IGX

A groundbreaking new study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens.

Up until this point there had been no simple, rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Accordingly, Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that: to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.” Simply put, we have drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States, and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns. The results are nothing short of staggering, and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus itself.

https://www.revolver.news/2020/08/study ... ic-itself/

Not arguing with the premise of the paper, just a couple of comments...

...finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.”

Life-years are a good argument to essentially start greatly reducing the health care available to the elderly, since they are consuming so much of the total costs of healthcare, which of course has downstream impacts on the younger people.

Also, Taiwan (New Zealand is similar, and other countries have done well too)

As the global number of confirmed Covid-19 cases surpasses 30 million, residents of Taipei seem relaxed in the knowledge there has been only one suspected case linked to local transmission in the city since mid-April.

And in Taiwan as a whole, an island with a population of approximately 23 million people, there have been around 500 confirmed cases and just 7 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic.

Distancing, testing, and masks could have saved thousands and thousands of lives, and therefore millions of life-years. It's not lockdown versus full-open. It's smart versus stupid.

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:35 pm Not arguing with the premise of the paper, just a couple of comments...

...finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.”

Life-years are a good argument to essentially start greatly reducing the health care available to the elderly, since they are consuming so much of the total costs of healthcare, which of course has downstream impacts on the younger people.

Also, Taiwan (New Zealand is similar, and other countries have done well too)

As the global number of confirmed Covid-19 cases surpasses 30 million, residents of Taipei seem relaxed in the knowledge there has been only one suspected case linked to local transmission in the city since mid-April.

And in Taiwan as a whole, an island with a population of approximately 23 million people, there have been around 500 confirmed cases and just 7 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic.

Distancing, testing, and masks could have saved thousands and thousands of lives, and therefore millions of life-years. It's not lockdown versus full-open. It's smart versus stupid.

COVID-19 is not dangerous for people under 70 who don't have prior medical issues.

"Protect the elderly and high-risk groups, sure, but children and young adults should be able to live life normally. These general lockdowns of closing schools, restaurants and beaches actually have a detrimental effect on public health." -Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Harvard School of Medicine

“Smart Open” is what the mantra ought to be.

As in, "be smart. Open."

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:54 pm As in, "be smart. Open."

So...bars open, no masks, no distancing, everyone yelling at a football game?

Choir practice, no masks, singing?

Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

How about informing people of the risks, listing suitable control measures and letting people choose how they live accordingly? Then mandate Specific controls (distancing or ppe) in shared spaces so you don’t get compromised by other folks behaviour?

Some bizarre inconsistencies in our approach over here. I can have a beer with a neighbour in a pub but if they have one in my garden then I’m breaking the law.

odin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:04 pm How about informing people of the risks, listing suitable control measures and letting people choose how they live accordingly? Then mandate Specific controls (distancing or ppe) in shared spaces so you don’t get compromised by other folks behaviour?

Some bizarre inconsistencies in our approach over here. I can have a beer with a neighbour in a pub but if they have one in my garden then I’m breaking the law.

Yes, exactly. Coronavirus is here to stay and there's not going to be a silver bullet vaccine. It will be like the flu, in all likelihood, which mutates fast enough that at most a yearly shot is possible for partial coverage. People should focus on getting back to business.

odin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:04 pmHow about informing people of the risks, listing suitable control measures and letting people choose how they live accordingly?

We don't explain how drunk driving works and then let people make their own decisions.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:46 pm

odin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:04 pmHow about informing people of the risks, listing suitable control measures and letting people choose how they live accordingly?

We don't explain how drunk driving works and then let people make their own decisions.

Actually, that's exactly what we do. Where do you live?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

I agree completely.

This is a case where I think we could create a system that is fair to most people. In places that are essential such as markets, public transportation, health care, school, etc., mandate social distancing and mask wearing. I don't know how effective it is or not, but these things seem like they should make a difference and people like me think they do.

After that, live and let live.

I can go to the market and "feel" safe and feel like I am keeping people safe.

I can avoid the bar (or not) and let others do the same.

Public, outdoor areas, social distancing/no mask.

At this point, there is no reason for a gym to not be open. We all know what the disease it. We all know the risks. We all know the current recommendation for what is and is not safe.

My kid is not allowed to play soccer on a fucking field. Open shit up.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

Are we still getting that Round 2 Rona money? I have some absurdly frivolous shit to stimulate the economy with.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:49 am My kid is not allowed to play soccer on a fucking field. Open shit up.

Is there a single set of rules about kids sports down there? Here it’s county by county with big differences in requirements.

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

That's going to happen no matter what you do. You can't hide from this storm. It's just another of a long list of potentially fatal diseases that will prey upon the infirm, old, and obese.

Turdacious wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:51 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:49 am My kid is not allowed to play soccer on a fucking field. Open shit up.

Is there a single set of rules about kids sports down there? Here it’s county by county with big differences in requirements.

I have to be honest, I don't know how it is on other islands, which is how the counties are here.

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

Yeah. But at this point, everyone who attended the wedding knew the risk. And after that, it is a sequence of choosing who you interact with and at what risk level.

My gf's parents are old. They are not in a position where catching this would be good. So they are very cautious, and we are very cautious around them. When we see them, it's staying six feet apart, outside, all that. They currently really limit contact with one of their other daughter's because she is out and about and living her best life.

My work is open and most of us are going in daily now. Masks indoors. etc. I tell everyone all the time, if you want to interact understand you are an adult and are choosing your own risk level. I am choosing to interact in a way that minimizes my risk from you and to you. You as an adult can choose differently. I will not require you to do anything that I feel compromises your health, and the same for me. But what you choose to do is up to you. Feel free to sit with Peggy in the break room and break the social distance policy. But Peggy just got back from a weekend romp with her three friends and they are all social hoes. If she has it, are you interacting in a way that you will have it?

Your choice.

At this point, I no longer care what anyone does as long as at indoor stores you wear your mask, I wear mine, and stay away from me.

newguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:01 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

Yeah. But at this point, everyone who attended the wedding knew the risk.

They didn't know the risk they put other people in. Or didn't care. Ignorance or apathy.

Too many other countries have done a better job with less harm to their economy, to just lie back and enjoy this. We've suffered a mind boggling lack of leadership.

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:12 pm

newguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:01 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

Yeah. But at this point, everyone who attended the wedding knew the risk.

They didn't know the risk they put other people in. Or didn't care. Ignorance or apathy.

Too many other countries have done a better job with less harm to their economy, to just lie back and enjoy this. We've suffered a mind boggling lack of leadership.

We have zero leadership on this, no coherent messaging and no real plan.

All that being said, you want to attend a wedding and then go visit grandma after this then that is on you.

newguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:34 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:12 pm

newguy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:01 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

Yeah. But at this point, everyone who attended the wedding knew the risk.

They didn't know the risk they put other people in. Or didn't care. Ignorance or apathy.

Too many other countries have done a better job with less harm to their economy, to just lie back and enjoy this. We've suffered a mind boggling lack of leadership.

We have zero leadership on this, no coherent messaging and no real plan.

All that being said, you want to attend a wedding and then go visit grandma after this then that is on you.

It's not that direct...grandma didn't die. The wedding party thrower's participant's parents' kid's customers died.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... the-spread

Contact tracers discovered that the virus traveled hundreds of miles away to the Maplecrest Rehab and Living Center in Madison as well as the York County Jail in Alfred.

How did it spread so far, so fast?

Here’s how the contact tracers connected the dots from the wedding to the nursing home and the jail.

“A guest who attended the wedding infected their parent. The parent then had contact with another one of their children. That child works at Maplecrest and infected five people there. All of this unfolded in 2 1/2 weeks,” said Dr. Nirav Shah, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention at a recent briefing.

Somehow the virus also found its way to an elderly couple who had been hunkered down at their secluded Cedar Lake cabin for months.

Must be that wedding anyway.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:05 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:46 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:00 pm Yes. People who are concerned should avoid those places. Other than that, it's a disease with a >0.1% mortality rate.

Problem is you end up with things like this...

A wedding in rural Maine became a coronavirus "superspreader" event that left seven people dead and 177 infected. Now, for the community and wider region, which had relaxed social-distancing rules introduced earlier in the crisis, the news was a brutal wake-up call.

None of the dead people attended the wedding. Most of the infected didn't either.

That's going to happen no matter what you do. You can't hide from this storm. It's just another of a long list of potentially fatal diseases that will prey upon the infirm, old, and obese.

I saw a lot of comments above about lack of leadership but there has been plenty of leadership from Feds, governors, county executives, mayors, researchers, WHO, CDC, NIH, and etc. Much of it has been right and progress with treatments, testing, and vaccines has been unprecedented.

Much of it, as would be expected, has been wrong too. Very important is that too many decisions seem to be based on present but changing knowledge about the disease while ignoring the downsides of trying to covid proof America.

I submit that if Hillary won the situation would be about the same. Biden...nobody can look at Biden and feel comfortable that he would have nailed it.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:46 pm

odin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:04 pmHow about informing people of the risks, listing suitable control measures and letting people choose how they live accordingly?

We don't explain how drunk driving works and then let people make their own decisions.

I like that riposte and will probably use it as my own.... however, abstaining from drink driving won’t financially ruin people or lead to loneliness and depression.