51–60 of 348 posts
Would love to see the raw data, but from their own plots you can see that 2017, 2018 and 2019 show a trend that would make the 2020 and 2021 data consistent with the trend. As they show data comparing 2020 and 2021 to the previous years, they could have shown a matrix to compare year over year across the data. I will wait for someone to look at the raw data and peer review the paper before jumping to conclusions. I'm…
At this point in the pandemic we've should have come up with models that factor in the externalities of lockdown and factor that into policy decisions. That somehow still hasn't happened. People say "things are pretty much back to normal" but parents with kids in school know this is not true.
Half the problem is no one has actually expressed a goal we're working towards. Covid isn't going to go away (at least not for a while), which I think everyone at least implicitly accepts at this point. The people who are going to get vaccinated largely have (especially in a few months with the OSHA rule + booster rollout). So what are we even doing?
Would love to see the raw data, but from their own plots you can see that 2017, 2018 and 2019 show a trend that would make the 2020 and 2021 data consistent with the trend. As they show data comparing 2020 and 2021 to the previous years, they could have shown a matrix to compare year over year across the data. I will wait for someone to look at the raw data and peer review the paper before jumping to conclusions. I'm…
I wonder what could be driving that trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So much about protecting the children… At least for covid, this has never been about protecting the children, mostly about protecting old people. I remember a classmate calling it "sacrificing the mental health of the youth for the physical health of the old".
I imagine children's physical health is actually being severely affected as well, especially for children in lower income families. I would expect less physical movement overall (bad), more respiratory issues from over-wearing masks, anxiety manifesting as physical issues, and a host of other second order effects. And let's not forget that poorer kids worldwide are facing less access to dentists and other preventativ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
So you're just going to make vague allusions to some great evil being done while providing no data? Have you thought about why you get flagged when you discuss this topic?
And yes, there are many commingling factors for why I get flagged, none of which I consider valid. I can provide links to information straight from the horse's mouth, have done so in the past, and it never matters. The vast majority of people have a knee-jerk aversion to anything that suggests that they're staring at a mirage, or that they're victims of psychological warfare.
> So you're just going to make vague allusions to some great evil
It depends on what you consider evil. In this context, I've yet to use such a term. Already, it sounds like you're imagining I suggested some grand conspiracy.
My own daughter was born in late Jan 2020 so I think we dodged the fetal exposure issue but perhaps socialization impacts may be substantial (although at her age, her peers do not wear masks and some daycare providers have worn clear spit shields rather than masks; nonetheless I think she has socialized less than she would have a few years previously, but more than kids who don't go to daycare).
[1]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/th...
[2]: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here. Please assume the best of others. We're all trying to find the best way forward with incomplete information. And tying ideas too closely to ones identity, or that of others, won't help us adapt as more evidence come to light.
>Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here That sentiment fits individualist views and policies, where it behooves us to hear out individuals and consider them on their individual merits. However the view and policy discussed (limitations on individuals for common good) is explicitly a collectivist view and policy. Applying a sweeping generalization to a collectivist view and policy is fit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here That sentiment fits individualist views and policies, where it behooves us to hear out individuals and consider them on their individual merits. However the view and policy discussed (limitations on individuals for common good) is explicitly a collectivist view and policy. Applying a sweeping generalization to a collectivist view and policy is fit…
It is possible that people who support(ed) lockdowns are not motivated solely by marketing. The original quote calls out people, not views.
It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic.
If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this.
If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate of over 17%).
People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. It's been blindingly obvious from the moment we knew that coronavirus had a 1% IFR pre-vaccine that all of the restrictions have been net negative. We're now over 2% of our lives into this _by any definition_, which makes it utterly incontrovertible. That's why we have constant "reminders" everywhere; it's an attempt to…
That math doesn't work out, because the infection fatality ratio measures fatality - non-existence - not impaired existence. Long covid is a thing, and affects a staggeringly large percentage of people who get covid and do not die, significantly affecting the rest of their lives. One recent study claims an infection impaired-quality-of-life ratio of over 50% ( https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-g…
Yeah, okay. I know anecdotes are not data, we're supposed to trust the Internet over our own eyes and all of that, but come on, do you think I'm dense?
I know over a hundred people who've had coronavirus at this point, this is clearly total nonsense.