Our Covid Response

[crimson5pheonix]

Yeah, that's what happens when no new information shows up.

Do you just spontaneously start believing different things for no reason?

You are talking to a conservative catholic

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, but if you aren't taking in new information all the time, you're doing that to yourself.

Lmao "but if"

You need to abandon the notion that the only reason people don't agree with you is that they "didn't do the research". Despite the theoretical widespread cancel culture that's preventing conservatives from speaking, I can't seem to avoid hearing those morons get violently angry at China for deliberately infecting the US population with a mild cold that anti-parasitic drugs can cure and that's why people shouldn't get government help to quarantine themselves if they're at risk because they should get thrown out for not paying the rent by not working with the public to avoid the mild cold that only kills at risk people and the elderly and a surprising number of radio hosts and cops and we need to sanction China and Fauci for unleashing this horrible mild cold on us.

And yet despite hearing all that for two years, I've still come to the conclusion that a shocking number of compassionate Christian conservatives would crawl over my corpse for toilet paper

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You are talking to a conservative catholic

I'm honestly curious what he thinks of Vatican II. Kinda want to dial in the crazy

 

[Trunkage]

That's not what your supposition is based on, though.

There have been 7 human coronaviruses recognised, and none of the other 6 have had recorded impacts anywhere even approaching Covid-19. It's not "assuming consistency" to take a single data point and then assume the same of the other 6 data points without evidence.

Can I just point out, that since we are talking about patterns and consistency in natural phenomenon, our response to Covid-19 was very different from the most of those other instances

Every single epidemic/pandemic has had some sort of border closure, mask mandates, social distancing and lockdowns. You can even go back a few years to H1N1 and read news about this. The typical response we imagine in the history books about the Black Death does this (I would sayy that this could very well be us retroactively placing 1800 knowledge onto this time, as most history was like back then.)

There had always been a vocal minority who dislike this. Even in the 'Spanish Flu', there were plenty of people saying that this is tyranny. There were plenty of people who thought letting it spread through the population uncontrolled is the best option. They are doing anything with 'consistency in natural phenomenon' though. Humans are natural phenomenon and so is us adapting to hardship. What these people are doing is unnatural (as in spirtual or supernatural). Pretending that a force outside of nature will spare them

You can't science them out of this position or being antivax etc. They aren't working with science

As to whether historical there has been coronavirus before recent history.... I could not care less. Pointing out the response that works is far more important

 

[Agema]

You have it backwards. I'm taking the known end state of 6 data points, and presuming the 7th data point will follow the same pattern. You want to suggest the other 6 didn't have the same impact, and therefore my conjecture is already misplaced, but you believe that entirely without reason.

Yeah.

That argument is however pretty pointless, because you're making claims about start data points you have no information on, not the end. And as one of my colleagues past was wont to say, "An n of one is an n of none".

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

There were plenty of people who thought letting it spread through the population uncontrolled is the best option.

It's because they claim to believe in "survival of the fittest", of course thinking that they themselves are "the fittest". Then they get sick and die, proving that "the fittest" also includes intelligence.

 

[Thaluikhain]

During WW2, the British were running public information reels asking parents to get their kid immunised against diphtheria, in between the ones about saving rags for the war effort and making sure to get your Christmas post in early.

In the Cold War, the US were warning people about a polio epidemic.

You can get people to dig bomb shelters in their backyards, but caring about the plague is another matter.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"immunity built in the non-vulnerable faster" led to overwhelmed hospitals and a whole lot of vulnerable people dying because they didn't know they were vulnerable.

Anyway, my secretly vulnerable roommate can't go to his favorite local convention because our dipshit governor made it illegal to ask someone their vaccination status and the venue won't enforce a mask policy. Of course, said vaccination policy *also* plays havoc with my job to deliver medicine to hospitals given they can't ask their employees who is actually allowed to enter certain hospitals at certain times, so that's a clusterfuck too.

So you have hospital numbers excluding the vulnerable to see if the non-vulnerable actually would have overwhelmed hospitals?

Since when do masks or vaccine mandates make it safer for your roommate? Also, if your roommate wears an N95 mask (even if everyone else is maskless), he would be far more protected than if everyone wore masks.

You need to kick out ~1,000 unvaccinated people from a place to stop ONE infection.

Evaluating the number of unvaccinated people needed to exclude to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmissions

Background Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports (VMVP) for SARS-CoV-2 are thought to be a path out of the pandemic by increasing vaccination through coercion and excluding unvaccinated people from different settings because they are viewed as being at significant risk of transmitting...

www.medrxiv.org

That you would compare people's lives with dropping old stats on a sports team says a lot about you and your worldview. And nothing good about it.



The numbers they use for deaths for one. Checking the CDC website up until April 10th like the article does puts the Florida per capita death rate at 161 and the California death rate at 150. And the number of deaths they quoted in that time for each state is wrong as well, overcounting in California and undercounting in Florida. The writer has a giant chip on their shoulder and presuming it's the person I found on Twitter (which seems likely), they're a far right christo-fascist, which checks out. He uses false data to push a false conclusion by misrepresenting the already false data he has.

In other words he's just like you. Or you're like him, whatever.



Just stop calling it that because it's a giant lie. You look like an idiot every time you say it because you have no skills with math or analysis.

You don't like to explain why it's wrong. You have to be able to rationally look at numbers vs emotionally looking at them. It's just like you don't want to give a max contract to a fan favorite that is now out of their prime as it hurts the team in the long run.

Looks like your numbers are good. However, that puts California only doing ~7% better and Florida has an older population so it has advantage. So you're saying doing everything the "science" has said to do only has at best a 7% impact? Then what is the harm impact to life in doing all that to get that 7% impact? If the "science" is gospel, then shouldn't it be doing way more?

Please cite a scientist or researcher that doesn't believe in adjusting for things. You're totally alone on this.

Again, here you are assuming there's a good "barrier" between the vulnerable and non-vulnerable during the immunity-building phase, despite the fact that as these posts are discussing, there is no certainty that such a barrier exists, or what policies would be necessary to create one that is sufficiently effective.

Said policies weren't allowed to be discussed.

No, you said it was a bad study. Very clearly, as everyone can see.

A basic assumption is that states that did particularly well at protecting their elderly should have a relatively low proportion of deaths amongst the elderly. But this is not strongly evident from Florida's mortality data. Therefore, a claim that Florida protected its elderly is obviously very unsafe.

You're using bullshit logic on data that does not show that at all. I explained with basic logic why it's a bullshit way to say a place protected the elderly better. If you want to believe the conclusions you made from that study (which is basically pointless), then the red states did the best in protecting the elderly. Might as well give me data of people that died from covid based on their favorite color and try to make some conclusion from that. That's why I said the study is pointless because the data (while accurate I'd assume) tells you nothing.

But the Green New Deal was put forward with policy suggestions. Not necessarily all worked out in minute detail with all tees crossed and ies dotted, maybe, but it has clear policies for how to achieve its aims. The GBD does not. Irrespective of it being a "conversation opener", neither it nor its proponents appear to have meaningfully continued that conversation. They just used it as an excuse to do pretty much nothing, in my view for ulterior political motivations.

The GBD was organised and backed by a major US think tank. That think tank has the resources to come up with appropriate policies: after all, making up policy suggestions is a huge part of its day job. So, where were these policies? And who amongst supporters enacted any? DeSantis restricted care home access (as many jurisdictions did) early on, cognisant of the risk to the elderly, because it was a relatively straightforward measure. This was long before the GBD. But "focused protection" plainly requires a great deal more than that. So after DeSantis met with GBD team, what additional measures did he put in place to achieve focused protection? And, as above, if he put any in, did they work?

The fact that Florida's done better than average has shown they work.

You know what you post to see how bad a virus is? Hospitalization and death rates. Infection numbers are kinda pointless.

Uhrm, yes, massively.

MERS and SARS were more deadly than covid.

Long COVID = immunodeficiency?


Terrifying if true.

That's not true. You may see more serious cases in other viruses that have been pushed aside because of covid like the flu or rsv when they come back because the population has had a gap of exposure to them, but that would be the cause, not because covid "hurt" the immune system.

Maybe you should stop reading stuff on twitter...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You don't like to explain why it's wrong.

I already explained precisely how it's wrong, multiple times. You just don't like it because it clashes with your emotions.

Looks like your numbers are good. However, that puts California only doing ~7% better and Florida has an older population so it has advantage. So you're saying doing everything the "science" has said to do only has at best a 7% impact? Then what is the harm impact to life in doing all that to get that 7% impact? If the "science" is gospel, then shouldn't it be doing way more?

It did. You have just picked a very brief period of time where it got close. As has been said before, Florida had a 50% higher mortality rate before and after, but since you have literally 0 principals or self-awareness, you're taking a short chunk of time.

Please cite a scientist or researcher that doesn't believe in adjusting for things. You're totally alone on this.

And making up strawmen. I never said not to adjust for things, per-capita death rate is an adjustment. Your choice of adjustment is what I have issue with.

 

[Trunkage]

It's because they claim to believe in "survival of the fittest", of course thinking that they themselves are "the fittest". Then they get sick and die, proving that "the fittest" also includes intelligence.

They also havent figured out yet that TECHNOLOGY is part of our human adaptation to be on top of the survival of the fittest.

Other key adaptation they pretend isnt survival of the fittest: the concept of RIGHTS, COMMUNITY, ALTURISM, willingness to HELP those in need, etc

They havent realised that to win the survival of the fittest game, you MUST do the opposite of what's expected

I talked to a whole heap of antivaxxers (mainly Australian). Their general problem was: Why should those with 4 co-morbidities not die? I could never convince them that this is fucked up. The best I could do is convince some that they could have 4 morbidities. But even then, they did not think any money should be spent on it

 

[Trunkage]

MERS and SARS were more deadly than covid.

You need to stop using that term like that. I would go find the Princess Bride meme but its too early in the morning

Being able to kill people more often does not make it more deadly overall. It's just a factor in deadlines. You are pretending a KPI is the overall result. Otherwise, MERS and SARS 1 would not have been beaten for number of death by this SARS by 30 times

 

[Silvanus]

MERS and SARS were more deadly than covid.

Have you reached this conclusion by looking solely at mortality rate among the infected?

 

[tstorm823]

Lmao "but if"

You need to abandon the notion that the only reason people don't agree with you is that they "didn't do the research". Despite the theoretical widespread cancel culture that's preventing conservatives from speaking, I can't seem to avoid hearing those morons get violently angry at China for deliberately infecting the US population with a mild cold that anti-parasitic drugs can cure and that's why people shouldn't get government help to quarantine themselves if they're at risk because they should get thrown out for not paying the rent by not working with the public to avoid the mild cold that only kills at risk people and the elderly and a surprising number of radio hosts and cops and we need to sanction China and Fauci for unleashing this horrible mild cold on us.

And yet despite hearing all that for two years, I've still come to the conclusion that a shocking number of compassionate Christian conservatives would crawl over my corpse for toilet paper

You are shadow boxing a caricature of a Republican. There may be some people in the world who match that caricature, but I've not personally met any of them. Perhaps you are just sponging up justifications for the hatred you were already settled on?

 

[Kwak]

You are shadow boxing a caricature of a Republican. There may be some people in the world who match that caricature, but I've not personally met any of them. Perhaps you are just sponging up justifications for the hatred you were already settled on?

Ahem...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/republicans-baby-formula/

House GOP leaders were among the 192 Republicans who voted against providing $28 million in aid to the Food and Drug Administration to address the shortage of baby formula — within days of criticizing President Biden for not doing enough on the issue.

 

[tstorm823]

Ahem...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/republicans-baby-formula/

House GOP leaders were among the 192 Republicans who voted against providing $28 million in aid to the Food and Drug Administration to address the shortage of baby formula — within days of criticizing President Biden for not doing enough on the issue.

The FDA shut down an important baby formula factory for 3 months, leading to a major shortage across the country. Multiple bills were proposed to address the situation.
The Access to Baby Formula Act of 2022 is a bill that adds requirements for formula producers in the case of a recall, gives latitude for the use of nutritional aid program funds, and allows for waivers of requirements for states if needed to address a children's nutrition shortage. This bill passed with near universal bipartisan support.
The bill you are talking about is The Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, which is aiming to send $24,000,000 to the FDA for “Salaries and Expenses”, with the directive to fix the shortage. The FDA is not the part of the federal government that would act to actively alleviate the shortage. The only real power to address the shortage at the FDA is to not continue to shut down that plant. The Republican response to this bill is "why the hell would we pay $24,000,000 to get the FDA to not shut down food processing for children indefinitely?"

I'm inclined to think that's a reasonable response. That money is not necessary to change course to get that plant operating. The money is not sufficient to replace months of production, and even if it was, the FDA has no capacity to do that. It looks very much like a "throw money at the bureaucracy and tell them to fix it" bill. If you don't think that's a reasonable response, you are entitled to your own policy opinions, but nobody should be representing this the way the media has. When the media all report that Republicans voted against a bill to ease the shortage, what they're leaving out is that the bill likely wouldn't do anything to ease the shortage.

 

[Trunkage]

The FDA shut down an important baby formula factory for 3 months, leading to a major shortage across the country. Multiple bills were proposed to address the situation.
The Access to Baby Formula Act of 2022 is a bill that adds requirements for formula producers in the case of a recall, gives latitude for the use of nutritional aid program funds, and allows for waivers of requirements for states if needed to address a children's nutrition shortage. This bill passed with near universal bipartisan support.
The bill you are talking about is The Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, which is aiming to send $24,000,000 to the FDA for “Salaries and Expenses”, with the directive to fix the shortage. The FDA is not the part of the federal government that would act to actively alleviate the shortage. The only real power to address the shortage at the FDA is to not continue to shut down that plant. The Republican response to this bill is "why the hell would we pay $24,000,000 to get the FDA to not shut down food processing for children indefinitely?"

I'm inclined to think that's a reasonable response. That money is not necessary to change course to get that plant operating. The money is not sufficient to replace months of production, and even if it was, the FDA has no capacity to do that. It looks very much like a "throw money at the bureaucracy and tell them to fix it" bill. If you don't think that's a reasonable response, you are entitled to your own policy opinions, but nobody should be representing this the way the media has. When the media all report that Republicans voted against a bill to ease the shortage, what they're leaving out is that the bill likely wouldn't do anything to ease the shortage.

The FDA.... who stopped baby formula from killing babies?

Maybe... we want to get them some money so they can CHECK THE BABY FORMULA quicker so it can get to shops as soon as possible instead of being caught up in red tape? Otherwise, it will not matter if this baby formula gets back on the market, no one is willing to risk killing their kid when they could find better options

Maybe... stop drinking the GOP Koolaid? It's gonna get more people killed

 

[tstorm823]

The FDA.... who stopped baby formula from killing babies?

Maybe... we want to get them some money so they can CHECK THE BABY FORMULA quicker so it can get to shops as soon as possible instead of being caught up in red tape? Otherwise, it will not matter if this baby formula gets back on the market, no one is willing to risk killing their kid when they could find better options

Maybe... stop drinking the GOP Koolaid? It's gonna get more people killed

a) An addition 0.4% added to the FDA's budget is not a big difference.
b) The company is already legally culpable to pay for the remediation process, and has agreed to hire experts (subject to FDA approval) to meet the goal. That last part only happened recently, once the shortages started. It costs the FDA precisely nothing, and could have been done months ago.
c) The FDA doesn't check the baby formula at all, whether you capitalize it or not. They inspect facilities.

To add to point b, the timeline they're projecting to be back operating is a couple weeks. There is a 0% chance this money has any impact on the current situation.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I already explained precisely how it's wrong, multiple times. You just don't like it because it clashes with your emotions.



It did. You have just picked a very brief period of time where it got close. As has been said before, Florida had a 50% higher mortality rate before and after, but since you have literally 0 principals or self-awareness, you're taking a short chunk of time.


And making up strawmen. I never said not to adjust for things, per-capita death rate is an adjustment. Your choice of adjustment is what I have issue with.

You're supposed explain why it's objectively wrong, not emotionally wrong.

You mean "brief period" by the whole 1st year of the pandemic before vaccines were widely available that covid restrictions would have had the greatest impact in showing differences?

I meant weighing numbers. Cite a scientist or researcher that say weighing numbers is inherently bad or "stupid" as you claim.

You need to stop using that term like that. I would go find the Princess Bride meme but its too early in the morning

Being able to kill people more often does not make it more deadly overall. It's just a factor in deadlines. You are pretending a KPI is the overall result. Otherwise, MERS and SARS 1 would not have been beaten for number of death by this SARS by 30 times

Then, going by that metric, flu is far more deadly than covid and it ain't even close and so is driving.

Have you reached this conclusion by looking solely at mortality rate among the infected?

Yeah, that's how you rate how deadly something is. Ebola is deadlier than covid for example.

The FDA.... who stopped baby formula from killing babies?

Maybe... we want to get them some money so they can CHECK THE BABY FORMULA quicker so it can get to shops as soon as possible instead of being caught up in red tape? Otherwise, it will not matter if this baby formula gets back on the market, no one is willing to risk killing their kid when they could find better options

Maybe... stop drinking the GOP Koolaid? It's gonna get more people killed

The baby formula that would be coming in from foreign countries is already inspected by said countries that have at least comparable (probably better) standards than the US. Europe has better food standards than the US. Why do you need $20+ million to hire more inspectors?

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, that's how you rate how deadly something is. Ebola is deadlier than covid for example.

No, mortality rate is not all there is to epidemiology. If a virus has a lower mortality rate, but is far more easily transmitted, it can cause more death within a given population. Covid-19 killed far more people.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're supposed explain why it's objectively wrong, not emotionally wrong.

I did.

You mean "brief period" by the whole 1st year of the pandemic before vaccines were widely available that covid restrictions would have had the greatest impact in showing differences?

No, you lemming. I already posted that just a couple months before then Florida's mortality rate was 50% higher than California's. You can pretend you've forgotten all you like, but everyone else can already see what was posted.

I meant weighing numbers. Cite a scientist or researcher that say weighing numbers is inherently bad or "stupid" as you claim.

That's not adjusting then is it, now you're saying something completely different. Get on track.