Coronavirus - Overall
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act." -
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act."You haven't used science to back up the efficacy or lack of collateral damage of a year of lockdowns. All you've done is deride the people that don't agree with you. You even claim to know what people are thinking and what they want.
Perhaps people believe there are different more nuanced strategies. Perhaps people believe that, if given a coherent and consistent message that the people don't need government fines to observe social distancing and behaviours that lead to less transmission.
Perhaps people are wanting their doubts discussed on accessible media that comprehensively addresses and dispels the 30,000 health experts that made up the Barrington Agreement. Perhaps the people wonder why pandemic strategies and WHO pandemic guidelines of 2019 were immediately disregarded.Perhaps people want to see a cost benefit analysis of 2020 strategies.
Perhaps people are concerned that the government interference in their lives is an over reach for a "natural" event that has a demonstrable effect on a very particular segment of society. The same governments that many believe aren't equipped with a history of caring about you more than your family friends and community. The same members of governments that break lockdown restrictions.
I can understand frustration at experts ( not you) having to placate questioning sceptics, but to dismiss scientific enquiry as simply the ranting of inferior people is the least productive aspect of the common goal - to rid society of covid.
The only thing worse than lockdowns is surely silencing questions about lockdown. The efficacy of lockdowns requires data and discussion and evidence. If it's the best strategy, and I hope it is, then it will be demonstrably provable and explained. And for that we'll need facts, recorded data and yes, pretty graphs.
What's wrong with questioning a phenomenon that no one yet has all the answers for?
-
@Siam said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act."You haven't used science to back up the efficacy or lack of collateral damage of a year of lockdowns. All you've done is deride the people that don't agree with you. You even claim to know what people are thinking and what they want.
Perhaps people believe there are different more nuanced strategies. Perhaps people believe that, if given a coherent and consistent message that the people don't need government fines to observe social distancing and behaviours that lead to less transmission.
Perhaps people are wanting their doubts discussed on accessible media that comprehensively addresses and dispels the 30,000 health experts that made up the Barrington Agreement. Perhaps the people wonder why pandemic strategies and WHO pandemic guidelines of 2019 were immediately disregarded.Perhaps people want to see a cost benefit analysis of 2020 strategies.
Perhaps people are concerned that the government interference in their lives is an over reach for a "natural" event that has a demonstrable effect on a very particular segment of society. The same governments that many believe aren't equipped with a history of caring about you more than your family friends and community. The same members of governments that break lockdown restrictions.
I can understand frustration at experts ( not you) having to placate questioning sceptics, but to dismiss scientific enquiry as simply the ranting of inferior people is the least productive aspect of the common goal - to rid society of covid.
The only thing worse than lockdowns is surely silencing questions about lockdown. The efficacy of lockdowns requires data and discussion and evidence. If it's the best strategy, and I hope it is, then it will be demonstrably provable and explained. And for that we'll need facts, recorded data and yes, pretty graphs.
What's wrong with questioning a phenomenon that no one yet has all the answers for?
No - I'm not using science to back up anything. I'm only deriding people who use zero science in their arguments, and applauding the people that do cite references/sources/science in theirs... and perhaps highlighting a theory that one group of people tends to the first approach.
And - I also agree that there are certainly "more nuanced strategies" - in fact, I pointed out, as did the article cited by @pakman - that for the whole "to lockdown, or not to lockdown, that is the question" debate - the more scientific articles typically DO reference the obvious downsides of lockdowns... the side-effects, etc... just like scientific analysis typically does.
The whole "lockdowns don't work, our governments are fooling us" side of the argument... typically does not. Rather, as my post was mostly pointing out, they used to be pseudo-scientists producing dodgy youtube videos, and more recently - just cut-to-the-chase hysterical memes.Generally - the "efficacy of lockdown" HAS had discussion, HAS had plenty of data and evidence, and it HAS been demonstrably proven and explained.
AND - has down-sides which have plenty of data, plenty of evidence, but is still accumulating, as the economic effects, in particular, are probably going to have a several-year lead-time.Feel free to question a "phenomenon", but I haven't seen any questioning.
And one thing I fear - the more hysterical and nonsensical the anti-lockdown brigade comes across now... when it's been proven, and is obvious, that they are nutters... the less likely it is that anybody will be taken seriously when real and necessary questions are raised concerning governmental or societal movements in the future.
Anyway -that's my last word... I'd promised myself I wouldn't even respond to this thread any more, thinking of Mark Twain's quote regarding onlookers... but your response was on the surface fairly well-thought out, and I've been drinking, so figured it deserved one more response.
Also - another point I've already raised - logic, science, and all the things which typically back those lovely things up - aren't going to change the mind of people who obviously WANT a thing to be true.
When you watch one side of a debate constantly twisting and changing it's front-of-attack/defense... you know you're pretty much debating religion with a catholic. -
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - Overall:
The excess mortality data is getting more 'complete' as the pandemic nears a year old.
So, this page is quite interesting to see the patterns.
I'm surprised the UK one isn't much darker over January. The death toll has been very high. Having said that, apparently flu was 95% down, so this has been somewhat offset. The cold weather across the country right now may have something to say about that.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - Overall:
The excess mortality data is getting more 'complete' as the pandemic nears a year old.
So, this page is quite interesting to see the patterns.
I'm surprised the UK one isn't much darker over January. The death toll has been very high. Having said that, apparently flu was 95% down, so this has been somewhat offset. The cold weather across the country right now may have something to say about that.
Yes, if u scroll further down to the line graphs.
It shows for Britain that this January wave is only about half the first wave in terms of excess deaths per 100k. So, yeah, displacing (but also considerably exceeding) other pneumonia causing illnesses at the moment, I presume.
Edit. But graph only goes to 8th Jan.
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - Overall:
An interesting development - Cathay Pacific dropping a number of routes as the Hong Kong government tightens up their quarantine approach further.
It was ugly up there already, this is going to make it a lot worse. Cathay are a private airline and the government don't prop them up. This will make it a lot worse.
Cathay are / were the fifth biggest air freighter in the world, behind mostly dedicated logistics companies like UPS. They are only cutting a few of the dedicated freighter flights, so far, but how are they going to continue the network without the passenger flights afterwards? AKL in particular was more about getting stuff into NZ (mostly nasty chemical shit) and then filling up with high end food to take back. Passengers were just a bonus. Cathay have not done a dedicated freight service to NZ previously so that is unlikely - loads aren't big enough.
The supply chain to NZ just got even weaker and I'm not sure that there is anyone else to pick it up.
-
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - Overall:
An interesting development - Cathay Pacific dropping a number of routes as the Hong Kong government tightens up their quarantine approach further.
It was ugly up there already, this is going to make it a lot worse. Cathay are a private airline and the government don't prop them up. This will make it a lot worse.
Cathay are / were the fifth biggest air freighter in the world, behind mostly dedicated logistics companies like UPS. They are only cutting a few of the dedicated freighter flights, so far, but how are they going to continue the network without the passenger flights afterwards? AKL in particular was more about getting stuff into NZ (mostly nasty chemical shit) and then filling up with high end food to take back. Passengers were just a bonus. Cathay have not done a dedicated freight service to NZ previously so that is unlikely - loads aren't big enough.
The supply chain to NZ just got even weaker and I'm not sure that there is anyone else to pick it up.
Yep. This is a huge factor that those advocating stronger border barriers fail to take into account. We rely on those “passenger” flights for time critical imports and exports. The downside of being isolated geographically in this situation
-
@Tim what makes someone a super spreader? Luck (bad) or is there more to it?
They were just saying in NZ thus far we have been extremely lucky none of of our positives in the community were super spreaders, whereas the Victorian case was.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Tim what makes someone a super spreader? Luck (bad) or is there more to it?
They were just saying in NZ thus far we have been extremely lucky none of of our positives in the community were super spreaders, whereas the Victorian case was.
@Tim and others; follow up to that
A friend of mine (who is a doctor, but is American...) told me today that you must have symptoms to be a super spreader. Can anyone back that up or can you have the virus and spread it unknowingly without being symptomatic (my understanding)?
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Tim what makes someone a super spreader? Luck (bad) or is there more to it?
They were just saying in NZ thus far we have been extremely lucky none of of our positives in the community were super spreaders, whereas the Victorian case was.
We are riding our luck big time. Our low population density and our decent contact tracing system, along with solid awareness of the population to get tested when symptomatic seems to be helping significantly
-