Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Your right, we should ignore statistical evidence and go with your wife's anecdotal evidence. I didn't offer anecdotal "evidence" of anything. I told a story from a professional who is on the front lines of this fight to illustrate that the numbers of people who die don't make it clear where the pressures on the medical system come from. They come from people needing care, whether or not they die. In fact whether…
From wikipedia- anecdotal evidence is evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. The third paragraph presents as if you are trying to dispute the statistical evidence that has been accumulated with anecdotal or personal testimony.
Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
581–590 of 595 posts
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-news-12-year-old-gi... Tell this to her parents. The distribution of case fatalities from SARS-CoV-2 is still very much up for debate. But it sure as hell isn't as simple as 'they were about to die anyway'. Also something that mainstream news coverage mostly ignores is that 1: about 20% of all patients regardless of age require supplementary oxygen to survive the infection and…
>The distribution of case fatalities from SARS-CoV-2 is still very much up for debate. Really? It seems to follow the same pattern everywhere. >1: about 20% of all patients regardless of age require supplementary oxygen to survive the infection and it'll be straight up the worst experience of their life. You mean all patients in bad enough state to end up in the hospital? 20% of all patients who have contracted SARS-…
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-news-12-year-old-gi... Tell this to her parents. The distribution of case fatalities from SARS-CoV-2 is still very much up for debate. But it sure as hell isn't as simple as 'they were about to die anyway'. Also something that mainstream news coverage mostly ignores is that 1: about 20% of all patients regardless of age require supplementary oxygen to survive the infection and…
>The distribution of case fatalities from SARS-CoV-2 is still very much up for debate. Really? It seems to follow the same pattern everywhere. >1: about 20% of all patients regardless of age require supplementary oxygen to survive the infection and it'll be straight up the worst experience of their life. You mean all patients in bad enough state to end up in the hospital? 20% of all patients who have contracted SARS-…
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are increasing reports that ventilators are doing more harm than good, that in fact the way this virus starves the body of oxygen isn't pneumonia, but rather in the blood. It's like a reverse survivorship bias - most patients vented die.
Or it could just be regular survivor bias, in that anyone who is sick enough to need a ventilator is probably doomed, regardless.
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a radical idea: allow people that want to ignore lockdown to do so, in exchange for refusal of anything but palliative care if they get sick with Coronavirus.
You forget that they will go and infect many others until they end in the hospital. That is the major issue with infections diseases.
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#586Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've missed my point. There's no working definition of "essential". The water plant depends on regular deliveries of components. The components come from factories which in turn need more components, and those components come from factories that depend for business on orders from some "non essential" industry. So they shut down to preserve cash, and that ripples through the supply chain until suddenly water pressur…
> There's no working definition of "essential". There is, it's whatever your government says it is. They're consulting with experts and people on the ground to make and update those determinations. > Water plant, etc. Yeah there are tons of cases like this. All to be handled by your government in consultation with experts and people on the ground. When the water treatment plant needs X, they'll figure out how to get…
"It seems a lot of people can't care less about the life of someone they don't know."
and my whole point was that this can be turned around exactly - people who treat shutting down the economy as if it were a trivial, obviously good thing to do don't appear to care about the lives of others who they don't know and who will be seriously negatively affected by that. As exemplified by the comment about how "Some people will kill someone for a couple of bucks".
So that's the opposite of a straw man!
They're consulting with experts and people on the ground to make and update those determinations
Unfortunately they really aren't. The only people with expertise in command economies (which is what our economies have suddenly become) know they always result in ridiculous outcomes. The shutdowns aren't some hyper-precise expert driven brilliance: they're shambolic, chaotic and riven with extremely stupid results.
Here in Switzerland I went to the supermarket the other day. You can buy many things there, but the toy shelves were covered, with a sign saying you're not allowed to buy them. There's no health justification for that because the people are in the supermarket anyway. And for the millions of parents stuck at home with bored kids, toys are rather important. Instead this is a side-effect of the way the law is written - it bans sales of particular goods, not openings of particular types of stores. They could have phrased it differently but then of course every store would start selling vegetables so they could remain open. Regardless of how such a law is written you get nonsensical and frustrating outcomes with no health justification.
In the UK the government is supposed to be buying essential items like PPE. Instead it's flailing around in a swamp of incompetence:
- Politicians are causing diplomatic incidents by claiming orders weren't dispatched but
- Those same orders weren't actually submitted to the sellers days or even weeks after it was claimed they were
- Private companies with PPE in UK warehouses are shipping it to other European countries, because the government didn't bother to actually buy it after import
- When equipment is ordered, it's bought from dodgy suppliers who routinely ship wrong or defective items.
You can find news stories about all these events in the British press.
We're living in a world where governments can't reliably purchase gowns and masks or make an exception so toys can be sold in supermarkets, let alone evaluate the tens of millions of products and firms to decide what's essential and what's not. Even conceptualising the size of such a task is beyond them. The idea the shutdowns are coordinated by experts on the ground is a pleasant dream, but sadly not real.
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#588Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
Support to allow them to stay home. It's not really a "choice" to stay home if that means they will starve or be evicted.
Support how? Bare minimum just to make sure they do not starve and not get kicked out on the street? Still a torture. F.. that
Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no evidence lawmakers have any better insight into what's going on than anyone else, and quite a bit of evidence they may have worse insight. Yes, I'm sure dark money funded protestors who blocked ambulances from going to hospitals have better insight than anyone else. What a load of nonsense. Facebook is a private platform. It can moderate how it pleases.
"Facebook is a private platform. It can moderate how it pleases." Absolutely not; it is highly regulated (probably should be more so), subject to constitutional concerns, ongoing legislation and pressures.