COVID-19 - appropriate government response?

[Not The Real JReg]

@Red Why did you respond to him

[brimstoneSalad]

Looks like the world is taking COVID more seriously now, most governments are now responding appropriately (finally).

But what ARE you then taught as the cause of WW1? PragerU agrees it was caused by that assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, though they call Gavrilo Princip "a Serbian nationalist" for some reason, rather than a member of the Croatian independence movement. I don't think that makes any sense, since Serbia, as far as I know, was independent in the early 20th century, while Croatia had been conquered by Hungary.

Red said he was leaving for good. Try Wikipedia instead of PragerU. Very few mentions of Croatia on any of the relevant pages, and nothing like what you're saying is mentioned. Take this up with a historian, it's far off topic here.

[teo123]

In case somebody is interested, I asked a question on Quora about how retroviruses are possible for eukaryotes: https://www.quora.com/Since-less-than-1 ... ve-nothing
In short, I mistook Less than 1% of DNA in eukaryotic cells codes a protein. with Less than 1% of eukaryotic DNA gets transcribed onto mRNA.. In reality, around 76% of DNA gets transcribed onto mRNA, so a retrovirus inserting its genetic code onto a random place in DNA has around 76% chance of achieving its goal (that the cell starts producing its proteins), rather than less than 1%.
Damn, biology is so complicated one cannot make any conclusions from it.

[Red]

This could kill anywhere from 1 - 30 million people in the U.S. alone unless the country goes on lockdown.

Old thread I know, but the COVID death toll in the US is closing in at about a million.
That was WITH the lockdowns (despite the poor execution of it at the beginning) and the huge vaccine rollouts.
https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl= ... ceid=US:en
And these are just the confirmed deaths. Makes me wonder how many would have died if we didn't go on lockdown at all and had a massive vaccine push, probably would have been in the 20-30 million range (almost 10% of Americans).

Where I am COVID is pretty much gone aside from a few places that may require a mask. Not even my school requires them anymore (should I still wear a mask though?).

Feels like just yesterday this bullshit started, heh.

[teo123]

This could kill anywhere from 1 - 30 million people in the U.S. alone unless the country goes on lockdown.

Old thread I know, but the COVID death toll in the US is closing in at about a million.
That was WITH the lockdowns (despite the poor execution of it at the beginning) and the huge vaccine rollouts.
https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl= ... ceid=US:en
And these are just the confirmed deaths. Makes me wonder how many would have died if we didn't go on lockdown at all and had a massive vaccine push, probably would have been in the 20-30 million range (almost 10% of Americans).

Where I am COVID is pretty much gone aside from a few places that may require a mask. Not even my school requires them anymore (should I still wear a mask though?).

Feels like just yesterday this bullshit started, heh.

Don't be absurd. There is no scenario in which 10% of Americans would have died from COVID-19. Lockdowns, if they do anything at all, they flatten the curve, so that healthcare facilities don't get overwhelmed and people don't die from other causes (heart disease, cancer, suicide attempts...), they do not massively decrease the total number of people who will die from COVID-19. Even according to the conservative estimates, at least half of the Americans got infected with COVID. In an unrealistic scenario in which everybody gets infected unvaccinated, there would at most be around 2.5 million deaths.

Lockdowns may even be counter-productive because they fuel the hysteria. A significant portion of the population won't stay at home. So much so that more people died in traffic accidents in 2020 than in 2019. Vaccine pushes may also be counter-productive, because, well, people may find all the propaganda stinky.

[Red]

Don't be absurd. There is no scenario in which 10% of Americans would have died from COVID-19. Lockdowns, if they do anything at all, they flatten the curve, so that healthcare facilities don't get overwhelmed and people don't die from other causes (heart disease, cancer, suicide attempts...), they do not massively decrease the total number of people who will die from COVID-19. Even according to the conservative estimates, at least half of the Americans got infected with COVID. In an unrealistic scenario in which everybody gets infected unvaccinated, there would at most be around 2.5 million deaths.

You prevent as many people getting it as possible (lockdowns, masks, social distancing) so that the death toll is minimal for when the vaccines come out so 99.99% of the people who would have died from it just get some cold-like symptoms (some may still die, but the chances are massively reduced), and because overwhelming hospitals will lead to more deaths since not enough people can be treated. Many if those cases occurred after huge vaccine pushes, which makes sense; The vaccine isn't necessarily supposed to prevent you from getting it, just reduce the symptoms so it isn't fatal. Pretty basic logic here Teo.

Sure, maybe a 10% of all Americans dying scenario is pretty out there (most realistic worst-case scenario would maybe be three million deaths), but really, not unimaginable.

Lockdowns may even be counter-productive because they fuel the hysteria.

Only if you have a politician in a position of massive power spread COVID misinformation, not following professional guidelines, and spread the idea that isn't such a big deal.

A significant portion of the population won't stay at home. So much so that more people died in traffic accidents in 2020 than in 2019.

No, there were less cars.

It actually kind of makes sense that there was an increase in traffic accidents despite there being less cars, likely due to people going for joyrides over 30 miles over the speed limit, not paying attention to the road, running stop signs and red lights, probably driving while intoxicated. People get a false of security knowing that there are less cars, so they won't think it's that dangerous to take precautions.

Vaccine pushes may also be counter-productive, because, well, people may find all the propaganda stinky.

In countries with good roll-outs, most people are vaccinated. Could be higher if there wasn't so much misinformation being spread, and if people weren't so paranoid.

[teo123]

lockdowns, masks, social distancing

All of that has little or no effect. Sweden had none of that, and it suffered about as much as other countries in Europe. Other Scandinavian countries just had an initial lockdown, and later went with the Swedish approach. Nothing special happened there either. If anything, they suffered fewer deaths than other European countries.

overwhelming hospitals will lead to more deaths since not enough people can be treated.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals really didn't have much to offer to the COVID-19 patients. Treatments used back then were often counter-productive.

maybe a 10% of all Americans dying scenario is pretty out there

Americans have many comorbidities, but not enough to make the 10% of Americans dying a plausible scenario. Only 5% of confirmed cases had to be hospitalized.

Only if you have a politician in a position of massive power spread COVID misinformation, not following professional guidelines, and spread the idea that isn't such a big deal.

Which politician do you have in mind, exactly? What makes you think they are the reason for the hysteria?

No, there were less cars.

Where are you getting that from?

It actually kind of makes sense that there was an increase in traffic accidents despite there being less cars, likely due to people going for joyrides over 30 miles over the speed limit, not paying attention to the road, running stop signs and red lights, probably driving while intoxicated.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever. If people stayed home, it would make sense if there were fewer traffic accidents, rather than more.

Could be higher if there wasn't so much misinformation being spread, and if people weren't so paranoid.

And why is the misinformation so appealing to the people? Why would they rather believe misinformation they read on-line than the information provided by the government? It's because they find all the propaganda stinky, right? So, why not reduce the government propaganda?

[Red]

lockdowns, masks, social distancing

All of that has little or no effect.

Then you're just wrong. You are again going against the scientific consensus and numerous studies.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118#sec-11
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/ ... id-19.html
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2022020 ... aths-study

How exactly would a lockdown not help?

Sweden had none of that, and it suffered about as much as other countries in Europe.

Sweden's response has been criticized by many scientific bodies.

They relied more on personal responsibility to reduce transmission (hoping people would take initiative and wear masks, not go out if they don't need to). Sweden's populace is probably more likely to do so than Americans but it obviously wasn't enough.

Other Scandinavian countries just had an initial lockdown, and later went with the Swedish approach. Nothing special happened there either. If anything, they suffered fewer deaths than other European countries.

What the other countries did was have a lockdown, then when COVID cases let up, they gradually reopened, probably a little too soon.

It even took a while for countries to start taking it seriously, like in the UK it wasn't until Boris Johnson got COVID that he actually decided to take harder measures.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals really didn't have much to offer to the COVID-19 patients. Treatments used back then were often counter-productive.

Exactly, since very few treatments worked, they only had a limited amount of them to dispense to everyone.

Americans have many comorbidities, but not enough to make the 10% of Americans dying a plausible scenario.

I think it's within the realm of possibilities, although it's unlikely.

Only 5% of confirmed cases had to be hospitalized.

Even if that estimate is correct (which is not including all the people who weren't able to go to the hospital, because they can't afford it or they were too overcrowded), it's not only 5%, as if that's such a small number (it's much bigger than you think). Assuming a situation where every American got COVID and only 5% had to be hospitalized, that would mean 16,500,000 Americans would need to be hospitalized, which would lead to overwhelming of hospitals and increasing the death rate.

Which politician do you have in mind, exactly? What makes you think they are the reason for the hysteria?

There have been studies that suggest that Trump is the largest proponent of COVID misinformation in English media.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/p ... ation.html

No, there were less cars.

Where are you getting that from?

Are you seriously asking me to prove that there were fewer cars on the road during a period of lockdown and when people were working from home and having things delivered to them?

Are you being serious right now?

Fine, here: https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driv ... ing-trends
You'll notice it goes down 60% at the start (countrywide I think, stats vary depending on state), and even near the end of the year, it was still about 10% less than the previous year.

Hell, adding to this, more accidents may have occurred near the summer when people started driving again, since there may still have been some thought that there weren't as many cars, but there were, leading to even more accidents.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever. If people stayed home, it would make sense if there were fewer traffic accidents, rather than more.

I already explained why it absolutely makes sense why there would be more. Think of the self-licensing effect. Or better yet, put it into Google. They all agree with me.

And why is the misinformation so appealing to the people?

People don't trust things they don't understand and like believing comforting lies.

Why would they rather believe misinformation they read on-line than the information provided by the government?

Because people don't trust the government (which is a big reason why they voted for Trump; He was a populist outsider who presented himself as a champion of rural working class Americans), and don't like the idea that they have to give up some of their freedoms.

It's because they find all the propaganda stinky, right? So, why not reduce the government propaganda?

If the scientific organizations were putting out government propaganda they'd be putting out studies that the administration wants, not ones that strongly go against what it says.

[teo123]

You are again going against the scientific consensus and numerous studies.

How do you know what is the scientific consensus? As far as I can tell, social distancing and non-N95 masks are based on the idea that the virus is mostly spread by large droplets, which are absorbed by the masks and which indeed don't move farther than 2 meters away from the person. However, the MIT study has found that COVID is mostly spread using small droplets which stay in the air and which are mostly not absorbed by the
non-N95 masks, which means that social distancing and masks other than N95 are based on gibberish. Even if you disregard the MIT study, the Danish study also does a good job showing non-N95 masks have little or no effect. And that was definitely the consensus of scientists before COVID, as evidenced by Anthony Fauci saying, at the beginning of the pandemic, "Masks, while they do provide some protection, they don't provide the protection people think they provide. And considering that people who are not trained to wear masks tend to constantly touch their masks and thus contaminating them, they may even be counter-productive.". The recent Bengali study found no effect for cloth masks and found only a small (right on the margin of error) effect for surgical masks. Maybe there is a small effect, but saying that without them 10% of Americans would have died is not plausible.

How exactly would a lockdown not help?

Because people are not obeying the lockdown orders, which is evidenced, among other things, by traffic accidents having increased rather than decreased. And even if they did work, they would be protecting the laptop class (those who can actually work from home), rather than those who need special protection.

Sweden's response has been criticized by many scientific bodies.

The same is true for the America's response. The right thing to ask is whether those criticisms are based on good evidence. And they do not seem to be. Sweden has invested a lot in healthcare before so its hospitals did not get overwhelmed, like American hospitals did. This shows that investing in healthcare before the pandemic happens is a lot better approach than trying to contain the pandemic using lockdowns and masks.

Sweden's populace is probably more likely to do so than Americans but it obviously wasn't enough.

What do you mean by "It obviously wasn't enough."?

like in the UK it wasn't until Boris Johnson got COVID that he actually decided to take harder measures.

He desperately decided to take harder measures which haven't been proven to work. Like Stalin desperately decided to implement Lysenkoism after Russia had been struck by famine for decades, even though Lysenkoism had not been proven to work.

Exactly, since very few treatments worked, they only had a limited amount of them to dispense to everyone.

I am not sure what you mean. Early in the pandemic, doctors did not know which treatments actually worked. They used to think putting people on a ventilator increased the survival rate, when that is only true in the most difficult cases and is counter-productive in mild cases. A significant percentage of doctors also thought some anti-malaria drugs were useful for COVID, when it turned out that is actually counter-productive.

I think it's within the realm of possibilities, although it's unlikely.

No, it is not within the realm of possibilities.

Are you seriously asking me to prove that there were fewer cars on the road during a period of lockdown and when people were working from home and having things delivered to them?

Yes, because the simplest explanation for traffic accidents increasing is that there were more cars on roads and that "Shutting down all non-essential businesses makes people stay home." is gibberish.

I already explained why it absolutely makes sense why there would be more.

It makes sense as an ad-hoc hypothesis for somebody insisting lockdowns worked.

People don't trust things they don't understand and like believing comforting lies.

Conforting lies like "We can contain the pandemic simply by shutting down non-essential business."?

Because people don't trust the government

And when the governments keeps saying nonsense like "If young people don't get vaccinated, the virus will mutate into something that can evade the immune system.", they are kind of right to do so.

If the scientific organizations were putting out government propaganda they'd be putting out studies that the administration wants, not ones that strongly go against what it says.

I am not sure what you mean.

[Red]

I genuinely can't tell if you've actually fallen for all the COVID denialist bullshit or if you're being facetious because you desperately want attention.

How do you know what is the scientific consensus?

I googled it. Something you seem incapable of doing.

However, the MIT study has found that COVID is mostly spread using small droplets which stay in the air and which are mostly not absorbed by the
non-N95 masks, which means that social distancing and masks other than N95 are based on gibberish.

Which MIT study? This one?
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle ... sAllowed=y
I'll quote the conclusion:

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission. The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).

Also this in the abstract:

Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes.

In other words, since the droplets are small, that's exactly why they recommend universal adoption of masks, even non-N95 ones (N95 are just the most effective, cloth things like scarves and bandanas are weaker, though better than nothing; Surgical masks are also quite good).

There is currently a global shortage of N95/FFP2 respirators and surgical masks for use in hospitals. Simple cloth masks present a pragmatic solution for use by the public. This has been supported by most health bodies. We present an interdisciplinary narrative review of the literature on the role of face masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission in the community.

Teo, maybe you should double-check studies before making ignorant claims about them.

Even if you disregard the MIT study, the Danish study also does a good job showing non-N95 masks have little or no effect.

Did you ever read the study or just read something that claimed that the Danish study says masks don't work?
If you actually take time to read it, it doesn't support your position as much as you think.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... ish-study/

And that was definitely the consensus of scientists before COVID, as evidenced by Anthony Fauci saying, at the beginning of the pandemic, "Masks, while they do provide some protection, they don't provide the protection people think they provide. And considering that people who are not trained to wear masks tend to constantly touch their masks and thus contaminating them, they may even be counter-productive.".

This was really early on in the pandemic when we didn't know much about the effects of masks. Fauci has since changed his stance on this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN26T2TR

The recent Bengali study found no effect for cloth masks and found only a small (right on the margin of error) effect for surgical masks. Maybe there is a small effect, but saying that without them 10% of Americans would have died is not plausible.

I have no idea which study you're talking about but frankly it doesn't matter what these studies say. The scientific consensus on masks is pretty clear. It's like when meat eaters cite studies that "prove" veganism is bad or meat is good for you despite the consensus that says otherwise.

If Americans lived their lives as usual and acted as if there weren't any virus going around, with people touching their faces, going out a lot, touching others, and being next to each other, yeah, I can imagine a 10% death toll. Unlikely? Of course. Impossible? no sir.
The death toll could've been lower if everyone took this seriously.

Because people are not obeying the lockdown orders, which is evidenced, among other things, by traffic accidents having increased rather than decreased.

I linked you a study showing how much traffic has decreased. Did you miss that part? I highly doubt it since you made an effort to delete it for some reason, maybe because it proves you wrong.
The people who rebelled against the lockdown orders do not represent the majority, just a very vocal (albeit sizable part) of the population.

And even if they did work, they would be protecting the laptop class (those who can actually work from home), rather than those who need special protection.

What?

The same is true for the America's response.

Mainly because the US was overall slow to react, and Trump deliberately played it down, despite knowing the danger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr ... 9_pandemic

The right thing to ask is whether those criticisms are based on good evidence. And they do not seem to be.

Teo, I don't think you are in any position to question these criticisms.

Sweden has invested a lot in healthcare before so its hospitals did not get overwhelmed, like American hospitals did. This shows that investing in healthcare before the pandemic happens is a lot better approach than trying to contain the pandemic using lockdowns and masks.

Of course we ought to be investing in healthcare more, but if you knew anything about how the healthcare system is in the US you would know why the US was behind Sweden in that respect.

What do you mean by "It obviously wasn't enough."?

If it was I highly doubt it would be condemned by so many scientific bodies.

He desperately decided to take harder measures which haven't been proven to work. Like Stalin desperately decided to implement Lysenkoism after Russia had been struck by famine for decades, even though Lysenkoism had not been proven to work.

And yet if you look at the scientific studies you'll see that they are proven to work. If I'm not mistaken a conclusion of that Danish study you refer to says that isolation is the most effective way to prevent it.

I am not sure what you mean. Early in the pandemic, doctors did not know which treatments actually worked.

If they didn't have to treat so many people, they would have been able to spend more time to help nurse the infected back the health.

No, it is not within the realm of possibilities.

How do you know?

Yes, because the simplest explanation for traffic accidents increasing is that there were more cars on roads and that "Shutting down all non-essential businesses makes people stay home." is gibberish.

So what about that study I linked that shows that car use declined 60% at the beginning of the pandemic? The one you deleted from my post in your response?
Also shoots through your claim that lockdowns don't do anything, since if we use that as a estimate, about 60% of people stayed home during lockdowns (it might be a little higher, but obviously more people should have stayed home; But 60% of people staying home is still huge).

I already explained why it absolutely makes sense why there would be more.

It makes sense as an ad-hoc hypothesis for somebody insisting lockdowns worked.

That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said and I can't begin to explain why.

Conforting lies like "We can contain the pandemic simply by shutting down non-essential business."?

No, comforting lies like COVID isn't that deadly and that masks aren't necessary. No one is really comforted by the idea that we have to change our ways of life.

And when the governments keeps saying nonsense like "If young people don't get vaccinated, the virus will mutate into something that can evade the immune system.", they are kind of right to do so.

People don't trust the government due to paranoia and populist propaganda by folks like Trump.
I'm tired of linking shit so I'll just say you should Google the effects of vaccines on the variants. Your disregard for science is outright offensive at this point.

If the scientific organizations were putting out government propaganda they'd be putting out studies that the administration wants, not ones that strongly go against what it says.

I am not sure what you mean.

The science organizations don't necessarily represent the views of the politicians in power.

You've wasted enough of my time with this COVID denialist bullshit and if you have any shred of decency and respect for science you'd give up this bullshit now.
Why Teo, just, why? Why do you insist on going against the scientific consensus all the time? Why do you think you know more than experts? Why, oh why, after years of this bullshit, are you STILL like this?