121–130 of 381 posts
The article claims that the survival of the healthcare system in places that implemented a lockdown has nothing to do with the lockdown, but then gives no evidence at all to back up that assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is called 'overshoot'. See here for a good explanation https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1252077930286444545
Thanks. That was helpful. So then, it does seem that if we successfully contained the virus, and then avoided infection spread until a hypothetical future vaccine is developed, that we could avoid the number of infections required by some amount. Just to tie it back to the broader lockdown vs not lockdown debate, we could probably say that a successful full containment strategy+vaccination could decrease the net area…
What about the situation in northern Italy? In the absence of a lockdown, the healthcare system did collapse, or came very close to doing so and this was only averted when the government implemented draconian quarantine policies. The article claims that the survival of the healthcare system in places that implemented a lockdown has nothing to do with the lockdown, but then gives no evidence at all to back up that ass…
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-fatality-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you see any substantive issues with the content I'm a programmer. An article about epidemiology could be riddled with substantive issues, and I would know none the better.
Don't sell yourself short! If you've got a brain, you have the potential for insight :) (For what it's worth, I agree that it doesn't make sense to participate in a discussion like this without at least having done some background reading)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are telling me, that you write an article with misstakes and think you should be the person making statements because you are able to write an article? And you also think, that politicians are doing an economycal suicide just because they like it? Srsly, wouldn't you assume and shouldn't you assume, that there are experts calculating and estimating that shit on every single day and trying there best to find a…
> So you are telling me, that you write an article with misstakes and think you should be the person making statements because you are able to write an article? Yes, I am a person that makes and is currently making mistakes. > And you also think, that politicians are doing an economycal suicide just because they like it? I analyzed the "game theory" of this a bit here: https://www.ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_ca…
There are plenty of people coming to me and say stuff like 'uh why does that take so long' 'i can do that quickly in an hour' etc. and at the end of the day they are wrong.
In those cases, i would just love for people to accept my expertise and let me do what i'm good at because it costs time dealing with this stuff.
And you know, all those speculations of people who are sitting down for a few hours, writing something, gathering a little bit of data left, a little bit of data right THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
You are not an economist, you are not a doctor, you are not a virologist, you are not the statistics guy. Apparently you are a SRE.
What do you think, your statement actually does? I tell you what it does, if it even does anything: It works against all the experts trying to actually do their fucking job on estimating and deciding on a daily bases about human lives.
Do you know what i decided when corona started? I will, this time, just try to be as undisruptive to the society as i can. I don't have to argue against or for it, i will trust the experts and politicians on this one.
Not everyone needs to form an opinion and also state it.
And yes it might be harder for you to believe in your president right now, i do get that. But let me give you a tip: Whenever everyone would love to stop quarantaen today, i will try to avoid public spaces as long as i can, because the risk of having corona, is actually for me, a bigger problem then just staying low for a few month.
The state of hospitals in Italy tell a different story. It might not be numbers, but it is more reliable indication of what letting this go rampant means.
This is cherry picking hopeful data. Tests have false positives, the serological tests detect all coronaviruses including common human CoV which cause common cold. The state of hospitals in Italy tell a different story. It might not be numbers, but it is more reliable indication of what letting this go rampant means.
Author suggests self-quarantine for the obese instead of quarantine/lockdown for everyone. The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese [0]. Are we really going to isolate or quarantine 4 out of 10 US adults and imagine the economy can get back on track?
This is cherry picking hopeful data. Tests have false positives, the serological tests detect all coronaviruses including common human CoV which cause common cold. The state of hospitals in Italy tell a different story. It might not be numbers, but it is more reliable indication of what letting this go rampant means.
An argument could be made that that would lead to cherry picking hopeless data.
And it still collapsed.
Don't get me wrong, lockdowns are super problematic and the economic hit is going to be really, really bad but it's better than letting health systems collapse.
For instance, Ireland (where I live) had 220 ICU beds before this started; we upped that to around 500 and around 350 were filled at the highest point.
And this was with a lockdown (started March 12th, massively tightened March 26th).
Our health service would have collapsed without the measures that have been taken, so I totally see why lockdowns have been introduced almost everywhere.
The best case scenario for this kind of event is that you react too quickly, everything's OK and then people complain that all the measures you took weren't necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement was the source of widespread criticism and I in fact criticized it myself in the writeup. I considered going for a deeper debunking but held off for the initial draft. I might circle back if people feel it's valuable. Let me take a quick stab though: When we talk about immunity we need to realize the term is used imprecisely by laypeople (btw I'm totally a layman if it's not already clear). I think of…
Great write up. It’s so strange the WHO would release a statement like that.
In this case they keep mentioning uncertainty and the argument is that otherwise the public may behave in a way they don’t want. Whatever your opinion on the arguments, that’s not science and it is also poor politics because sooner or later they’ll lose credibility and really that’s all they have.