Pandemic deniers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted915203
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Citizens / politicians / businesses are underreacting to the coronavirus pandemic.

  • Strongly agree

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • Agree

    Votes: 13 36.1%

  • Neutral

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Strongly disagree

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
D

deleted915203

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I have seen spring-breakers party on beaches... politicians telling people to go back to work... and businesses forcing non-essential employees to work - during the coronavirus pandemic. Is this appropriate?

(The poll will not display usernames.)
 
I have enough anxiety and stress from covid. I don’t need any more polls lolllllll
 
It's hard for me to state that there is under-reaction when everything is pretty much shut down and people haven't left their houses for weeks. I 100% agree that there have been idiots out there ruining everything, especially talking heads for certain organizations (especially the President) who instill distrust in the CDC and the recommendations, thus rendering them ineffective.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
We have a doc in town still doing elective plastic procedures at a surgery center he co-owns. I can't believe this guy.
Click to expand...
We have a lead surgeon whose son was our first positive case.The surgeon worked on a car with his son two days before his son tested positive.He has been seeing patients for the last 5 days post son testing positive.
 
y2k_free_radical said:
We have a lead surgeon whose son was our first positive case.The surgeon worked on a car with his son two days before his son tested positive.He has been seeing patients for the last 5 days post son testing positive.
Click to expand...
And i know residents who returned from travel to endemic areas with a fever and shortness of breath but were told they would not be tested “put a mask on if you want, but just get to work”
 
sb247 said:
And i know residents who returned from travel to endemic areas with a fever and shortness of breath but were told they would not be tested “put a mask on if you want, but just get to work”
Click to expand...
NOTE TO SELF: DO NOT GO TO THE HOSPITAL TODAY
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't understand why people say this is just like influenza (the flu).

Seasonal flu doesn't lead hospitals to call in refrigerated trucks to house dead bodies.

Please explain.
 
Path of Most Resistance said:
I don't understand why people say this is just like influenza (the flu).

Seasonal flu doesn't lead hospitals to call in refrigerated trucks to house dead bodies.

Please explain.
Click to expand...
I was in an Uber in STL 3 weeks ago before stuff got really real, and the driver told me that the entire pandemic was a hoax perpetrated by the Government to take away all of our rights. The Government deep state only cares about total control over our lives. He used to be naive like most people, but now he knew the truth. All organizations only want power, and the government is no different. They've unwittingly convinced Trump somehow to fall for their hoax, but there really is no pandemic, and he was going to go about his life exactly the same as before.

I didn't leave a tip.
 
More denial...

www.cnbc.com

Coronavirus deniers take aim at hospitals as pandemic grows

The grim realities of hospitals overflowing with patients seeking treatment for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, are not always as visible from the outside, leaving space for bad actors and coronavirus denialists to push dangerous disinformation
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

On Saturday, a video taken outside The Brooklyn Hospital Center went viral, showing a quiet scene in an attempt to counter the idea that the coronavirus pandemic has strained some hospitals.

That video, taken by former Fox News commentator Todd Starnes, jump-started a conspiracy theory that resulted in a trending hashtag and millions of video views — all of which pushed the idea that the pandemic has been overblown by public health organizations and the media.
 
www.cnn.com

Fox Business parts ways with Trish Regan, host who dismissed coronavirus as 'impeachment scam'

The Fox Business Network announced on Friday that it had parted ways with Trish Regan, the conservative news host who ignited controversy earlier this month when she dismissed the coronavirus pandemic as a conspiracy to throw President Trump out of office.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

New York (CNN Business)The Fox Business Network announced on Friday that it had parted ways with Trish Regan, the conservative news host who ignited controversy earlier this month when she dismissed the coronavirus pandemic as a conspiracy to throw President Trump out of office.
 
Trish Regan definitely wasn't hired for her brain. That was one of the worse opinion shows on nightly TV.

I was surprised how many doctors were in denial until two weeks ago! Most of the ones I work with were still spewing out garbage about left wing conspiracy.
 
1. "Underreacting vs overreacting" is sloppy thinking. "Denial vs acknowledgement" is sloppy thinking. If you rationally weighed the overall pros and cons of, say, antibiotics, and decided that it was worth it to take antibiotics in a specific context, then I wouldn't shout you down with "you're an antibiotic side effect denier!" If you decided not to take them, then I wouldn't shout, "you're underreacting to your disease!" What would it mean to say a broad statement like, "people are underreacting to tuberculosis"?

2. Can we agree that it seems sensible to consider both the positives and negatives of any course of action? Each action or proposal should be judged on its own merits including its timing/duration, specificity (for locations, higher vs lower risk populations), potential benefits, likely benefits, potential disadvantages/costs, and likely disadvantages/costs.

I raise this because while I certainly see a lot of people focusing primarily (or even solely) on the benefits of "indefinite universal life stoppage," "bailouts via inflation without the honesty of calling it that," and other measures, I also see a lot of people dismissing the downsides to it. I certainly see a lot of denial/evasion about the real harms to the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people that are caused by certain approaches. One common way this manifests is by erroneously separating "mere economics / business / production" from "life/death and health" as if the former has no effect on the latter. Please consider that for people on the margin (maybe not for you), economics is life & death.

(And printing money or passing laws doesn't do anything to offset the massive drop in real production caused by "don't produce (as much), you non-essentials.")

As a comparison, however bad for life/death and health you think the Great Depression was, consider that unemployment then never exceeded 20%. It will easily be twice that soon. Will that have any bad effects on the life/death and health of anyone?

3. I'm not pro-this politician or anti-that political party. All the various actions and proposals cannot be aggregated into 2 sides of red team vs blue team. Try to get beyond this tribal mentality and think first-handedly. I don't care which politician/party "looks bad" or which one wins an election.
 
Last edited:
StatistPriceControlsFail said:
1. "Underreacting vs overreacting" is sloppy thinking. "Denial vs acknowledgement" is sloppy thinking. If you rationally weighed the overall pros and cons of, say, antibiotics, and decided that it was worth it to take antibiotics in a specific context, then I wouldn't shout you down with "you're an antibiotic side effect denier!" If you decided not to take them, then I wouldn't shout, "you're underreacting to your disease!" What would it mean to say a broad statement like, "people are underreacting to tuberculosis"?

2. Can we agree that it seems sensible to consider both the positives and negatives of any course of action? Each action or proposal should be judged on its own merits including its timing/duration, specificity (for locations, higher vs lower risk populations), potential benefits, likely benefits, potential disadvantages/costs, and likely disadvantages/costs.

I raise this because while I certainly see a lot of people focusing primarily (or even solely) on the benefits of "indefinite universal life stoppage," "bailouts via inflation without the honesty of calling it that," and other measures, I also see a lot of people dismissing the downsides to it. I certainly see a lot of denial/evasion about the real harms to the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people that are caused by certain approaches. One common way this manifests is by erroneously separating "mere economics / business / production" from "life/death and health" as if the former has no effect on the latter. Please consider that for people on the margin (maybe not for you), economics is life & death.

(And printing money or passing laws doesn't do anything to offset the massive drop in real production caused by "don't produce (as much), you non-essentials.")

As a comparison, however bad for life/death and health you think the Great Depression was, consider that unemployment then never exceeded 20%. It will easily be twice that soon. Will that have any bad effects on the life/death and health of anyone?

3. I'm not pro-this politician or anti-that political party. All the various actions and proposals cannot be aggregated into 2 sides of red team vs blue team. Try to get beyond this tribal mentality and think first-handedly. I don't care positive on which politician/party "looks bad" or which one wins an election.
Click to expand...
I agree.However,i am close to perhaps the worst hot bed per capita in the U.S.,i.e.,ALBANY,GA.,and my wife developed flu like symptoms and tested positive on SATURDAY.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
y2k_free_radical said:
I agree.However,i am close to perhaps the worst hot bed per capita in the U.S.,i.e.,ALBANY,GA.,and my wife developed flu like symptoms and tested positive on SATURDAY.
Click to expand...
Good luck, y2k. Hope she pulls through just fine, and same for you.
 
Wow
Sorry to hear y2k, hope she only experiences mild illness. I just read the NYT article about the Albany GA super-spreader funeral events, crazy.

Anyhow - I am not sure It matters how one feels about the seriousness of this disease is going to matter. In general continental Europe and the US have had a worse time than China b/c of the way we live and government controls in China that we can’t comprehend were necessary to put a lid on spread there.

Remember in China patrolling, armed govt officials were snatching folks off the street with a fever or who appeared ill and tested them for Covid. If they were positive they Forcibly herded them up into positive camps, separated from family until they either recovered or died.

Our social distancing policy which is being followed only loosely, may shift the curve a little bit I now believe that the biology of the disease will just take over and it will run its course. Domestic air travel is still moving folks too and fro, including in and out of hot spots. If we wanted to control in the US we would have had to stop domestic air travel, shut down public transportation in urban area, etc - things that no Dem or Rep would have done.

Our best hopes here are for a reliable serologic test, an effective vaccine and herd immunity.
 
StatistPriceControlsFail said:
1. "Underreacting vs overreacting" is sloppy thinking. "Denial vs acknowledgement" is sloppy thinking. If you rationally weighed the overall pros and cons of, say, antibiotics, and decided that it was worth it to take antibiotics in a specific context, then I wouldn't shout you down with "you're an antibiotic side effect denier!" If you decided not to take them, then I wouldn't shout, "you're underreacting to your disease!" What would it mean to say a broad statement like, "people are underreacting to tuberculosis"?

2. Can we agree that it seems sensible to consider both the positives and negatives of any course of action? Each action or proposal should be judged on its own merits including its timing/duration, specificity (for locations, higher vs lower risk populations), potential benefits, likely benefits, potential disadvantages/costs, and likely disadvantages/costs.

I raise this because while I certainly see a lot of people focusing primarily (or even solely) on the benefits of "indefinite universal life stoppage," "bailouts via inflation without the honesty of calling it that," and other measures, I also see a lot of people dismissing the downsides to it. I certainly see a lot of denial/evasion about the real harms to the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people that are caused by certain approaches. One common way this manifests is by erroneously separating "mere economics / business / production" from "life/death and health" as if the former has no effect on the latter. Please consider that for people on the margin (maybe not for you), economics is life & death.

(And printing money or passing laws doesn't do anything to offset the massive drop in real production caused by "don't produce (as much), you non-essentials.")

As a comparison, however bad for life/death and health you think the Great Depression was, consider that unemployment then never exceeded 20%. It will easily be twice that soon. Will that have any bad effects on the life/death and health of anyone?

3. I'm not pro-this politician or anti-that political party. All the various actions and proposals cannot be aggregated into 2 sides of red team vs blue team. Try to get beyond this tribal mentality and think first-handedly. I don't care which politician/party "looks bad" or which one wins an election.
Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons many dismiss outright the notion of benefits presented by "doing nothing" and letting the economy recover immediately is that there is an implicit conflict with humanist philosophy at play- namely that life is sacred and should be preserved. Sure, if you do not ascribe to that, it is rather simple to clearly identify the merits of lifting all shelter-in-place orders. You can easily argue that society at large will benefit in a myriad of ways. One, the economy is essential for society's members (you have already made this argument). you can go pretty far here, including preventing future outbreaks by the herd immunity that would be rapidly created by survivors. You can go even further by stating those likely to be most impacted by this virus are not that useful to society anyway, that they are mostly old and no longer productive members of society- you can even consider them a burden. Sure, some healthy people will also suffer and die, but that risk is also weighed against the relative benefit given to those that don't die. There
will be more opportunity to the young, there will be more housing available... This can get pretty slippery.

Or you can ascribe to the notion (that most do) that life is sacred (at least ours as a group) and that we will not sacrifice life for economic benefit, no matter how intertwined economics are with the well-being of society's members. Who's life are you willing to give up to save the economy? your mom's? Your spouse? Your own? Empathy pushes us to not accept any losses at our own hand by our own actions that could be prevented.

There are a myriad of psychological experiments that have been done to test people in times of crisis in making these kinds of determinations that I think are rather relevant at this time. One that sticks out in my mind is this: You are at a train interchange and you see a young woman tied to the tracks on one of the sections immediately after the interchange, and it is the path the train will take. You can change the path of the train since you happen to be right at the railroad switch. If you press the switch, you save the woman. I don't think it is hard to imagine that almost everyone would push the switch. It gets more interesting if we modify the scenario. In the next scenario, the OTHER interchange also has a group of people tied to the tracks. Now you must choose the young woman vs. the group of people. Many would not push the switch, calculating the loss of one life is preferable to a group. What if the group were all old people? You could argue they are more likely to have had a full life already, and the young woman has not. It gets trickier. What if the young woman was your spouse instead (and assume you don't already want them dead)? What if it was your child?
 
I’m happy to say that my job is considered, “essential” and I get to go to work. In fact, I expect a busy next few months.

I’m not sure what would happen if I couldn't work because of COVID19. Remember that the vast majority of all Americans (even your doctor colleagues) can’t lose a months worth of pay without having a significant financial crisis.

The “shelter in place” is hurting people. Lots of businesses are going to go under due to this. I’m not saying it isn’t the right thing to do right now, but temper your feelings. I give people grace. You can always say we should do more, you could say we should do less, or something different. No on is advocating “don’t nothing”, but we about to go through some memorable times. I hope it will be a once in a lifetime event.
 
gbwillner said:
Or you can ascribe to the notion (that most do) that life is sacred (at least ours as a group) and that we will not sacrifice life for economic benefit, no matter how intertwined economics are with the well-being of society's members.
Click to expand...

Taking the admittedly tired but still useful comparison of influenza, it is not that straightforward. We could potentially reduce some of the excess mortality of influenza by taking severe and costly social distancing measures during flu season, but nobody even considers it.
 
Allegri said:
Taking the admittedly tired but still useful comparison of influenza, it is not that straightforward. We could potentially reduce some of the excess mortality of influenza by taking severe and costly social distancing measures during flu season, but nobody even considers it.
Click to expand...
I would argue that one key difference is that decision for influenza was rendered long ago and is not in the public consciousness like COVID-19 is. This is a decision we have to make now. It is an active decision. We can easily say that the influenza decision of the track direction was made and is already accepted.
 
I would agree with that. Just pointing out that we are not taking a purely rational and consistent position that life's sacredness outweighs any economic considerations.
 
Allegri said:
I would agree with that. Just pointing out that we are not taking a purely rational and consistent position that life's sacredness outweighs any economic considerations.
Click to expand...
We also spend millions and millions of dollars creating and distributing flu vaccines every single year to try and mitigate the flu. We don't shutdown the world for the flu because we at least have the means to practice at least some herd immunity before it hits. With a novel pathogen we don't have that option.
 
I would also point out that the seasonality and incidence of influenza in the population is gradual, without overwhelming the healthcare infrastructure. The rapid timeline of infection and acuity of care (especially ventilators) for COVID-19 is many-fold more than influenza, and mortality due to unavailable care increases in this event. Social distancing will not decrease calculated mortality due to COVID-19 in the long run, but will decrease mortality due to not having enough beds and ventilators. This is also true for all those hospitalized for non-COVID-19 conditions. An example of this - my uncle had a stroke, needs a ventilator, and there aren't enough available for him due to all the other COVID-19 patients.
 
gbwillner said:
Or you can ascribe to the notion (that most do) that life is sacred (at least ours as a group) and that we will not sacrifice life for economic benefit, no matter how intertwined economics are with the well-being of society's members. Who's life are you willing to give up to save the economy? your mom's? Your spouse? Your own? Empathy pushes us to not accept any losses at our own hand by our own actions that could be prevented.
Click to expand...

While I understand this notion, I fear that it plays into our collective cognitive biases. Say, hypothetically, that the economic ramifications of current policies lead to more suffering overall than reducing the amount of lives lost in the immediate term. Someone could theoretically quantify this in terms of the amount of QALY's lost by maintaining extreme social distancing vs QALY's lost by restarting normal life in some shape or form. If the amount of QALY's lost by the former action is greater than the latter, wouldn't implementing the "least worst" option be the most "empathic" choice? One could argue that suffering through the trauma of devastating fatality numbers in the present in order to maximize the benefit for society as a whole would be the more empathic choice.

Of course, that's all largely hypothetical. Could we all really go to work and function as a society when in the back of our minds we know that thousands are dying per day? We are humans, and whether we like it or not, we are emotional beings; could we really get business done in this context of massive fatalities that we knew we could prevent? In the absence of robust cost/benefit calculations, the safe choice is probably to keep doing what we're doing re: social distancing, even if it is not, strictly speaking, the optimum utilitarian choice.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Dro133 said:
While I understand this notion, I fear that it plays into our collective cognitive biases. Say, hypothetically, that the economic ramifications of current policies lead to more suffering overall than reducing the amount of lives lost in the immediate term. Someone could theoretically quantify this in terms of the amount of QALY's lost by maintaining extreme social distancing vs QALY's lost by restarting normal life in some shape or form. If the amount of QALY's lost by the former action is greater than the latter, wouldn't implementing the "least worst" option be the most "empathic" choice? One could argue that suffering through the trauma of devastating fatality numbers in the present in order to maximize the benefit for society as a whole would be the more empathic choice.

Of course, that's all largely hypothetical. Could we all really go to work and function as a society when in the back of our minds we know that thousands are dying per day? We are humans, and whether we like it or not, we are emotional beings; could we really get business done in this context of massive fatalities that we knew we could prevent? In the absence of robust cost/benefit calculations, the safe choice is probably to keep doing what we're doing re: social distancing, even if it is not, strictly speaking, the optimum utilitarian choice.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I was not advocating for either position- I agree we are emotional beings and not always rational. I was attempting to decipher why people feel the way they do about the merits of not doing more. Weighing the value of collective suffering via economics vs immediacy of contributing to deaths in the acute setting by not inhibiting sufficiently viral spread is a choice- one where we decide on values and we influence outcomes. It is easy for many to be concrete about decisions that directly impact life and death than to calculating relative value of life vs. economic prosperity. It comes across as cold and calculating.
 
It doesn't help for the present situation, but hopefully as a country we can learn from this for future outbreaks to minimize both economic and health impacts. Denying the problem even when forewarned by intelligence reports and trying to save billions by not ramping up testing capacity, screening, and production of medical supplies will end up costing trillions in economic damage AND unnecessary loss of life.

Places like South Korea were probably more prepared this time around due to prior SARS and MERS scares. I think the administration and most of the public blew this off as an "over there" problem until it was too late. Of course, this all depends on the attitude of the leadership when the next viral threat comes around, but it's hard to imagine anything less proactive than right now.
 
"It is easy for many to be concrete about decisions that directly impact life and death than to calculating relative value of life vs. economic prosperity. It comes across as cold and calculating."

this is a good point, and similar to what I was suggesting. I shouldn't have raised the flu example in this discussion because it steers things back to the arguments about how covid and flu are different, which wasn't really the point. We tell ourselves that we are willing to pay whatever cost if it means saving lives. This is not being fully honest. Really it's a question of number of lives, even if we don't want to have to quantify it like that. If only 100 lives worldwide were at risk, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if the number of lives at risk due to the economic effects of social distancing was predictable and a number clearly articulated, that would also change the discussion.
 
Allegri said:
"It is easy for many to be concrete about decisions that directly impact life and death than to calculating relative value of life vs. economic prosperity. It comes across as cold and calculating."

this is a good point, and similar to what I was suggesting. I shouldn't have raised the flu example in this discussion because it steers things back to the arguments about how covid and flu are different, which wasn't really the point. We tell ourselves that we are willing to pay whatever cost if it means saving lives. This is not being fully honest. Really it's a question of number of lives, even if we don't want to have to quantify it like that. If only 100 lives worldwide were at risk, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if the number of lives at risk due to the economic effects of social distancing was predictable and a number clearly articulated, that would also change the discussion.
Click to expand...

I would also add that the empathy is very real in that the individual can fear directly for themselves as well. As of now, everyone has increased relative risk- some more than others. Would things be different if we knew that ONLY women aged 63-68 would be affected? Or children under 3? Right now the unknown includes everyone as having increased risk. I think this further steers to thinking- like the train situation- it's likely you suspect it is you or your child are in the train's path.
 
y2k_free_radical said:
I agree.However,i am close to perhaps the worst hot bed per capita in the U.S.,i.e.,ALBANY,GA.,and my wife developed flu like symptoms and tested positive on SATURDAY.
Click to expand...

YIKES. Hope you are OK. Were you following social distancing or other forms of control? Can you identify with any amount of certainty how you were likely exposed?
 
www.newsweek.com

Georgia Mayor Cancels Social Distancing Order Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

On Wednesday, the mayor of Cumming, Georgia announced that he was cancelling the city's social distancing order, despite having almost 5,000 confirmed coronavirus cases in the state.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

On Wednesday, the mayor of Cumming, Georgia, announced that he was cancelling the city's social distancing order, despite there being almost 5,000 confirmed coronavirus cases in the state.
 
Med Director New England said:
Wow
Sorry to hear y2k, hope she only experiences mild illness. I just read the NYT article about the Albany GA super-spreader funeral events, crazy.

Anyhow - I am not sure It matters how one feels about the seriousness of this disease is going to matter. In general continental Europe and the US have had a worse time than China b/c of the way we live and government controls in China that we can’t comprehend were necessary to put a lid on spread there.

Remember in China patrolling, armed govt officials were snatching folks off the street with a fever or who appeared ill and tested them for Covid. If they were positive they Forcibly herded them up into positive camps, separated from family until they either recovered or died.

Our social distancing policy which is being followed only loosely, may shift the curve a little bit I now believe that the biology of the disease will just take over and it will run its course. Domestic air travel is still moving folks too and fro, including in and out of hot spots. If we wanted to control in the US we would have had to stop domestic air travel, shut down public transportation in urban area, etc - things that no Dem or Rep would have done.

Our best hopes here are for a reliable serologic test, an effective vaccine and herd immunity.
Click to expand...
And an effective antiviral.
 
Guest8 said:
We also spend millions and millions of dollars creating and distributing flu vaccines every single year to try and mitigate the flu. We don't shutdown the world for the flu because we at least have the means to practice at least some herd immunity before it hits. With a novel pathogen we don't have that option.
Click to expand...
Also antivirals for influeza.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
ScubaV said:
It doesn't help for the present situation, but hopefully as a country we can learn from this for future outbreaks to minimize both economic and health impacts. Denying the problem even when forewarned by intelligence reports and trying to save billions by not ramping up testing capacity, screening, and production of medical supplies will end up costing trillions in economic damage AND unnecessary loss of life.

Places like South Korea were probably more prepared this time around due to prior SARS and MERS scares. I think the administration and most of the public blew this off as an "over there" problem until it was too late. Of course, this all depends on the attitude of the leadership when the next viral threat comes around, but it's hard to imagine anything less proactive than right now.
Click to expand...
See Taiwan for a really successful response.
 
gbwillner said:
YIKES. Hope you are OK. Were you following social distancing or other forms of control? Can you identify with any amount of certainty how you were likely exposed?
Click to expand...
Social distancing as much as possible although 6 feet is not always possible in patient care.I think my wife was infected doing an autopsy on a 535 pounder who died suddenly at home with no history of exposure or our lawn man who kept going to the gym everyday.p.s.-i know for certain that this was not a LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER event
 
Last edited:
y2k_free_radical said:
I agree.However,i am close to perhaps the worst hot bed per capita in the U.S.,i.e.,ALBANY,GA.,and my wife developed flu like symptoms and tested positive on SATURDAY.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to hear that. I hope she will recover soon.
 
Nation's top coronavirus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci forced to beef up security as death threats increase


www.cnn.com

Nation's top coronavirus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci forced to beef up security as death threats increase

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country's top medical expert on the coronavirus pandemic and a member of President Donald Trump's coronavirus task force, is facing threats to his personal safety and now requires personal security from law enforcement at all times, including at his home, a source confirms...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
I'm sharing some thoughtful articles about the unacknowledged costs of "indefinite universal lockdowns" and the importance of careful thinking methods.

From Alex Epstein:
"Six filters that I use to screen out most commentary and claims about COVID-19 and find the best expert analyses. The six filters are:
  1. Do they assume freedom of action means recklessness?
  2. Do they assume lockdown means optimal virus prevention?
  3. Do they advocate universal measures for the highly vulnerable and low-vulnerability alike?
  4. Do they equate diagnosed infections with actual infections? (This is a tactic used to hyper-inflate death rates.)
  5. Do they devalue freedom and quality of life?
  6. Do they treat the goal as eradication instead of management?
Unfortunately, I believe that the policies and studies being used by governments at all levels are committing most of the above mistakes."

SOURCE: Thank you, COVID-19 filters, intellectual persuasion, and a new Robert Bryce interview

--------------------

From Margot Roosevelt:
"On March 13, the hotel laid her off, along with some 20 other housekeepers. The hotel canceled workers' health insurance and sent them home with no severance. California's lodging industry is one of the hardest hit as the economy shuts down. That afternoon, there was more bad news: the Los Angeles Unified School District announced it would shut down, leaving her sons — 13-year-old Alan, who has a learning disability, and 8-year-old Jesus, who suffers from chronic colitis — at home with little means of keeping up their education.

By Monday at 9 a.m., Lezama was standing in line with several 100 others on Alvarado Street, where the hotel workers union, Unite Here, was helping members apply for unemployment benefits. But the state's website kept crashing, and, after five hours, she left without succeeding. She had to get to a pharmacy to pick up medicine for Jesus. That night, after three hours on the secondhand computer she had bought on an installment plan just a year ago, Lezama was finally able to file her application. It would be 10 days before she got a response saying she qualifies for the state's maximum of $450 a week — less than two-thirds of her base pay at the hotel. But when would the money come? She still doesn't know.

Meanwhile, with no savings, how would she feed the children? How would she pay the monthly rent of $1,400 on her half of the small lime-green duplex off South Figueroa Street, due next week? The landlord charges $10 for every late day and was not offering any relief.

And what about the $300 monthly loan on her 13-year-old Honda Accord? Or her $140 monthly car insurance bill? The gas bill? The electric bill?

Should she cancel the $35 monthly Wi-Fi? But then her son Alan could not access his school's promised distance learning."

SOURCE: It took her 20 years to claw out of poverty. Coronavirus could take it all away

----------------------------------
From Radmilla Suleymanova:
""You have a crisis on top of a crisis. These countries and many like them have millions of people who were dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival, and now with restrictions in place to fight coronavirus, aid will not be able to reach them," she said.

A lockdown may seem like a good strategy to halt the spread of coronavirus but for masses of people in developing countries it is simply not an option.

"Communities do not have water and soap. They are unable to sit home and wait. There is no food, they earn their income on a daily basis," Eziakonwa added.

SOURCE: Developing countries face economic collapse in COVID-19 fight: UN
 
The center for industrial progress? A pro fossil fuel website? With pictures of people in shirts that say I <3 fossil fuel? And the author wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels? 🤣

And that woman's story is an indictment of the way our society is organized more than anything else.
 
StatistPriceControlsFail said:
I'm sharing some thoughtful articles about the unacknowledged costs of "indefinite universal lockdowns" and the importance of careful thinking methods.

From Alex Epstein:
"Six filters that I use to screen out most commentary and claims about COVID-19 and find the best expert analyses. The six filters are:
  1. Do they assume freedom of action means recklessness?
  2. Do they assume lockdown means optimal virus prevention?
  3. Do they advocate universal measures for the highly vulnerable and low-vulnerability alike?
  4. Do they equate diagnosed infections with actual infections? (This is a tactic used to hyper-inflate death rates.)
  5. Do they devalue freedom and quality of life?
  6. Do they treat the goal as eradication instead of management?
Unfortunately, I believe that the policies and studies being used by governments at all levels are committing most of the above mistakes."

SOURCE: Thank you, COVID-19 filters, intellectual persuasion, and a new Robert Bryce interview

--------------------

From Margot Roosevelt:
"On March 13, the hotel laid her off, along with some 20 other housekeepers. The hotel canceled workers' health insurance and sent them home with no severance. California's lodging industry is one of the hardest hit as the economy shuts down. That afternoon, there was more bad news: the Los Angeles Unified School District announced it would shut down, leaving her sons — 13-year-old Alan, who has a learning disability, and 8-year-old Jesus, who suffers from chronic colitis — at home with little means of keeping up their education.

By Monday at 9 a.m., Lezama was standing in line with several 100 others on Alvarado Street, where the hotel workers union, Unite Here, was helping members apply for unemployment benefits. But the state's website kept crashing, and, after five hours, she left without succeeding. She had to get to a pharmacy to pick up medicine for Jesus. That night, after three hours on the secondhand computer she had bought on an installment plan just a year ago, Lezama was finally able to file her application. It would be 10 days before she got a response saying she qualifies for the state's maximum of $450 a week — less than two-thirds of her base pay at the hotel. But when would the money come? She still doesn't know.

Meanwhile, with no savings, how would she feed the children? How would she pay the monthly rent of $1,400 on her half of the small lime-green duplex off South Figueroa Street, due next week? The landlord charges $10 for every late day and was not offering any relief.

And what about the $300 monthly loan on her 13-year-old Honda Accord? Or her $140 monthly car insurance bill? The gas bill? The electric bill?

Should she cancel the $35 monthly Wi-Fi? But then her son Alan could not access his school's promised distance learning."

SOURCE: It took her 20 years to claw out of poverty. Coronavirus could take it all away

----------------------------------
From Radmilla Suleymanova:
""You have a crisis on top of a crisis. These countries and many like them have millions of people who were dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival, and now with restrictions in place to fight coronavirus, aid will not be able to reach them," she said.

A lockdown may seem like a good strategy to halt the spread of coronavirus but for masses of people in developing countries it is simply not an option.

"Communities do not have water and soap. They are unable to sit home and wait. There is no food, they earn their income on a daily basis," Eziakonwa added.

SOURCE: Developing countries face economic collapse in COVID-19 fight: UN
Click to expand...
Seriously? You are citing Alex Epstein, the founder of Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think-tank advocating for fossil fuels. Furthermore, he has no training or expertise in medicine or epidemiology to really understand the significance of the situation. Besides, his six filters are total garbage. Let me go through them one by one:
  1. Do they assume freedom of action means recklessness? - Who cares? Some people will behave recklessly, but you can spread the infection even without being reckless.
  2. Do they assume lockdown means optimal virus prevention? - It is not an assumption, quarantine has been proven through history as an effective way to stop the spread of contagious diseases.
  3. Do they advocate universal measures for the highly vulnerable and low-vulnerability alike? - No, but nearly everyone is vulnerable at this point since the overwhelming majority of people do not have immunity to this virus.
  4. Do they equate diagnosed infections with actual infections? (This is a tactic used to hyper-inflate death rates.) - What does this even mean: asymptomatic vs symptomatic infections? There is no need for hyperinflation of death rates given that hospitals in the hot spots are overflowing with bodies of the deceased.
  5. Do they devalue freedom and quality of life? - No, they temporarily limit freedom and reduce quality of life to save many human lives. There is nothing new here; requiring you to wear a seatbelt and not to drink and drive also limits your freedom.
  6. Do they treat the goal as eradication instead of management? - Who cares? Management for now (prompt eradication is probably not feasible at this point) and hopefully eradication in the future; both are good goals.
The anecdotes at the end are also irrelevant to the situation. I agree with bauber "that woman's story is an indictment of the way our society is organized more than anything else." Besides, is losing a breadwinner or family member due to COVID-19 for good a better alternative?
 
Last edited:
D1b()4 said:
Seriously? You are citing Alex Epstein, the founder of Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think-tank advocating for fossil fuels. Furthermore, he has no training or expertise in medicine or epidemiology to really understand the significance of the situation. Besides, his six filters are total garbage. Let me go through them one by one:
  1. Do they assume freedom of action means recklessness? - Who cares? Some people will behave recklessly, but you can spread the infection even without being reckless.
  2. Do they assume lockdown means optimal virus prevention? - It is not an assumption, quarantine has been proven through history as an effective way to stop the spread of contagious diseases.
  3. Do they advocate universal measures for the highly vulnerable and low-vulnerability alike? - No, but nearly everyone is vulnerable at this point since the overwhelming majority of people do not have immunity to this virus.
  4. Do they equate diagnosed infections with actual infections? (This is a tactic used to hyper-inflate death rates.) - What does this even mean: asymptomatic vs symptomatic infections? There is no need for hyperinflation of death rates given that hospitals in the hot spots are overflowing with bodies of the deceased.
  5. Do they devalue freedom and quality of life? - No, they temporarily limit freedom and reduce quality of life to save many human lives. There is nothing new here; requiring you to wear a seatbelt and not to drink and drive also limits your freedom.
  6. Do they treat the goal as eradication instead of management? - Who cares? Management for now (prompt eradication is probably not feasible at this point) and hopefully eradication in the future; both are good goals.
The anecdotes at the end are also irrelevant to the situation. I agree with bauber "that woman's story is an indictment of the way our society is organized more than anything else." Besides, is losing a breadwinner or family member due to COVID-19 for good a better alternative?
Click to expand...
Apparently it is better to be dead than poor.
 
gbwillner said:
Apparently it is better to be dead than poor.
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20200403-102813_Lite.jpg
 
Fact check: Georgia governor says we only just learned people without symptoms could spread coronavirus. Experts have been saying that for months

www.cnn.com

Fact check: Georgia governor says we only just learned people without symptoms could spread coronavirus. Experts have been saying that for months

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said on Wednesday that new information on the spread of coronavirus influenced his decision to issue a stay-at-home order. In particular, Kemp pointed to what he said was the recent discovery that the virus can be spread by people who are not exhibiting symptoms.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Lessons Learned - Coronavirus Pandemic
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
yaah
yaah
D
  • Poll Poll
Ok to be scared (pandemic) - you are not alone.
2 3
Replies
137
Views
10K
deleted915203
D
Top Bottom