Red Mosquito

Wouldn't need the CDC to convince anyone if a virus was actually that deadly.

*School house rock theme*

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Bammer wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

I must not be posing my question right, based on 4/5's post.

He was saying maybe the CDC isn't the best agency to control the restrictions/guidelines because they don't take into account social and economic impacts of the restrictions. Which could very well be true for this virus. But is there a line where social and economic impacts don't or shouldn't matter? If a virus had even a 10% fatality rate, I would think "high risk" would pretty much include everyone. So then, I ask, who would be best to be in charge of public restrictions/guidelines in that scenario? And if it would be the CDC, then what is the death rate cutoff for when all people will follow them vs. only 50% or whatever it was during COVID?

I think we should absolutely take what epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have to say extremely seriously. But we should also balance that with other concerns. It's not their fault but they have a natural tendency to take an overly narrow view when all of their training all of their focus all of their concern is to stop something like covid. This isn't specific to this topic btw, the Federal Reserve right now is going to go all in on fighting inflation because that's their covid. There are costs to those policies just like there are costs to the covid mitigation policies but in both cases the people acting in an official decision making capacity have an incentive to focus narrowly on their particular battle and therefore are prone to make (or promote) policies that might not actually pass a cost/benefit analysis if we really think about the costs and consequences both intended and unintended.

As far as an "even 10% fatality rate" I don't think the word "even" should be there. That would be catastrophic and it's hard to imagine the costs outweighing the benefits of even much stricter and more draconian measures in that case. So, I take your point but that's so far from the reality of this particular virus for the vast majority of people who aren't old or immunocompromised. So, to answer you directly: no, there's not a line where social and economic (largely the same thing) impacts don't matter. They always matter. But with a virus that lethal it's extremely likely that policies that I shudder to think of would be justified on a cost/benefit measurement.

verb_to_trust wrote:What did immunocompromised people do before covid? They presumably had to deal with any number of other mild illnesses.

When my father started treatment for mesothelioma, we were all asked to attend a seminar on living with immunocompromised people. The treatment was experimental, and it was going to obliterate his immune system for a while.

The way they explained it to us was, even mild diseases had the potential to be fatal while he was going through treatment. However, the good news was that even with your immune system severely weakened, it still benefits from having previous experience with a disease. It knows what to do. It won’t overreact, and will respond weakly but effectively.

Getting a cold wouldn’t be pleasant for him, they told us, but it wouldn’t likely put him in the hospital or anything. By comparison, if he had somehow never had a cold before, then getting one now would run the risk of severe illness or even death.

Because COVID is so brand new, almost none of the immunocompromised people in the world had it before they became immunocompromised, and therefore they don’t have the small but crucial element of protection they have from similarly widespread diseases.

We desperately need Bi3 back so that McP has somebody intelligent to debate.

90% of your posts are just whining about other posts. If you want to do something to help these threads, stop doing that. Control what you can control.

Furthermore, there is nothing to debate in mcps response to my question. He gave an informative answer to my question. The end.

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

Peeps' words, Peeps' spelling error.

Spelling error allegation retracted.

Still that post is fucking weird.

rent free

Peeps wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

Peeps' words, Peeps' spelling error.

Spelling error allegation retracted.

Still that post is fucking weird.

rent free

Well, there is an eviction moratorium because of a deadly virus happening right now.

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Bammer wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

I must not be posing my question right, based on 4/5's post.

He was saying maybe the CDC isn't the best agency to control the restrictions/guidelines because they don't take into account social and economic impacts of the restrictions. Which could very well be true for this virus. But is there a line where social and economic impacts don't or shouldn't matter? If a virus had even a 10% fatality rate, I would think "high risk" would pretty much include everyone. So then, I ask, who would be best to be in charge of public restrictions/guidelines in that scenario? And if it would be the CDC, then what is the death rate cutoff for when all people will follow them vs. only 50% or whatever it was during COVID?

I think we should absolutely take what epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have to say extremely seriously. But we should also balance that with other concerns. It's not their fault but they have a natural tendency to take an overly narrow view when all of their training all of their focus all of their concern is to stop something like covid. This isn't specific to this topic btw, the Federal Reserve right now is going to go all in on fighting inflation because that's their covid. There are costs to those policies just like there are costs to the covid mitigation policies but in both cases the people acting in an official decision making capacity have an incentive to focus narrowly on their particular battle and therefore are prone to make (or promote) policies that might not actually pass a cost/benefit analysis if we really think about the costs and consequences both intended and unintended.

As far as an "even 10% fatality rate" I don't think the word "even" should be there. That would be catastrophic and it's hard to imagine the costs outweighing the benefits of even much stricter and more draconian measures in that case. So, I take your point but that's so far from the reality of this particular virus for the vast majority of people who aren't old or immunocompromised. So, to answer you directly: no, there's not a line where social and economic (largely the same thing) impacts don't matter. They always matter. But with a virus that lethal it's extremely likely that policies that I shudder to think of would be justified on a cost/benefit measurement.

I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

This varied quite a bit regionally, and even then is not entirely accurate. Very few other countries closed schools to the extent we did.

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

This varied quite a bit regionally, and even then is not entirely accurate. Very few other countries closed schools to the extent we did.

This is a guy who lives in Chicago. He enjoys being ruled. Don't trust that type of perspective.

verb_to_trust wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

This varied quite a bit regionally, and even then is not entirely accurate. Very few other countries closed schools to the extent we did.

This is a guy who lives in Chicago. He enjoys being ruled. Don't trust that type of perspective.

We apparently experience similar levels of dysfunctional city governments very differently

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

Idk I mean relative to authoritarian China and newly authoritarian Australian provinces, sure. Although there were plenty of people arguing that China was the model to follow. But it varied tremendously from state to state. And having no in person public schools across major swaths of the country for 17 months hardly strikes me as "wide open." That's the kind of policy that will be looked upon extremely negatively in the future and everybody will try to distance themselves from ever having supported. That's a policy that should have been immediately tossed out the window by thinking through the costs of such a policy and who was being asked to bear those costs and what the potential benefits would be.

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

This varied quite a bit regionally, and even then is not entirely accurate. Very few other countries closed schools to the extent we did.

Right, they choose lockdowns instead. Which would you rather?

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

Idk I mean relative to authoritarian China and newly authoritarian Australian provinces, sure. Although there were plenty of people arguing that China was the model to follow. But it varied tremendously from state to state. And having no in person public schools across major swaths of the country for 17 months hardly strikes me as "wide open." That's the kind of policy that will be looked upon extremely negatively in the future and everybody will try to distance themselves from ever having supported. That's a policy that should have been immediately tossed out the window by thinking through the costs of such a policy and who was being asked to bear those costs and what the potential benefits would be.

Schools have been back in person for ages, so what are people still on about?

The problem with schools wasn't that anyone wanted to keep kids out that long. It's that schools/governments did a shit job at getting them up to snuff.

I talked to the county health staff here. They had meeting after meeting with the schools and laid out the plans for reopening, and then the schools did NONE of it, and parents told the schools to fuck off.

We had plans that would work, but either the money was wasted on pointless shit, arrived to late, or didn't arrive at all.

My kid's school spent NO money on improving air circulation, they still have the 60 year old units that they had before, and they're still finishing up construction on the shelters for outdoor dining.

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

School: We think it's safe for school.
Parents: No it's not.
School: *waits*

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

Idk I mean relative to authoritarian China and newly authoritarian Australian provinces, sure. Although there were plenty of people arguing that China was the model to follow. But it varied tremendously from state to state. And having no in person public schools across major swaths of the country for 17 months hardly strikes me as "wide open." That's the kind of policy that will be looked upon extremely negatively in the future and everybody will try to distance themselves from ever having supported. That's a policy that should have been immediately tossed out the window by thinking through the costs of such a policy and who was being asked to bear those costs and what the potential benefits would be.

More than 1.3 billion children across 171 countries schooled remotely during that time frame, with many countries outlasting our run (23 countries, including the Philippines, were still at it and planning on finishing a third year of remote learning as of January, though I haven’t checked for updates since then). For children in a number of countries, school simply didn’t exist for a year or more.

So whatever your opinion of remote learning…it doesn’t demonstrate a way that our response was outsized compared to other nations.

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote: I mean, with the exception of March/April 2020, things have been pretty wide open during the pandemic here in the US, especially relative to other nations’ responses. It really does boil down to a group of people overreacting to fabric on their faces when in public.

Idk I mean relative to authoritarian China and newly authoritarian Australian provinces, sure. Although there were plenty of people arguing that China was the model to follow. But it varied tremendously from state to state. And having no in person public schools across major swaths of the country for 17 months hardly strikes me as "wide open." That's the kind of policy that will be looked upon extremely negatively in the future and everybody will try to distance themselves from ever having supported. That's a policy that should have been immediately tossed out the window by thinking through the costs of such a policy and who was being asked to bear those costs and what the potential benefits would be.

More than 1.3 billion children across 171 countries schooled remotely during that time frame, with many countries outlasting our run (23 countries, including the Philippines, were still at it and planning on finishing a third year of remote learning as of January, though I haven’t checked for updates since then). For children in a number of countries, school simply didn’t exist for a year or more.

So whatever your opinion of remote learning…it doesn’t demonstrate a way that our response was outsized compared to other nations.

I don't think I argued that it was. I certainly didn't intend to. My intention was to illustrate that switching to remote learning for a year and half is an example of at least one policy that indicates things weren't "wide open" in the U.S. since April 2020. And to further use it as an example as policy that should have been avoided because it imposed enormous costs, often on the least advantaged, with questionable benefits.

I guess spike has already forgotten about the whole “Get the shots or you’re fucking fired…and you can’t eat in a restaurant” thing.