This is a hard one to swallow but like the Doctor said: “because all those countries are going to end up with the same number of dead at the end of the day anyway.” …instead of thinking of this by country or geographic regions; this is a world-wide thing and we are in this together whether we like it or not, we need more immune people traveling.
I can understand that but if nobody goes to work and let’s say this goes on for 3 years there will be nothing left anyway and cause even more chaos, anarchy and deaths with-out a virus then ever could be imagined on a world-wide scale.
We need to do what China did and set up mobile tent hospitals, ventilators are what’s killing people as I was listening to one doctor describe, they are really reluctant to use them and only use them in the most extreme cases.
Hence, let’s endeavor to not let this go on for 3 years. I offered extremes to illustrate a larger point, not as a policy prescription
You don’t see “nobody going to work.” Most of the economic effects of the virus are due to changes in people’s behavior that is of their own choosing - the markets demonstrated this early on. It is only a small portion that is due to gov’t-mandated policies. Even with that in mind, economies are operating at much closer to 100% than to 0%.
Most people chose to lose their jobs? Really… ?
When govt policy is to close down perfectly viable businesses I can’t see how that is of peoples’ choosing.
No decisions is the right decision maybe it is just a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils?
I can barely stand to think about this horrific situation but what else can we do?
Prolong our suffering?
Get it over-with as fast as possible?
Personally I’d rather be dead than suffer!
If my death or immunity could save 100 or thousands people so be it, either way I would give both!
A valid preference. Albeit one that is not likely universal
First post on the divisive Covid topic, and fair play to the Keto forum for allowing free discussion on the subject. The level of censorship elsewhere is dystopian.
Anyways, I feel the overwhelming need to make a point. I am from the UK, and I work for a small business. We were deemed ‘non essential’ in the first lockdown, then we had to suffer a 2nd local lockdown. If we have to lockdown again in the winter, we will be finished. Furlough pay or not. And all 200 of us join the other millions on the rising unemployment list.
Now, with Keto and vitmain D supplementation, I believe I am out of the high risk group, and I want to work. I need to work. Most of my fellow employees aren’t in the high risk group, and as a customer facing business, a large part of our clientele aren’t either.
The first lockdown with limited information, fair enough. They perhaps should have cut it shorter though. However, all this talk in the UK about a 2nd national lockdown is enraging me. We now have a good idea who are more at risk than not. I will never ever support isolating healthy and mostly asymptomatic people. Especially with the catastrophic damage the impact will be on their lives via small business destruction.
If they lock us all down again, I’ll lose my income and ultimately my home. I’ll probably riot. If they dare do this again to us, with the information they now have, then it will be clear as day it isn’t a balancing act policy. It is some backward small business torching policy.
Isolate the vulnerable. Pay them 100% furlough if needed. The rest of us need to keep the country going, and have the right to support ourselves. If they take that right away again, I’ll never forgive them, or those that support such draconian measures. With the information they have now, a full lockdown is insanity. I can’t believe what I am reading about in some American states. Mental.
No, but people quit going to restaurants, filling planes, cruise ships, etc., on their own. There’s a lot of staying home on people’s own accord, rather than via gov’t mandate. Witness the way the world markets plunged before governments had done much of anything. The one study I saw found that only about 1/4 of increased unemployment was due to gov’t action (in the U.S.) while ~3/4 of it was due to how people changed their behavior in response to the virus.
Obviously, almost nobody “chose” to lose their job, per se. But if the demand is not there, it’s not there, and/or the given individual wanted to social-distance more than they wanted to take the risk of contact at their job.
It depends - how much risk is there? Lessening contact and increasing distance is one major way (almost surely the largest single way, no?) the rate of virus spread has been slowed. Look at the increases in virus cases, hospitalizations and deaths after most U.S. states “opened back up.”
Deaths and virus cases have really trailed off in the UK, from the peaks earlier this year. Even cases have only barely nudged up a bit higher than the early July low point. What is the impetus for talk of a another lockdown? More people being indoors later this year/the normal flu season (more virus transmission then)?
I agree that the most vulnerable should be protected, and a lot of that is on themselves or their families if they need care. I would think people on the whole are really fatigued of restrictions - do you think there is enough political will at this point for more restrictions?
Several days back, a former government advisor went public criticising the UK’s track & trace system. He then followed that up stating that a full national lockdown will be needed next month because of how bad the system is.
We also have the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stating that once we re-open schools, to supress the virus, we will need a trade off in which we will have to close again pubs, bars and restaurants.
The news cycle is dominated by doomsayer Covid news.
I agree with you, cases are low. Hospitalisations and deaths are on the floor. However, you wouldn’t think so based on our news cycle. And this will be done on the government’s behest I am sure, to keep the public aware/prepared for what is to come.
We also have weekly stories of a ‘virus storm’ in the winter with the combination of Flu and Covid.
What really worries me has been the knee jerk reactions to small local rises in cases. As I said in my first post, we had to endure a local lockdown. I think at the time we had 6 people in hospital and zero deaths. And I live in a city of 440,000.
Do I think there is a political will to lockdowm again? Absolutely I do. As for the public? Seems to be split. A high number of people are taking it very seriously. Then you have a smaller amount who just shrug their shoulders and go along with it for the most part. Then a smaller amount of people who seem angry at what I perceive to be a massive overreaction in comparison to the actual threat posed.
Essentially, I believe the political will for a 2nd national lockdown is massive, and the public will acquiesce.
From the aspect of ‘Show Me The Science,’ there is a very good reason for that.
@amwassil Re the (I assume humourous) “and wine to accept those that I cannot” - were you having a few when you read that blog post? I think you should have been, because the author is lying to you.
It’s just a really bad example of what is frequently seen these days. Some painfully obvious things are wrong with it, right off the bat.
The author talks about “lockdowns stopping pandemics,” being a myth, then she talks about Sweden and the US. For some months now there hasn’t been any aim at “stopping” the virus. The purpose of lockdowns, social distancing, stay-at-home orders/suggestions, etc., is to manage the burden on health care resources so they are not overwhelmed. It’s dishonest to act like lockdowns haven’t been successful in some countries, and it’s also dishonest to point to Sweden and the US and act like lockdowns haven’t stopped the pandemic, thus somehow proving that lockdowns don’t work. The truth is that it was too late for “stopping” by the time these things were considered in Sweden and the US. The author is deliberately blind to the fact that there was good reason to slow things down.
Quoting the author: "When China first deployed lockdown in January to “defeat COVID-19,” The Washington Post approvingly quoted a Georgetown University professor as saying, “The truth is those kinds of lockdowns are very rare and never effective…”
She is being deliberately deceptive there. She’s conflating ‘quarantine’ with ‘lockdown.’ The Post article was talking about enforced quarantines - partitioning off areas where the infected would be kept. That procedure, which China did follow in certain areas for a while, does bring problems - supplying essentials, being difficult to enforce, separating family members from each other, etc.
Contrary to the author’s intended deception, the Post article praised lockdowns - closing businesses and public spaces that involve high risk on contact, social distancing, people staying home more often, etc. It is measures like these that are being decided for or against, at this point.
The author says, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pandemic planning documents state non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing are ineffective once a disease infects 1% of a region’s population. Literature on this subject is unanimous worldwide.”
That is an outright lie. You notice she doesn’t even give a link for that one. Here is a direct and real quote from the CDC: “our models suggest that the intervention involving all age groups would consistently decrease the number of cases considerably and delay the epidemic the most. Of note, with >25% reduction in contact rates for the adult population, combined with 95% reduction in older adults, the number of hospitalizations and deaths could be reduced by >78% during the first 100 days, a finding that agrees with previous reports.”
The author says, "According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control:
“There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread. It is hard to imagine that measures like those within the category of social distancing would not have some positive impact by reducing transmission of a human respiratory infection . . . However, the evidence base supporting each individual measure is often weak.”
This time, she does give a link. But guess what? It does not say that. Here too, she is outright lying. Go ahead - check it out; you will see that she is just making crap up.
Doesn’t matter what “side” you’re on, your politics, religion, love of bacon or not, etc. We’re human and we’re going to have different opinions - that is a given. But any time you see BS like the deliberate deception and blatant lies in that article, the author ought to be scorned right into one of the lower circles, one fit for the lack of honesty.
This is a great takedown of the article - thank you. I know it’s infuriating to see conflations and misdirection.
But you were responding to this post of mine (below) and specifically quoted the first sentence - and then proceeded to focus on the blog post.
As you say, we’re not trying to stop the virus, just manage the burden on health care resource. So, I’ll ask it again: what do you think of those numbers?
Good post, Stuart. How you feel cannot be argued, i.e. the feelings are there no matter what. And who could blame you? I don’t know what’s going to happen, but as long as the medical systems can cope well, then I think the restrictions on people as a whole should be minimized.
I also think we all have to ‘draw the line’ somewhere. If the governments won’t emphasize this then they are doing wrong - they should be saying, in effect, “Hey - if you’re really at risk - if you’re really old or fat or diabetic or with high blood pressure or heart or lung problems, or especially much of a combination of any 2 or 3 or more of these, then you and/or your caretakers need to keep yourself safe. The gov’t cannot guarantee your complete safety.”
I’m in the U.S., the southeastern state of Georgia. It only took roughly 3 weeks of stay-at-home restrictions before people seriously started getting bummed out, and as the second month progressed it worsened. Really long, true ‘lockdowns’ - I don’t think it’s happening outside of severe dictatorships/otherwise really totalitarian states.
Points about political will and so many people’s ‘tiredness,’ etc., around the entire virus situation are well-taken, IMO. If medical services are doing well, then if it’s a gov’t balancing act there’s certainly the possibility of going “too far” with restrictions, as your situation involves. Now that we really do have a pretty good handle on who’s vulnerable, there’s no good reason to go too far. It also goes toward gov’t credibility in the future, as you mention.
(In the long run I also think the economic effects are going to be more severe and pervasive than we now know. Let gov’ts lift all restrictions right now - there is still a mountain of cascading bad effects coming.)
I think the US is action and reaction. There was an early up-and-then-back-down thing, quite pronounced, but that was centered in and around a few states. NY, NJ, CT, MA. For the rest of the country, things went slow. Lulled people into a false sense of security. Louisiana is a partial exception - it did have a somewhat severe start.
For the rest of the states, too little was done or is being done, and this allows an eventual fast compounding of virus cases. This scares people and governments, and they tighten up. There’s a lag time, but it takes effect - that’s what we’re seeing now in some of those pictures. Not much for a comparatively long time, then up and now back down in reaction. Some others are in their first real ‘up’ phase.
Overall, virus deaths in the US have been in an uptrend since the end of June/early July. Take out those four northeastern states and it’s really pretty brutal. How was this a surprise, when it was known that so much of the population had not been exposed yet?
Yesterday, for the entire US, was the most virus deaths for a good while. You have to go back into May to find a worse day. There is also increased lag time in the reporting of the numbers, with the recent change between the CDC and the Dept. of Health and Human Services getting hospital information about Covid-19.
Eventually the current upswing will end, and as things decline, the impetus for loosening up will again be there. So, then what? Probably be thinking about the coming colder weather, the same factors that cause the ‘flu season,’ etc.
It’s still too early to make conclusions.
Long term consequences in mild/severe cases due to SARS viruses:
The wear and tear on people increases. This isn’t saying right/wrong, but I am tired of wearing a mask. I do it and don’t worry about it, but it does get old. Several family members are in the medical profession, and the amount of personal protective equipment they often have to wear is rough. Just moving around in that stuff is more than I want to do.
If we get a good vaccine, I’m ready.
I agree that we don’t know long-term consequences of the virus (so death rates are clearly not the only consideration). We also don’t know long-term consequences of extended period of isolation and sterility, especially for kids.
In many arguments, the former gets a lot of weight and the second one gets barely a mention. It’s partly why I find it so refreshing to hear Anders Tegnell talk about the focus they’ve had on the larger long-term health outcomes of the Swedish population. There are clearly some things they mishandled re: nursing homes (as did NY) but their health ministry seemed to be actually focused on health rather than only on the virus.
This is a terrific post, but in the most troubling numbers, we’re still looking at fatalities measuring around (or well under) 1 per 100,000. Although I think it’s important to look also at the long-term health out comes for those who were hospitalized but didn’t die (per @Consistency’s post above) I’m trying to figure out why there’s so much panic given the current death rate. That the virus accelerated in the southern states after it hit its peak in the north is not a big surprise; unless you’re trying to completely wipe out the virus (you’ve said this isn’t the goal but others would disagree) we’re naturally going to see a peak when it really starts moving through a population.
The thing I find most maddening is that except on fringe places like this forum, there’s virtually no discussion of what makes some folks vulnerable to the virus. To me the reluctance to say “hey, we need to do something about metabolic syndrome in Americans so that they won’t be so vulnerable to COVID and any other viruses that we’ll encounter in coming years [and - you know - heart disease and diabetes]” amounts to something like genocide by omission. The recent food guidelines have us avoiding saturated fats and raising our levels of “unsaturated vegetable oils.”
Very much agree. It’s like most are too “politically correct” to speak the truth there.
Where do you get that? The first picture is Louisiana and it’s got about 94 deaths per 100,000 already.
Again, I think you’re looking at vastly different death rate numbers somehow. Aside from that, where do you see “panic”? Things are really pretty quiet now (in the US anyway). It was big news about New York for a while, and more recently Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, etc., but we’re in for the long haul now.