 'cause of death' as the heart attack patient that couldn't get treated this spring.

 

[Zardnaar]

Got the second jab today. No side effects except for slight buzzing in head. I assume that's the microchips communicating with the mothership.

 

[amadeus]

Remember, a successful containment could easily cause more lockdown deaths than covid-19 deaths.

I don't disagree with anything you posted, I just clipped it for the sake of saving textbox space.

The argument, as I understood it, was that of the two scenarios there would be less damage (a coronavirus deaths + b lockdown deaths) without any lockdown regardless of efficacy. What you, and inno mention, about the competency of implementation is its own separate question and why those regimes have failed to produce the desired result.

The tools we have to test these hypotheses are without a doubt flawed, but I think we can draw some lines somewhere and make an educated inference; Sweden didn't follow policies similar to its neighbors, and now more Swedes are sick, dead, or unemployed.

 

[El_Machinae]

The argument, as I understood it, was that of the two scenarios there would be less damage (a coronavirus deaths + b lockdown deaths) without any lockdown regardless of efficacy.

This will be in the eye of the beholder, a combination of one person speaking unclearly and the others misinterpreting. I don't think anyone is strongly suggesting that no lockdown would have been better, I think what people are noticing is that the lockdowns are causing damage and were not being titrated properly, in other words, they could have been more efficiently implemented. I'm not even saying that, since it's just my position that we'll eventually see the numbers, and I'd not be surprised either way unless one number just overwhelms another.

I'm glad Sweden tried their thing, but far away from where we tried ours. If their experiment had worked, we'd be living different lives now.

 

[amadeus]

I don't think anyone is strongly suggesting that no lockdown would have been better

I did not have the same impression as yours. If the argument is then that no lockdown is better than a totally failed lockdown, that seems tautological to me—something that’s worse is badder than bad? It didn’t strike me as needing to be said, and doesn’t make a credible case for no lockdowns vs. ones with efficacy as like that in NZ, and until recently, parts of Australia.

 

[Zardnaar]

Got second jab today. Mask wearing was close to 100% the 3 people without them weren't near anyone and they put them on when they moved.



68 cases up from 62 but contact tracing seems to be on top of things and curve seems to be flattening.

 

[El_Machinae]

If the argument is then that no lockdown is better than a totally failed lockdown, that seems tautological to me—something that’s worse is badder than bad?.

I don't know if anybody is making that claim, either. The observation (/belief) is that the restrictions could have been better. I think that's the sum of it. "Lockdowns" will mean something different to each person's region.

I'm not even truly criticising the lockdowns. For me, it's just a statistical hypothesis.