Corona Thread |OT| Nu variant, who dis?

[Tripon]

The UK had an explicit policy of letting as many people get infected as they can as quickly as possible

I will point out actually. This isn't true. The UK had a mitigation strategy. The purpose was not 'herd immunity' this was a miscommunication. Herd immunity was a side-effect of the mitigation strategy. One believed to be beneficial in the long run.

Sweden has a very similar strategy as the UK originally had.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1238390547783528448

March 13th.

It's not playing for some reason, but I get the point by the caption. What do you think you are hearing in this?

'Reduce the peak' is the key point. The UK had a mitigation strategy not a policy to let as many people get infected as quickly as possible. That was not the purpose of the strategy. The purpose of the strategy was to mitigate the effects of the virus. To try and control the amount of people infected by the virus and to protect the most vulnerable. The consequence was a lot more people over time would be infected, which they believed would be beneficial in the long run. I will mention that they did clarify this a number of times. The purpose wasn't to let the virus loose through the population.

And the reason they did a u-turn on it was because of Neil Ferguson's model that modelled a mitigation strategy, a suppression strategy and no strategy. His model showed that a mitigation strategy might cost 250,000 lives and no strategy at all would cost 500,000 lives.

I will also mention actually, as I have already done a number of times already, early on in fact. It didn't come from Boris Johnson, no matter how much of a buffoon you think he is, it came from the scientific advisers. In much the same way, Sweden's strategy didn't come from the Swedish politicians, it came from the scientific advisers.

Dude, he literally says the words herd immunity.

[team filler]

 

[Madrun Badrun]

While Covid-19 is a different kind of disease, with a much lower mortality rate, the dramatic socio-economic ramifications of the pandemic raise an important question: could the crisis end up playing a similar role for the late-modern world as the Black Death did for the late-medieval one?

Will this pandemic, too, remake the world as we know it?

 

I doubt anything will really change other than our willingness to shut down borders at the first signs of issues and 'medical' surveillance in public areas. 

[CatsCatsCats]

It should though. People should be seeing these gaping holes in our society and figuring out how to reshape it in ways that plug them and plug them tight

[Leadbelly]

The UK had an explicit policy of letting as many people get infected as they can as quickly as possible

I will point out actually. This isn't true. The UK had a mitigation strategy. The purpose was not 'herd immunity' this was a miscommunication. Herd immunity was a side-effect of the mitigation strategy. One believed to be beneficial in the long run.

Sweden has a very similar strategy as the UK originally had.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1238390547783528448

March 13th.

It's not playing for some reason, but I get the point by the caption. What do you think you are hearing in this?

'Reduce the peak' is the key point. The UK had a mitigation strategy not a policy to let as many people get infected as quickly as possible. That was not the purpose of the strategy. The purpose of the strategy was to mitigate the effects of the virus. To try and control the amount of people infected by the virus and to protect the most vulnerable. The consequence was a lot more people over time would be infected, which they believed would be beneficial in the long run. I will mention that they did clarify this a number of times. The purpose wasn't to let the virus loose through the population.

And the reason they did a u-turn on it was because of Neil Ferguson's model that modelled a mitigation strategy, a suppression strategy and no strategy. His model showed that a mitigation strategy might cost 250,000 lives and no strategy at all would cost 500,000 lives.

I will also mention actually, as I have already done a number of times already, early on in fact. It didn't come from Boris Johnson, no matter how much of a buffoon you think he is, it came from the scientific advisers. In much the same way, Sweden's strategy didn't come from the Swedish politicians, it came from the scientific advisers.

Dude, he literally says the words herd immunity.

Right. And most experts right now are literally saying the words 'herd immunity'. The virus isn't going away until there is herd immunity. Pretty much most experts agree on this point.

Obviously context matters right? And the context is, the UK decided on a mitigation strategy with the purpose of mitigating the spread of the virus. The other option was trying to 'suppress' the virus with a total lockdown. The UK originally decided on the former. The reason, as you already know was because it allowed for a 'degree' of herd immunity. The purpose of the strategy wasn't for instance to let the virus ravage through the population. And this was what people were hearing with the mention of 'herd immunity'. Partly because of the way it was presented. An this is why the government clarified what was meant by that.

[Madrun Badrun]

Nah the people who see the holes are the ones who already knew they were there and also the ones that will need to go back to work or starve. 

[team filler]

It should though. People should be seeing these gaping holes in our society and figuring out how to reshape it in ways that plug them and plug them tight

[Madrun Badrun]

The other option was trying to 'suppress' the virus with a total lockdown.

This is completely wrong and what we have been saying for the last 2 months.  A suppression strategy is like South Korea and Taiwan where you have the testing capacity to do contact tracing.  Mitigation strategies are not some binary thing.  The rest of the world took stronger mitigation strategies which included lockdowns early on, the UK and Sweden did not and the numbers are evidence that that was wrong.  The initial UK mitigation strategy was basically to just protect old people and let the rest get it without any real consideration of how this could potentially overwhelm the NHS.  The idea that they should work to get to herd immunity faster was laughable at the time.  Note it's not that herd immunity is laughable, its the idea that in Feb when nothing was in control and there were supply shortages, which still haven't been solved months later, that this should be even a consideration.  You should not be aiming for herd immunity strategies in Feb, nor in Mach, nor May.  They should have done everything they could do to prevent the spread of the virus to everyone not just old people then.  They did not do this solely because of economic considerations, which is and was completely obvious to everyone.  If most people need to get it anyways, the only reason you don't do this as slowly as possible is to protect the economy, or because you have the hospital and supply capacity to do so, which hardly any country has.  The idea that this advice comes from scientists is also completely wrong as it ignores the obvious facts of government and economic pressures as well as why these scientists were picked for the job and why.  Their purpose is to give cover to politicians and it works because of people like you.   

[Leadbelly]

The other option was trying to 'suppress' the virus with a total lockdown.

This is completely wrong and what we have been saying for the last 2 months.  A suppression strategy is like South Korea and Taiwan where you have the testing capacity to do contact tracing.  Mitigation strategies are not some binary thing.  The rest of the world took stronger mitigation strategies which included lockdowns early on, the UK and Sweden did not and the numbers are evidence that that was wrong.  The initial UK mitigation strategy was basically to just protect old people and let the rest get it without any real consideration of how this could potentially overwhelm the NHS.  The idea that they should work to get to herd immunity faster was laughable at the time.  Note it's not that herd immunity is laughable, its the idea that in Feb when nothing was in control and there were supply shortages, which still haven't been solved months later, that this should be even a consideration.  You should not be aiming for herd immunity strategies in Feb, nor in Mach, nor May.  They should have done everything they could do to prevent the spread of the virus to everyone not just old people then.  They did not do this solely because of economic considerations, which is and was completely obvious to everyone.  If most people need to get it anyways, the only reason you don't do this as slowly as possible is to protect the economy, or because you have the hospital and supply capacity to do so, which hardly any country has.  The idea that this advice comes from scientists is also completely wrong as it ignores the obvious facts of government and economic pressures as well as why these scientists were picked for the job and why.  Their purpose is to give cover to politicians and it works because of people like you.

Now we've moved on to semantics. lol

The terminology is what the government and scientists have used to describe these particular strategies. The terminology is what Neil Ferguson used for instance when modelling the two strategies.

And in terms of the strategy coming from scientists, you say it is wrong. Could you show me the evidence of this please?

I mean, I can give you examples of scientists genuinely believing in this strategy. I wouldn't just pull something out of my arse. I'm sure you wouldn't either, would you?

[Mandark]

The UK's policy was to avoid restrictions that other European countries were putting in place, much less the total shutdowns that China etc. imposed. This was all very public at the time.

[Leadbelly]

Just to add:

A Swedish expert talking about this strategy.



Now whether or not it is the right approach, that remains to be seen, but I think there are experts that genuinely believe it is the right approach. It is not some government conspiracy.

[Mandark]

doesn't sweden have a way higher death rate from covid19 than the other nordic countries?

[Leadbelly]

Don't know. The curve is flattening though.

[Great Rumbler]

doesn't sweden have a way higher death rate from covid19 than the other nordic countries?

Sweden   29,207   +625      3,646   +117
Denmark   10,791   +78         537   
Norway   8,206   +10         232   
Finland   6,228   +83         293   +6   

[Mandark]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/norway/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/finland/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/

yup, not only does sweden have a much higher death rate than its neighbors but its trend is worse

[Mandark]

"So what's the future like?"

"Well, there's a plague. But people are doing some pretty nifty data visualizations with it!"

[Great Rumbler]

Don't know. The curve is flattening though.

more like flatlining lmao

[Leadbelly]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

[shosta]

Leadbelly is making a pretty common mistake that finding a particular scientist who says the thing you're saying meets the criteria of scientific evidence, instead of reaching for the higher standard of a consensus held by international organizations.

[Leadbelly]

That's the thing about "Science" vs Science.   With "Science" you can find an expert who agrees with your biased opinion;  with actual Science you gather experts, have them review each other, continue to iterate and respond to new info, etc. 

Don't be a "Science" guy be a Science guy.

Well, the "science" guy just happens to be calling the shots in Sweden. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. That wasn't the point.

[shosta]

posting the same thing as riotous but too late... you're rich and have a huge dick, leave some clout for the rest of us

[Mandark]

Well, the "science" guy just happens to be calling the shots in Sweden. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. That wasn't the point.

when large numbers of people die, many ethicists believe this to be "not good"

[Leadbelly]

Leadbelly is making a pretty common mistake that finding a particular scientist who says the thing you're saying meets the criteria of scientific evidence, instead of reaching for the higher standard of a consensus held by international organizations.

And you're making the pretty common mistake, which is "ironic but totally in character" of misreading a post because of preconceived assumptions.

What was the purpose of me posting that?

[shosta]

It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back.

a country with 1 billion people densely packed together contained it

[Madrun Badrun]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

This is was the majority of my previous post which you ignored with 'lol semantics'.  You can have stronger mitigation strategies, like lockdowns, and still, end up with herd immunity.  The point is to delay things until you get stuff under control.  Why wouldn't we want to delay this? Do you think the UK had enough PPE to have gone through with their initial strategy and not suffer unnecessary deaths? Why are you so attracted to let-people-die strategies?  Of the experts what percentage do you think is in favour of the initial UK strategy vs the one the rest of the world took?  Why are you the person in the thread that is quick to say maybe Sweden is on to something or defend the initial UK strategy?  Also has your options changes at all over the last two months of evidence?

[Mandark]

It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back.

a country with 1 billion people densely packed together contained it

This is the epidemiology version of "TONY STARK was able to build this in a CAVE! With a BOX OF SCRAPS!"

[shosta]

This is the epidemiology version of "TONY STARK was able to build this in a CAVE! With a BOX OF SCRAPS!"

I'm not being entirely truthful here, because there are millions of people in mass graves that didn't make it into the official deaths statistics. #ChinaLied

[Leadbelly]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

This is was the majority of my previous post which you ignored with 'lol semantics'.  You can have stronger mitigation strategies, like lockdowns, and still, end up with herd immunity.  The point is to delay things until you get stuff under control.  Why wouldn't we want to delay this? Do you think the UK had enough PPE to have gone through with their initial strategy and not suffer unnecessary deaths? Why are you so attracted to let-people-die strategies?  Of the experts what percentage do you think is in favour of the initial UK strategy vs the one the rest of the world took?  Why are you the person in the thread that is quick to say maybe Sweden is on to something or defend the initial UK strategy?

None of these points I actually made. None. Not one. Not a single one.... How about not putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts. lol

[Madrun Badrun]

Well, the "science" guy just happens to be calling the shots in Sweden. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. That wasn't the point.

when large numbers of people die, many ethicists believe this to be "not good"

I can show you ethicists who believe otherwise.  They could be wrong, but there is logic to it.  I think we should wait and see.

[Madrun Badrun]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

This is was the majority of my previous post which you ignored with 'lol semantics'.  You can have stronger mitigation strategies, like lockdowns, and still, end up with herd immunity.  The point is to delay things until you get stuff under control.  Why wouldn't we want to delay this? Do you think the UK had enough PPE to have gone through with their initial strategy and not suffer unnecessary deaths? Why are you so attracted to let-people-die strategies?  Of the experts what percentage do you think is in favour of the initial UK strategy vs the one the rest of the world took?  Why are you the person in the thread that is quick to say maybe Sweden is on to something or defend the initial UK strategy?

None of these points I actually made. None. Not one. Not a single one.... How about not putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts. lol

How about you actually answer the questions? 

[Leadbelly]

Well, the "science" guy just happens to be calling the shots in Sweden. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. That wasn't the point.

when large numbers of people die, many ethicists believe this to be "not good"

I can show you ethicists who believe otherwise.  They could be wrong, but there is logic to it.  I think we should wait and see.

Case in point... You say, "the strategy was all about the economy" in other words it's all a big conspiracy. I say, "prove it". I then go on to prove there are scientists out there that genuinely believe it. Which is why I argue it isn't all a big conspiracy to put the economy first over lives.

You then twist my post into some dumb argument that I never actually made. lol Quite incredible.

[shosta]

Leadbelly, I'm going to say this because no one else has the guts to do it, and also it's sort of rude so they wouldn't want to anyway, but I've been thinking this ever since you posted that Chomsky is a classical liberal.

You have Dumb Guy Syndrome. You try to compensate for this by looking stuff up but you don't have enough knowledge or common sense to separate wheat from chaff and you just end up posting whatever rabbit hole of a carefully constructed argument you run across while filling in the rest of the blanks. It reminds me of when I knew nothing about Postmodernism but I was posting on here that "JP might have a point right? You can draw a straight line from Marx to Foucault" because I Wikipedia'd Foucault.

[Mandark]

None of these points I actually made.

Best I can tell your points are:

1) "Mitigation" repeated ad nauseam without addressing what this actually entails vs. what other countries have done.

2) The plan has its own internal logic.

3) In conclusion, Sweden is a land of contrasts

[Tripon]

That wouldn't be all that surprising, no?

Whether it is the right or wrong strategy, I do feel people are missing the point a little. There is no vaccine. Most experts believe there will be second and third waves of the virus. It isn't going away. It can't be contained completely, it will keep coming back. 60 to 70% of the population has to have the virus for some sort of immunity to be achieved. That's the point of the strategy. It assumes all these things are true, and believes mitigation is the only working strategy in the long run. It could be wrong, but there is logic to it.

Okay, but you don't want that first wave to last so long that it rolls into the 2nd wave. That's what's happening in the countries with these long tails. The spike will happen as more people interact with each other.

[Leadbelly]

Leadbelly, I'm going to say this because no one else has the guts to do it, and also it's sort of rude so they wouldn't want to anyway, but I've been thinking this ever since you posted that Chomsky is a classical liberal.

You have Dumb Guy Syndrome. You try to compensate for this by looking stuff up but you don't have enough knowledge or common sense to separate wheat from chaff and you just end up posting whatever rabbit hole of a carefully constructed argument you run across while filling in the rest of the blanks. It reminds me of when I knew nothing about Postmodernism but I was posting on here that "JP might have a point right? You can draw a straight line from Marx to Foucault" because I Wikipedia'd Foucault.

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

Classical liberalism has an emphasis on the freedom of the individual. The roots of anarchism is classical liberalism, i.e. the freedom of the individual. I explained it quite clearly in that post. Presented a youtube video where Chomsky states exactly that. What can I say?

And you say I'm the dumb one here. Maybe read that post again if you can find it. Although what's the point? You are only looking for something to 'win' on.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

[Leadbelly]

"The way you argue is all wrong" never works, my dude. Especially when you choose to do that instead of addressing what Madrun put up.

Bullshit... It's an argument I never had to begin with. My posts are right there. I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

[Mandark]

Case in point... You say, "the strategy was all about the economy" in other words it's all a big conspiracy. I say, "prove it". I then go on to prove there are scientists out there that genuinely believe it. Which is why I argue it isn't all a big conspiracy to put the economy first over lives.

Genuinely believe what?

What would constitute success or failure of Sweden's policy?

[Mandark]

Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine.

fuckin' checkmate

[shosta]

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

It's worse than that. I read every single word.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

sport hunting

[shosta]

I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

[Leadbelly]

That's okay shosta because just like I just demonstrated in my previous post, you don't actually read my posts or ever try to see what the argument actually is.

It's worse than that. I read every single word.

And why are you so intent on your sly digs at me anyway. Because my opinion differs from yours? Funny thing about that though is, if my opinion differs from yours, then your opinions differ from mine. I don't spend my time making sly digs at you. Why would I? It's pathetic. There are more important things in life than your opinions. I don't give shit about your opinions.

sport hunting

What's wrong with it? I mean it is so dumb must be easy to refute.

I know you won't though because you're talking shit. I don't care about you shosta. Carry on.

[Leadbelly]

I never argued Sweden for instance are taking the right or wrong response.

Find the post. It's so easy to do.

[shosta]

Ok but in all seriousness Leadbelly, did China contain it or not? They have no new deaths per day. South Korea is in the same situation. A second wave doesn't come from a spontaneous genesis, it's when you suppress the infection so that the case numbers don't rise exponentially but there's still a significant infected population, you lift the suppression factors, and the case numbers go exponential again.

[ToxicAdam]

 

[Mandark]

"I never said Sweden was doing the right thing, I merely explained a rationale justifying their policy, presented an authority figure in support of it, and handwaved evidence that it was killing people."

Your sympathies are plenty clear, dude, just own it.

[Leadbelly]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

[Leadbelly]

Ok but in all seriousness Leadbelly, did China contain it or not? They have no new deaths per day. South Korea is in the same situation. A second wave doesn't come from a spontaneous genesis, it's when you suppress the infection so that the case numbers don't rise exponentially but there's still a significant infected population, you lift the suppression factors, and the case numbers go exponential again.

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=46908.msg2855039#msg2855039

[shosta]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

Giving up and saying "we can't stop the disease, everyone will get it eventually" is weird when other countries did exactly that by acting early and fast. So yeah, we have to deduce the real reason and assume the costs of lockdown are too high. It's not a secret when major leaders say things like "we have to go back to work".

[Mandark]

Mitigation strategy is a conspiracy to save the economy.

The point of argument. Just a reminder.

Nobody has called it a "conspiracy" except you.

How about not putting words into my mouth and actually read my posts.

[BIONIC]

[Leadbelly]

Honestly shosta, I don't feel like having a serious conversation with you. You must understand right?

[CatsCatsCats]

[shosta]

[shosta]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

[Leadbelly]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

[CatsCatsCats]

South Korea seems so cool and smart. Full disclosure, my only exposure to South Korea is the show Chef and My Fridge, K-Pop songs on Lets Dance, instant ramens and cloud’s Facebook stories, so

[Tripon]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

This entire conservation started because you were disputing that the U.K. initial policy was trying to create the conditions for herd immunity as fast as possible.

[Mandark]

South Korea seems so cool and smart. Full disclosure, my only exposure to South Korea is the show Chef and My Fridge, K-Pop songs on Lets Dance, instant ramens and cloud’s Facebook stories, so

They also produce elite Starcraft players and breakdancers.

[Leadbelly]

I'm not an expert. Only going by what the experts say on this.

That guy says that South Korea handled it well which is why it had a low amount of deaths! That's an explicit endorsement of their response!

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

This entire conservation started because you were disputing that the U.K. initial policy was trying to create the conditions for herd immunity as fast as possible.

Because it is true. I'm sorry for stating facts.

[shosta]

I'm starting to wonder if you even know the point you're making, let alone what I am making. You were talking about a second wave, no? How does a second wave spontaneously appear?

What I was talking about was how China has 4,600 deaths and the UK has 35,000. I admit China and SK can get second waves but they'll just handle it really well like they did the first time.