COVID-19 / Coronavirus Outbreak

[deleted_user]

Tbh not electing 99% of politicians is better in the long run ngl

could b ngl

[princeofcarthage]

@princeofcarthage
a) there are good reasons why trying to "calculate" the best way by weighing lives lost vs lives saved is a futile exercise. because these calculations only pretend to be precise, a lot is just estimates and preferences (go ahead and look up all the variations of the trolley problem). the only thing we do know is a new virus is spreading, there is no immunity in the population and it kills anywhere between 0.2-1.0 % of those infected. Enough to take action I guess.
b) if you criticise saving lives that are in danger right now because you think that even more potential lives are at risk in the future, ok. I know there are studies linking economic depression to an increase in suicide numbers BUT you can still do something against these potential future deaths. these are less certain than the deaths from covid-19 within the next year. you can't save those who die now.
c) you have to factor in that the economic damage is not 100% done by the lockdown /mitigation measures. it is done by the virus itself, as it kills people and creates uncertainty regarding the future. we would have a crashing economy anyway.
d) I'm just not willing to say "just let people die from the virus". that feels inhumane.

EDIT: the appropriate response to the virus may vary from region to region and country to country, but at least in Europe with a lot of old people and many predispositions there is no real alternative. and even in a country with a younger population I would be very unhappy as PR-manager of the politician who wants to kill off the old and weak. I mean look at your company: Bolsonaro, Lukashenko, Trump...

A) Not sure I understand what you are trying to stay. What I am comparing if at all I am is the lives saved due to lockdown against lives lost cuz of lockdown. 0.2%-1.0% mortality rate of the most vulnerable population, I am not sure it warrants a direct crisis to 60% of the global population and indirectly to nearly 95% of the global population.

B) I will reply to this in next post.

C) Uncontrolled virus wouldn't even nearly kill as much population to put a dent in supply chains. There are significant disruptions in short-term, lock down has now made them long - term. I am not sure if you are aware of the global scenario right now but lock downs will most likely now create significant disruptions in productions and supply chains in long term and short term.

D) Neither am I. You are just saying that though, you would understand this if you manage to look outside of just raw C-19 deaths.

E) Lock down was mostly a domino effect.

[Theodore]

@Theodore I shall respond in full after my exams which take place in a fortnight. For the time being, a couple of observations.
Capacity is not fixed. You can build hospitals in days.
The idea that there is agreement among epidemiologists is ludicrous.
Epidemiology should not be the sole basis for policy decisions.
What needs to be considered is what is best in the long run.

Doesn't have to be long. Just show me some serious epidemiologist who says that the mitigation measures (anything between lockdown / masks / tracing /whatnot) were a bad idea. You have lovely universities in the UK, Cambridge, Oxford, anything is fine.

And policy makers have to act, not because of epidemiologists saying so, but because they have a legal duty to protect lives.

[Theodore]

@princeofcarthage
a) there are good reasons why trying to "calculate" the best way by weighing lives lost vs lives saved is a futile exercise. because these calculations only pretend to be precise, a lot is just estimates and preferences (go ahead and look up all the variations of the trolley problem). the only thing we do know is a new virus is spreading, there is no immunity in the population and it kills anywhere between 0.2-1.0 % of those infected. Enough to take action I guess.
b) if you criticise saving lives that are in danger right now because you think that even more potential lives are at risk in the future, ok. I know there are studies linking economic depression to an increase in suicide numbers BUT you can still do something against these potential future deaths. these are less certain than the deaths from covid-19 within the next year. you can't save those who die now.
c) you have to factor in that the economic damage is not 100% done by the lockdown /mitigation measures. it is done by the virus itself, as it kills people and creates uncertainty regarding the future. we would have a crashing economy anyway.
d) I'm just not willing to say "just let people die from the virus". that feels inhumane.

EDIT: the appropriate response to the virus may vary from region to region and country to country, but at least in Europe with a lot of old people and many predispositions there is no real alternative. and even in a country with a younger population I would be very unhappy as PR-manager of the politician who wants to kill off the old and weak. I mean look at your company: Bolsonaro, Lukashenko, Trump...

A) Not sure I understand what you are trying to stay. What I am comparing if at all I am is the lives saved due to lockdown against lives lost cuz of lockdown. 0.2%-1.0% mortality rate of the most vulnerable population, I am not sure it warrants a direct crisis to 60% of the global population and indirectly to nearly 95% of the global population.

B) I will reply to this in next post.

C) Uncontrolled virus wouldn't even nearly kill as much population to put a dent in supply chains. There are significant disruptions in short-term, lock down has now made them long - term. I am not sure if you are aware of the global scenario right now but lock downs will most likely now create significant disruptions in productions and supply chains in long term and short term.

D) Neither am I. You are just saying that though, you would understand this if you manage to look outside of just raw C-19 deaths.

E) Lock down was mostly a domino effect.

I see your point. But it's just not true, the mitigation measures are not worse than an uncontrolled spread of the virus.

By the way the 0.2-1.0% is global population. Amongst the more vulnerable groups it's more in the 20-30% range. But the total number is unknown.

[princeofcarthage]

too many words probably.

@princeofcarthage do you have any sound estimate that more people are actually dying from the lockdown than the virus? I haven't seen one. (I am quite sure China wouldn't have gone into lockdown if they'd figured out that they could just sit it out.)

Or is that just a feel fact from you. something that isn't true, but just feels right?

There have been no reports for C-19 yet, its too early anyways. There have been numerous reports regarding MERS, SARS, EBOLA, how they affected and how deaths were more than the virus itself. It will not be different for C-19.

Let me put things in perspective for you (will include few excerpts from popular peer - reviewed articles)
-> People are committing suicide at higher rate, news is only showing of famous people but if you dig deep you will realize the actual horror. If you count all indirect C-19 deaths so far in India, "official" death count doubles. Now imagine the real count.

-> "Across the globe, patients have reported being denied cancer care, kidney dialysis and urgent transplant surgeries, with sometimes fatal results."

-> "In the Balkans, women have been driven to try dangerous, experimental abortions themselves"

-> "Experts in the UK have reported a rise in DIY dentistry, as people turn to toe-curling improvisations involving chewing gum, wire-cutters, and superglue."

-> "Panic-hoarding of the drug hydroxychloroquin, which is normally used to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions, and has recently been found to increase deaths from Covid-19."

-> "Scientists have warned that, in some places, disruption to the control of diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis and malaria could lead to losses on the same scale as those caused directly by the virus. Similarly, experts fear that deaths from illnesses such as cholera could far exceed those from Covid-19 itself."

-> "The World Health Organization has calculated that at least 80 million children under the age of one are now at risk of diphtheria, polio and measles, after the pandemic disrupted programs in at least 68 countries. Polio is expected to make a comeback, despite a multi-billion dollar effort stretching back decades which meant it was tantalizingly close to joining the exclusive club of viruses that are extinct in the wild"

-> "Meanwhile, David Beasley, executive director of the United Nations’ World Food Program (WFP), warned last month that the world is teetering on the edge of a famine of “biblical” proportions – with 130 million people at risk of starvation, on top of the 135 million who are already on the brink."

I will write more explaining further but whatever. Maybe tomorrow.

[fightinfrenchman]

This virus sucks

[chris1089]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-lockdown
This is very telling. At best it's government incompetency and at worst it's deceiving and misleading the public.

[duckzilla]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-lockdown
This is very telling. At best it's government incompetency and at worst it's deceiving and misleading the public.

Does not look well organised. I wonder whether this can be transferred to other important political topics as well.

[Horsemen]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-lockdown
This is very telling. At best it's government incompetency and at worst it's deceiving and misleading the public.

Does not look well organised. I wonder whether this can be transferred to other important political topics as well.

the UK public sector is not well organised in general

[chris1089]

Public sectors are not well organised in general.

[Dolan]

Well, when the "management team" (politicians) gets changed every 4 years, sometimes a lot faster (when prime ministers are changed and their cabinets are reshuffled), you're not going to get the same level of consistency in levels of organisation in the public sector as you'd get in the private sector.
Since everyone and their mom thinks they know how things should be run by the state, there's always maximum pressure on how the state should work. You don't get that kind of pressure in the private sector, where things are lot more stable and less exposed to everyone's scrutiny and complaints, since, you know, it's private property so it's not your business how they run it.

[Horsemen]

Well, when the "management team" (politicians) gets changed every 4 years, sometimes a lot faster (when prime ministers are changed and their cabinets are reshuffled), you're not going to get the same level of consistency in levels of organisation in the public sector as you'd get in the private sector.
Since everyone and their mom thinks they know how things should be run by the state, there's always maximum pressure on how the state should work. You don't get that kind of pressure in the private sector, where things are lot more stable and less exposed to everyone's scrutiny and complaints, since, you know, it's private property so it's not your business how they run it.

this is why corporative industrialism (i.e. replacing the state with a joint stock company) is the ideal system of government

[RefluxSemantic]

The USA is really going for a test of the group immunity threshold. Now with these protest, its either going to spread like crazy or its going to turn out group immunity happens at less than 70%.

[fightinfrenchman]

The USA is really going for a test of the group immunity threshold. Now with these protest, its either going to spread like crazy or its going to turn out group immunity happens at less than 70%.

Who wants to bet the shittier one will happen

[Goodspeed]

Then both will happen. 70% sounds really high to me. Is that assuming everyone immediately licks strangers on sight?

[RefluxSemantic]

Then both will happen. 70% sounds really high to me. Is that assuming everyone immediately licks strangers on sight?

You're too smart to say such dumb things..

The 70% is based on the rate of reproduction. Under normal circumstances (so no measures at all) R is about 3. Group immunity happens when one infected person will infect only one other person. So it happens when 2/3rds are immune (as this would make R go from 3 to 1). This is 66%, or rather something between 60 and 70% (theres some uncertainty about the actual R).

This has nothing to do with people licking others on sight, and you should know that or at least do some research before insinuating such dumb things.

That being said, there was an interesting paper that claimed that variability in susceptibility of individuals could lower the threshold needed for group immunity to as low as 20%. It seemed to make a lot of sense to me, so that effect is going to lower the threshold at least a little bit. Seems like the USA is testing for us just by how much it will be lowered.

And dont go ahead as if you implied this is the case. Your comment about people licking eachother is really stupid, and you are too smart to be saying such things. At least thats what Ive always thought of you. You fall in the category of people that should either actively research the subject and make at least somewhat educated comments, or in the category of people thats aware of what they dont know. Spreading blatant misinformation like that is bad.

[Goodspeed]

Then both will happen. 70% sounds really high to me. Is that assuming everyone immediately licks strangers on sight?

You're too smart to say such dumb things..

The 70% is based on the rate of reproduction. Under normal circumstances (so no measures at all) R is about 3. Group immunity happens when one infected person will infect only one other person. So it happens when 2/3rds are immune (as this would make R go from 3 to 1). This is 66%, or rather something between 60 and 70% (theres some uncertainty about the actual R).

This has nothing to do with people licking others on sight, and you should know that or at least do some research before insinuating such dumb things.

That being said, there was an interesting paper that claimed that variability in susceptibility of individuals could lower the threshold needed for group immunity to as low as 20%. It seemed to make a lot of sense to me, so that effect is going to lower the threshold at least a little bit. Seems like the USA is testing for us just by how much it will be lowered.

And dont go ahead as if you implied this is the case. Your comment about people licking eachother is really stupid, and you are too smart to be saying such things. At least thats what Ive always thought of you. You fall in the category of people that should either actively research the subject and make at least somewhat educated comments, or in the category of people thats aware of what they dont know. Spreading blatant misinformation like that is bad.

The licking comment was obviously sarcastic. But if R is 3 under "normal" circumstances, then it is definitely lower during "global pandemic" circumstances. Because even if the government takes no measures, people will still be more careful. They will wash their hands more, won't go out as much, will think twice before shaking hands, wear masks, etc. I highly doubt R would be 3 if all government measures were removed today. I for one would keep working from home for a while regardless, as would most people I know.

[fightinfrenchman]

Then both will happen. 70% sounds really high to me. Is that assuming everyone immediately licks strangers on sight?

Depends on the stranger

[deleted_user]

Peak accelerationism is biochemical warfare so I see where Jerom is coming from

[Horsemen]

Peak accelerationism is biochemical warfare so I see where Jerom is coming from

Jerom is dead mate

[chris1089]

Peak accelerationism is biochemical warfare so I see where Jerom is coming from

Jerom is dead mate

No he's reincarnated

[Horsemen]

Peak accelerationism is biochemical warfare so I see where Jerom is coming from

Jerom is dead mate

No he's reincarnated

wtf

[Dolan]

A former MI6 chief has said he believes the origins of the coronavirus pandemic can be traced to the virus accidentally escaping from a Chinese laboratory.

Speaking on The Daily Telegraph's Planet Normal podcast, Sir Richard Dearlove, who spent 38 years with Britain's intelligence service, said he had seen a new scientific report that suggested the virus was engineered by Chinese scientists.

Sir Richard said a scientific paper published this week by a Norwegian-British research team suggested key elements in the genetic sequence of the virus were "inserted" and may not have evolved naturally.

The Daily Telegraph reported that in the study, produced by Professor Angus Dalgleish of St George's Hospital at the University of London and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen, the scientists claim to have found "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface" which could explain how the virus binds with human cells.

In the podcast, Sir Richard suggested scientists may have been experimenting on bat coronaviruses when Covid-19 escaped.

https://www.scotsman.com/health/former- ... ab-2874499

The study he refers to can be found here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... F3363E527#

Study authors say in that paper (p. 3) that:

It is a matter of fact that there are unique inserts in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein when they are aligned with other SARS-CoV sequences as shown in (Zhou et al., 2020).

[evilcheadar]

It’s over

[oats13]

A former MI6 chief has said he believes the origins of the coronavirus pandemic can be traced to the virus accidentally escaping from a Chinese laboratory.

Speaking on The Daily Telegraph's Planet Normal podcast, Sir Richard Dearlove, who spent 38 years with Britain's intelligence service, said he had seen a new scientific report that suggested the virus was engineered by Chinese scientists.

Sir Richard said a scientific paper published this week by a Norwegian-British research team suggested key elements in the genetic sequence of the virus were "inserted" and may not have evolved naturally.

The Daily Telegraph reported that in the study, produced by Professor Angus Dalgleish of St George's Hospital at the University of London and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen, the scientists claim to have found "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface" which could explain how the virus binds with human cells.

In the podcast, Sir Richard suggested scientists may have been experimenting on bat coronaviruses when Covid-19 escaped.

https://www.scotsman.com/health/former- ... ab-2874499

The study he refers to can be found here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... F3363E527#

Study authors say in that paper (p. 3) that:

It is a matter of fact that there are unique inserts in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein when they are aligned with other SARS-CoV sequences as shown in (Zhou et al., 2020).

Sir Richard Dearlove has form with the false WMD claims during the second Gulf War, however this is probably more likely to be true than that was IMO.