COVID topic vol 2

[Riggerjack]

If we didn’t get upset about then or in other years when deaths were even higher (2000) why do we feel we should we now, when the number is lower.

Interesting posts. And you raise good points.

But I am not afraid of dying from C19. I'm young and healthy enough, that my odds of survival were always higher than other risks I have undertaken voluntarily.

But, and this is key, death and recovery is NOT the full outcome set, is it?

No, there exists an entire bag of tricks that viruses have at their disposal. Tricks that take time to play out. And therefore, we won't know what they are for years, yet.

C19 seems to be a virus well tuned to vascular tissue. Where do you keep the vascular tissue in your body that you don't need? Which organs do you have to spare? Where is the acceptable place for vascular damage in your body?

Because 30 days after discharge, your heart attack, or stroke, or kidney failure is just your problem, right? Completely unrelated. Probably just statistical manipulation.

Or maybe, this is a new virus. And we haven't mapped out what it is capable of, yet.

People are suspicious of manipulation, so they simplify the story (like only being concerned about deaths and timing), compare their simplified version of reality to reality, and call the difference manipulation.

I call the difference distortion, caused by simplification.

But I admit that I don't know that I am seeing any clearer than those concerned about manipulation. Time will tell.

.....

@nomadscientist

You should add South Korea to your list of countries that doesn't exist.

But maybe you should look at their recent trends, as well.

If we are comparing policies and results, I think china has the best results. Lockdown works. Latch down doesn't. Here in the states, we never even attempted a lockdown.

We have tried various forms of ineffective restrictions, and that just sucks for everyone. Because, you know, ineffective and restrictions.

But the appeal of the concept seems to be gaining ground. At one point 23% of americans were in favor of a more strict lockdown. Last poll I saw was 66%. But... you know... polls.

[jacob]

Ha!

https://www.papercitymag.com/culture/ge ... stay-home/

[Riggerjack]

C19 does feel like a custom fit apocalypse.

[J_]

Now your training years revealed!

[A Life of FI]

I don't think the driver is manipulation but rather the natural human outcome of focusing on something.

Similar to that when people come home at night after watching a horror movie they might turn on the lights in all the rooms and look around to make sure no one is lurking there, even though they have not ever thought of doing that before.

Or on a societal level when the population become focused on going to war with Iraq to eliminate their WMDs even though they didn't have and weren't developing any WMDs.

Humans having their attention drawn to a new danger will often focus on it and as a result exaugurat it - focusing on something makes it take on greater importance in our minds.

On societal level dangers there is probably always some level of manipulation used that work on at least some people, just like there is for any new law, government policy or any product or service anyone is trying to sell people. However this is not the core driver rather it just works to further bring out biases in people which already exist.

So I am not suspicious of manipulation but rather our regular human biases to blow out of portion the risks

In the case in point we know that all other respiratory viruses can cause similar effects on people that don’t die from them, including four other corona viruses that have existed for centuries and are currently in regular circulation. So the question for me becomes after a year that the virus has been in circulation where is the evidence that this one is any worse. I have not seen any medical studies that show this nor am not aware of anyone who has them even though there have been many cases where I am.

Further what is the cost shutting society verus the cost of this possible risk.

Some estimates put the deaths from lockdowns, that is sending people into unemployment, stopping much non-covid healthcare and confining people to their homes, at 100,000 deaths or more so far. We don't know the exact number but we do know from historical experience that higher levels of unemployment increases deaths and this is not even considering the effects of restricting health care, which will be a delayed effect that will go on for years, and isolating people which increases depression.

We could try to estimate the break-even point though. If one considers that the lockdown deaths are much younger than the covid deaths (which are typically on average around the age of life expectancy and in people that have health problems and are much nearer to death) that would mean that if the average the remaining life of the lockdowns deaths is 20 years and of covid deaths 2 years, that for every lock down death you need to save 10 people from dying from covid to come out ahead in the number of life years saved.

But where is the evidence that gives the estimated number of covid lives saved from shutting businesses and health care and isolating people in their homes? Is there evidence that this reduces covid death by 75%, 50% or 25% or saves any lives at all? There are some suggestions that this could actually increase deaths:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/202 ... g-disease/

And where are the estimates of deaths caused by unemployment, stopping much non-covid healthcare and confining people to their homes? So the breakeven point in live years saved or lost can be determined.

And further should someone actually be able to legally force deaths from unemployment, restriction of heath care and depression that we know that the lock downs will bring so that others may live longer, especially when there is no evidence that doing these things will actually save people from dying of covid.

So in summary my concerns are epistemic rather than related to manipulation.

[chenda]

I'd view anything Matt Ridley writes with extreme skepticism. He is a tactic climate change denier who had an utterly disreputable career in financial services.

[ducknald_don]

Ha!

https://www.papercitymag.com/culture/ge ... stay-home/

I always feel slightly dismayed that I was born six months too early to be a gen-xer

[A Life of FI]

I always feel slightly dismayed that I was born six months too early to be a gen-xer

Don't despair you may actually be one

This way of defining their birth years makes more sense than how Strausse and Howe do:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitivew ... 93a8f21893

[nomadscientist]

@nomadscientist

You should add South Korea to your list of countries that doesn't exist.

But maybe you should look at their recent trends, as well.

If we are comparing policies and results, I think china has the best results. Lockdown works. Latch down doesn't. Here in the states, we never even attempted a lockdown.

We have tried various forms of ineffective restrictions, and that just sucks for everyone. Because, you know, ineffective and restrictions.

But the appeal of the concept seems to be gaining ground. At one point 23% of americans were in favor of a more strict lockdown. Last poll I saw was 66%. But... you know... polls.

America can't effectively lock down, for much the same reasons China in 1870 could not make steel. It lacks the social technology, material conditions, and political and legal institutions. It's also a navel-gazing has-been empire that doesn't really care about the virus ultimately, just as China didn't really care about the Royal Navy. That's just ferreners. Court intrigue is what really matters.

[George the original one]

Key words "Vital records review", not actual postive tests. Thats a great way to fudge the numbers. It even set a record "deaths" on a given day regardless of when they actually died or if it was actally covid19. Why should I believe those numbers are remotely right?

Michigan = 1 in 822 dead

So check the numbers vs. states that have no political incentive to magnify the deaths, states that thought they immune until this fall.

Iowa = 1 in 880 dead
South Dakota = 1 in 640 dead
North Dakota = 1 in 618 dead

Considering that Michigan was hit hard in the spring compared to those other states, Michigan's numbers do not seem to be out of line. Don't forget that vital records review also removes deaths that were misclassified, like traffic accidents. I know Washington state & Oregon do that because they announce it.

Honestly, though, what motive do you have for believing there's an incentive for a state to inflate COVID-19 deaths? If you belive the conspiracy that it's to control the population's behavior, then why would Oregon not have inflated deaths? Oregon = 1 in 3132 dead

[ducknald_don]

Currently 2% of Londoners have the virus. Cases have nearly doubled in the last week. The number of people in hospital with the virus is nearly back to the peak from April.

[A Life of FI]

America can't effectively lock down... doesn't really care about the virus ultimately

Probably true and this would be in-line with our national character since the start of the country - we decided to go ahead and fight the American Revolution during a small pox epidemic, which is much more deadly.

Success favors the brave

[Viktor K]

Fine line between bravery and stupidity. And personally, I think it’s pretty obvious which side the US is on.

Rolling the dice with changing information, completely ignoring the risks in the early days when there was a even less known.

I say stupidity more so than bravery. Cultural phenomenon like American Exceptionalism maybe makes it easier to buy into ineffective measures.

Huge distrust of state (is that unique to US), lots of skepticism and a rise in conspiracy believing.

Meanwhile smart countries like South Korea are completely open and virus free.

Highly doubt lockdowns aren’t going to go away, and unless the strain mutates to something less transmissible (mink farms, UK, and the mutation in March that is now dominate strain), then lockdowns continue. Sweden seems to finally be reaping the effects of their no-official lockdown policy.

Recent poll shows huge divide in those willing to wear a mask, along party lines. Guess that means more republicans dead in the months to come, relative to other political parties. Won’t change the US response though, either way.

I remember thinking it would be better to be in the US if something like this broke out. But I would be playing soccer right now in Shenzhen if I hadn’t moved

Edit: meant Taiwan. Not South Korea

[Ego]

I say stupidity more so than bravery. Cultural phenomenon like American Exceptionalism maybe makes it easier to buy into ineffective measures.

.....

Meanwhile smart countries like South Korea are completely open and virus free.

Oh but we are exceptional. Here is a list of Covid comorbidities from the CDC.



Why does the U.S. lead the world in all of these metrics? How does South Korea stack up? What are the underlying causes for each?

[Campitor]

America can't effectively lock down... doesn't really care about the virus ultimately

I don't think you can say that "America" doesn't care about the virus. I'm sure "America" cares except there are people who are willing to make the trade-off in increased exposure to feed themselves and their family. Wearing a mask in public is easy - staying at home to contain the spread of the virus is hard especially if you're deemed an essential worker and can't telecommute - you either work or get fired.

Everyday humans make tradeoffs regarding health, safety, and longevity: alcohol, recreational drugs, driving a car (WHO says 1.3 million people die in car accidents every year), parachuting, parasailing, deep sea diving, shark riding, hospital procedures (negligent hospital death), construction, sending American's to their deaths in foreign entanglements, etc.

Taking risks has been and is part of our DNA. If it wasn't so, we'd all be starving and out of supplies because every essential worker stayed home.

[Viktor K]

Yes “essential” workers have to work. I don’t see how that makes US response more admirable.

US “essential” workers aren’t getting any assistance with that. Company by company policy. Decentralized government. Trump effect as well obviously as mentioned.

Wearing a mask and staying home... I’ve done them fine. If it was 5 years ago when I was working at a grocery store, I’d look at the lack of enforcement of best practices, lack of PPE, slow rollout of “suggestions” and state by state variations.

Look at little to no travel restrictions (e.g. UK still flying to US).

Also very individualistic society, with no centralized control. Not surprised the reaction.

Patriotism is a funny thing. Feels like if US was less obsessed with patriotism, more educated, less individualistic, wouldn’t be a virus hotspot.

Essential workers working is not a contentious issue. Yes I can stay home. No I can’t rely on contact tracing, United action/policies, can’t close borders, screen trackers, can’t track citizens have to rely on them just telling me who they came into contact with, if they want to and if they ask.

And I think the US is defensive about these things. Not all the US, but doesn’t have to be all Americans to make it a problem.

Why defensive? I see again a lot of the cultural phenomenon. Congress beyond waters edge is another related concept. Where average American does not care or is not educated about the rest of the word.

That’s why there’s an “American approach.”

So ironic for me, almost amusing if it wasn’t so
Morbid. Finally an international calamity that embarrasses the US quite publicly. Trump + botched COVID Response.

But I think the US won’t really learn from this. Look at e.g. Taiwan, where you can go to the bar currently, with no restrictions.

They’re COVID response and much of Asia influenced by recent SARS outbreak. The US is 1 year into a pandemic and can’t do contact tracing, can’t enforce masks, can’t enforce social distancing.

And has a population that is not willing to unite to do those things.

[Ego]

And has a population that is not willing to unite to do those things.

Unity comes at a cost. It is easy for those who do not pay the cost - and especially those who do not see it as costly - to ignore it.

[Viktor K]

That sounds like something out of my primary school, US-propaganda filled education. In between inspirational interpretations of the US revolution, freeing the slaves, and slaughtering the natives:

“Remember class (Remote), Taiwanese may be living their normal life’s today while we pass 1 million deaths and are in tier 5 (in name only, of course), but unity comes at a cost. And democracy is the best.”

Feel free to elaborate though @ego

[Riggerjack]

@ life of fi

If you look, you will find the original C19 thread, where we were reacting to the information, real time.

Perhaps that would help you.

Because you seem to be in Monday morning quarterback mode. What we should/should not have done, knowing what we know today.

This is a valid position for review and analysis, but is entirely different from making calls based on the information available in the moment.

Maybe refamiliarizing yourself with how the information looked when it was coming out will give you a different perspective on why the decisions that were made look like they do.
.......
And while there are 4 coronaviruses making the rounds as "the common cold", the 2 previous coronaviruses we discovered and passed around were MERS and SARS (now known as SARS 1).

So if we were rolling the dice 1/3 of known human coronaviruses are deadly as f*ck. Early C19 data pointed to high single digits as a death rate, coming out of Italy.

......

Just how much weight would you expect a politician to place on potential deaths by depression from the unintended consequences of reacting to the first scenario?

But now you may think that we know more, the disease is far less fatal than initial reports made it seem. Surely we can factor in the new information to craft better policy.

Of course we could. But crafting better policy is hardly the purpose of the decision makers we have chosen for the task. Prior decisions factor in. Future prospects, as well. These are the kind of people who think in terms of narratives and compliance, of steering ships.

They may not be ideal for the job. We may not want to continue to use this as a good model for dealing with pandemics in the future. But this is the choice we have made, so far.

Which leads up to what I think are the really interesting questions of 2020:

1. Given that lockdown remains a tool of executive office, how would one want a future lockdown to occur? What condition would you approve as a trigger for such a lockdown?

2. Given how we have handled, and are handling this pandemic, how confident are you that the same tools in the same hands will generate a better result, next time? Or that the next virus (or mutation of this virus) won't be as deadly as this one seemed to be?

3. How does your answer to 1 and 2 affect your decisions IRL, going forward?

MERS, SARS, zika, bird flu, swine flu, ebola, C19. Odds are decent that the next virus is found while we are still discussing how we should have dealt with C19.

4. Should that happen, what have we learned individually, and as a society?

5. How will your reaction be different, next time?

6. What is different today, from the beginning of the year?

7. What have you changed in your real life, now that you have first hand experience with a pandemic, and public health response to pandemic?

8. If one is dissatisfied with the pandemic response of 2020, what would you change, to make the next pandemic more palatable?


If that list seems to highlight the effects of individual actions and decisions, that wasn't a coincidence. Ultimately, group behavior is constrained by individual options and resources.

[A Life of FI]

Fine line between bravery and stupidity. And personally, I think it’s pretty obvious which side the US is on.

I say stupidity more so than bravery. Cultural phenomenon like American Exceptionalism maybe makes it easier to buy into ineffective measures.

Huge distrust of state (is that unique to US), lots of skepticism and a rise in conspiracy believing.

I remember thinking it would be better to be in the US if something like this broke out. But I would be playing soccer right now in Shenzhen if I hadn’t moved

This a cultural difference between the US and China and has existed been since the US was founded

The Chinese believe they should follow what they are told to do by the government - that is why they have a Communist system of government.

This preference probably from the fact the population has lived there for 1000's of years in large nation states and have become more habituated to governmental control.

Conversely the US was founded by rugged, self-reliant people who though government control held them back (the more Fedaulistic Europe governments of the time) and went to the US to escape this control, thus founding a country with a system and culture of limited government.

Neither approach is inherently right or wrong it’s a matter of personal preference. Just like some person reads Jacob's book and turns all their energies to reaching financial independence in 5 years and then tells some other person who considers the idea of stopping work before 70 as completely stupid.

There is no provable right or wrong in these matters other than one should take the approach which follows their preferences and strengths.

Highly doubt lockdowns aren’t going to go away, and unless the strain mutates to something less transmissible (mink farms, UK, and the mutation in March that is now dominate strain), then lockdowns continue.

They are already gone as far as I am concerned, where I am there is no lockdown

Recent poll shows huge divide in those willing to wear a mask, along party lines. Guess that means more republicans dead in the months to come, relative to other political parties. Won’t change the US response though, either way.

The States with the most deaths per million are an equal mix of Democrat and Republican States - The virus doesn't appear to have a political bias