|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 10:22:02 GMT -5
Now that the pandemic has ended for an increasing portion of the world (it ended here almost as soon as it started) efforts to quantify if all the draconian BS was worth it are under way. The first shot across the bow comes from a Johns Hopkins Study that's getting a lot of press right now. The nut of the whole thing on page 44: "Finally, allow us to broaden our perspective after presenting our meta-analysis that focuses on the following question: “What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?” We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none. The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 2, 2022 10:43:18 GMT -5
This is how it should work. You make the best decision you can at the time based on the information at hand, then, afterwards you begin the evaluation of what worked, what didn't, and what is still to be determined, if ever.
However long the Covid pandemic is ever determined to have lasted, its autopsy will no doubt last ten times longer (and there will be several half-rights and several more half-wrongs claiming full victory).
Taking a real wild guess off the top of my head, I will hazard that some arguments will never be settled.
But, some stuff will be learned.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 10:58:07 GMT -5
This is how it should work. You make the best decision you can at the time based on the information at hand, then, afterwards you begin the evaluation of what worked, what didn't, and what is still to be determined, if ever. However long the Covid pandemic is ever determined to have lasted, its autopsy will no doubt last ten times longer (and there will be several half-rights and several more half-wrongs claiming full victory). Taking a real wild guess off the top of my head, I will hazard that some of arguments will never be settled. But, some stuff will be learned. Yeah, that's great. Except for the damage that's already been done by the COVID Nazis. That shit can't be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 2, 2022 11:03:29 GMT -5
Some gloat, some get defensive, some learn.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 2, 2022 11:09:31 GMT -5
Goes to show you can't change minds by stating opinions on the interweb. Some minds you can't change at all.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 11:18:07 GMT -5
Some gloat, some get defensive, some learn. When?
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Feb 2, 2022 11:24:00 GMT -5
I once posited in a Covid mega thread in the very early days that "Covid gonna Covid". By which I meant I was skeptical there was much we were going to be able to do to alter the outcome of a virus spreading through a heavily populated and free society. At that time vaccines were on the horizon but no one knew how/when. I think those vaccines have been generally effective and saved lives and I've taken mine twice. With that said no one should ever be forced to take it IMO. Ever. And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me. Looking at total reported cases and deaths world wide looks like the current global death rate is 0.0148. Of course, a majority of those deaths were elderly people or people that were already compromised in some way. It's all guesswork but one can safely assume there were MANY unreported cases of Covid that were either asymptomatic or mild enough that the case never entered the system. So what's the real death rate of Covid let loose in a human population? Nobody knows but it's significantly less than 0.0148 isn't it? So, even taking in to account the effects of long Covid, a reasonable question to ask is "did we overreact?". Many of us have lost family or friends to Covid and this "statistics" argument is impossible to have sometimes and understandably so. So my answer to that over reaction question is "I Don't know. Maybe". I do know I'm 100% against losing your livelihood or job, or any basic freedoms because you won't get vaccinated. In a free society like the one I'm thankful to live in "Covid gonna Covid" I took this picture below at the Anchorage airport last month. How can it be that it's perfectly safe to fly in a crowded plane(and of course cram in to terminals, shuttles and taxi cabs, security checkpoints, and restrooms) and Millring can't have an art show? When I read this sign what I think is it's been determined that under certain circumstances it's OK to risk Covid and under other circumstances it's not. Flying is apparently such a necessity the rules get to be different.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 2, 2022 11:26:28 GMT -5
Autopsy Bets
If I were a gambling man, I would place a Vegas bet that there will be a general coalescing of thought that is in agreement with this preliminary John Hopkins paper. $20 bucks on No Lockdowns.
I would place another bet that there will be general coalescing of thought around the proposition that the wearing of decent quality masks in public places had a positive impact in mitigating viral spread at a very low to nearly nil social cost. $20 bucks on masks help mitigate outbreaks.
And I would place another $20 on the usefulness of vaccinations, if Vegas bothers to open a book on that one. With the current odds, there is no bet to be made.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 2, 2022 11:39:13 GMT -5
( mask requirements at places of necessary human commerce (stores and public transportation). No mask requirements for recreation (bars, restaurants, ball games). Mask requirements at private organizations up to the members of such (churches, bands, Elks Club). Not perfect, but nothing ever is.)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 2, 2022 11:47:45 GMT -5
(oh, and encourage vaccinations the American Way, not through mandates but through fat tax credits! $350 a shot! (and maybe a package of coupons of free goodies from local merchants)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 12:14:00 GMT -5
Autopsy Bets If I were a gambling man, I would place a Vegas bet that there will be a general coalescing of thought that is in agreement with this preliminary John Hopkins paper. $20 bucks on No Lockdowns. I would place another bet that there will be general coalescing of thought around the proposition that the wearing of decent quality masks in public places had a positive impact in mitigating viral spread at a very low to nearly nil social cost. $20 bucks on masks help mitigate outbreaks. And I would place another $20 on the usefulness of vaccinations, if Vegas bothers to open a book on that one. With the current odds, there is no bet to be made. I'd take the bet opposite to the last 2. The mRNA vaccines have proven so far to be far from a panacea with the rapidly decreasing effectiveness and being only approved for emergency use with liability immunity granted to the executives who have made bank off them, I'm guessing they'll continue to mess a lot of people up for a very long time. Particularly since they're now being pushed all the way down to virtual newborns. That's damn scary. And masks as a practical matter suck. And the downsides of development problems in kids, etc. will probably be ridiculed in the long run too.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 2, 2022 12:14:09 GMT -5
I once posited in a Covid mega thread in the very early days that "Covid gonna Covid". By which I meant I was skeptical there was much we were going to be able to do to alter the outcome of a virus spreading through a heavily populated and free society. At that time vaccines were on the horizon but no one knew how/when. I think those vaccines have been generally effective and saved lives and I've taken mine twice. With that said no one should ever be forced to take it IMO. Ever. And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me. BOO !I think institutions like hospitals and probably schools have the right and responsibility to require masks and/or vaccinations (with valid medical exceptions). If you don't want to follow those requirements, go somewhere else. You have that choice.I do get upset with the vehemence of some of the stances on both sides. Personally I think a vaccine protects me, not you. It's still possible (so we have seen) for a vaccinated person to be infected. They will likely have a weaker case of illness. Or no symptoms at all. But they got it. And if they don't feel too bad they are more likely to go out in public and risk infecting someone else.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Feb 2, 2022 12:41:58 GMT -5
I once posited in a Covid mega thread in the very early days that "Covid gonna Covid". By which I meant I was skeptical there was much we were going to be able to do to alter the outcome of a virus spreading through a heavily populated and free society. At that time vaccines were on the horizon but no one knew how/when. I think those vaccines have been generally effective and saved lives and I've taken mine twice. With that said no one should ever be forced to take it IMO. Ever. And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me. BOO !I think institutions like hospitals and probably schools have the right and responsibility to require masks and/or vaccinations (with valid medical exceptions). If you don't want to follow those requirements, go somewhere else. You have that choice.Rather than force vaccines how about if we just have hospitals and schools conduct their business inside Alaska Airline's 737's?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 2, 2022 12:51:22 GMT -5
And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me. I do know I'm 100% against losing your livelihood or job, or any basic freedoms because you won't get vaccinated. In a free society like the one I'm thankful to live in "Covid gonna Covid" Smallpox gonna smallpox. Polio gonna polio. Viruses are tricky little bastards that co-evolved with us--in fact, they're probably older than any modern species, as are bacteria. Which means it's hard to prevent them from running through a population of potential hosts. So, yeah, viruses gonna virus. But humans gonna human, which means we will respond with counter-measures, and that some of us will refuse to cooperate with those social and medical counter-measures. And that non-cooperation is one of the mechanisms that enable viruses to virus. As for the "basic freedoms" position: how about the long list of public-health measures most of us have accepted for the last century and more? And how about hospitals and nursing homes requiring vaccinations and infection-mitigation measures (e.g., masking)? The logical extension of freedom-from-counter-measures is unvaccinated, unmasked doctors and nurses and LPNs and ER intake personnel who can spread the virus. How does freedom to preserve their livelihoods interoperate with not endangering their patients? Of course, if we posit an employ-at-will model, then their employers are free to fire them for failing to comply with company policies. Nothing personal, just business.
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Feb 2, 2022 13:15:26 GMT -5
There’s more Covid PBS NEWS 2/1/22 in the web Stanford University Study
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 2, 2022 13:22:35 GMT -5
BTW, before getting all giddy about the Hopkins paper, I'd consider the following: 1) It's a meta-study; 2)its authors are economists; 3) Hanke, one of the co-authors and a co-founder/director of the JHU Institute that produced the paper, is also a Cato Institute Fellow.
So I'll wait for the epidemiologists and immunologists and public-health specialists to weigh in before I decide to go mingle with the unmasked at a hockey game.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Feb 2, 2022 13:27:45 GMT -5
"With that said no one should ever be forced to take it IMO. Ever. And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me."
Steve, I love ya, but you and others seem to advocate a view of freedom that this country has never embraced and which I doubt it ever will. If your view had been prevalent when I was a kid, we would still have childhood polio and smallpox. During the American Revolution, travel was restricted at times due to smallpox outbreaks. Washington required that his troops be inoculated against smallpox when vaccines were still pretty primitive because he was losing more troops to disease than to the British. We have ALWAYS recognized that government may regulate behavior to protect public health and safety.
We can certainly have disagreements as to how much regulation a particular problem warrants. I have mostly opposed vaccine mandates during all this because I thought such mandates would create more problems than they would solve. But if you think mandatory vaccines are inherently tyrannical, I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 13:52:40 GMT -5
And you guys that seem to think vaccines should be forced or think it's OK to use social sanctions to force them scare me. I do know I'm 100% against losing your livelihood or job, or any basic freedoms because you won't get vaccinated. In a free society like the one I'm thankful to live in "Covid gonna Covid" Smallpox gonna smallpox. Polio gonna polio. Viruses are tricky little bastards that co-evolved with us--in fact, they're probably older than any modern species, as are bacteria. Which means it's hard to prevent them from running through a population of potential hosts. So, yeah, viruses gonna virus. But humans gonna human, which means we will respond with counter-measures, and that some of us will refuse to cooperate with those social and medical counter-measures. And that non-cooperation is one of the mechanisms that enable viruses to virus. As for the "basic freedoms" position: how about the long list of public-health measures most of us have accepted for the last century and more? And how about hospitals and nursing homes requiring vaccinations and infection-mitigation measures (e.g., masking)? The logical extension of freedom-from-counter-measures is unvaccinated, unmasked doctors and nurses and LPNs and ER intake personnel who can spread the virus. How does freedom to preserve their livelihoods interoperate with not endangering their patients? Of course, if we posit an employ-at-will model, then their employers are free to fire them for failing to comply with company policies. Nothing personal, just business. The study says (Pages 41 and 42), "Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on theOxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%. Studies looking at specific NPIs (lockdown vs. no lockdown, facemasks, closing non-essential businesses, border closures, school closures, and limiting gatherings) also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. However, closing non-essential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars. Also, masks may reduce COVID-19 mortality, but there is only one study that examines universal mask mandates. The effect of border closures,school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1%, -4.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. Lockdowns (compared to no lockdowns) also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality." "First, people respond to dangers outside their door. When a pandemic rages, people believe in social distancing regardless of what the government mandates. So, we believe that Allen (2021) is right, when he concludes,“The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.” In economic terms, you can say that the demand for costly disease prevention efforts like social distancing and increased focus on hygiene is high when infection rates are high. Contrary, when infection rates are low, the demand is low and it may even be morally and economically rational not to comply with mandates like SIPOs, which are difficult to enforce. Herby (2021) reviews studies which distinguish between mandatory and voluntary behavioral changes. He finds that – on average – voluntary behavioral changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioral changes in combating COVID-19. If people voluntarily adjust their behavior to the risk of the pandemic, closing down non-essential businesses may simply reallocate consumer visits away from “nonessential” to “essential” businesses, as shown by Goolsbee and Syverson (2021), with limited impact on the total number of contacts. This may also explain why epidemiological model simulations such as Ferguson et al. (2020) – which do not model behavior endogenously – fail to forecast the effect of lockdowns." In short, COVID was much different than all that crap you keep referring to in that it was driven by government sponsored panic porn and mandates for things that remain untested and unproven. Unlike polio and smallpox which were at least sufficiently proven before being mandated.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 2, 2022 13:54:28 GMT -5
BTW, before getting all giddy about the Hopkins paper, I'd consider the following: 1) It's a meta-study; 2)its authors are economists; 3) Hanke, one of the co-authors and a co-founder/director of the JHU Institute that produced the paper, is also a Cato Institute Fellow. So I'll wait for the epidemiologists and immunologists and public-health specialists to weigh in before I decide to go mingle with the unmasked at a hockey game. I'm sure nobody has any problem with you choosing to not go somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 2, 2022 14:00:41 GMT -5
Other study reviews are available. Complex considerations abound.
|
|