Foreigners going to Brasil please read

[Havre]

You have dodged nearly every challenge I have made to you. The underlying psychology of this is what I am interested in understanding. Can you help me with that. Or do you truly believe that "go write a paper" is a genuine response to a challenge.

You haven't made any challenges. You said something that implied a very complex situation was exceptionally simple and obvious. I asked for history and research. Here is your original statement:

"Never before have we treated a new strain of virus with a less than 5% or so mortality rate in this manner. The elderly, or sick and already dying, have never before had their comorbidity ignored in favor of one of the hundreds of viruses that would have killed them anyway. Again I ask, what has changed?"

I don't know what has changed. Based on your research in epidemiology and pandemics of the 20th century, you can answer it for all of us. Would you provide a detailed analysis with citations on what is different about this virus and why or why shouldn't we be treating it differently? Thank you. I look forward to reading it.

I'm no fan of Matteo V's rhetoric, but I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

We have completely lost all sense of proportions when it comes to Covid-19. This article is actually quite old, but still hardly discussed:

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140 ... 0/fulltext

"Estimates from the International Food Policy Research Institute suggest that because of the pandemic an additional 140 million people will be thrown into living in extreme poverty"

Obviously there would have been an hit to the economy whatever way we reacted to this, but now that we know this virus us not especially dangerous we still keep on pretending it is with complete disregard to the "side-effects" - and there is no way the hit would have been as hard overall if we just had let it run.

[pākihiroa]

but now that we know this virus us not especially dangerous

That statement deserves to be challenged. On what basis do you make it ?

[revhed]

...

Great to hear you made it through and I hope your lungs make some kind of recovery. As you have said the mortality is only part of the story with COVID19, it can cause extensive damage to the body and ontop of that there are the unknown long term consequences. There is no way i want to get this and I have already made the decision that if my employer asks me to do things that I consider high risk I will quit my job. Health is much more important than money.

I really was worried about the lungs, and heart as well ; but i bin
doing some light-weight hiking trails , up several hundred feet, and
i think recovery is gonna be was less time than i originally thought.
The first day was Really bad --- thought my lungs were gonna explode
and i had only gone 100-ft up a trail several hundred ft high hill ; slowed
way down and made it to the top , with the lungs not complaining too much.
No blood came up, when i forced a cough !!

I'm Hoping the EKG i take in the near future ; it will be not so bad
results as well ? If not, then my flying days will be over for a while.
I've measured well over 160 beats/min in the past while flying HG in
close quarters to earth ; so if the heart ain't up to par, i won't push
it .

One thing i know for absolutely Sure ; it's going to take a LOT, to
get me out of this awesome mood i bin in, since that corona bug
got evicted from my body !!!

Bille

glad u r better!
Latest news from Geneve hospital doing covid 19 rehab, seems lungs are slowly repairing damage with exercise.
Good news as I know 3 who are in this now.
This shit is so real, so to all the non mask users, hand washers with alcohol, and lack of social distance I say fuck your lack of respect!
R H

[Havre]

but now that we know this virus us not especially dangerous

That statement deserves to be challenged. On what basis do you make it ?

Since the 15th of May there have been 3180 positive tests in Norway (actually slightly more now) and only 18 people have required intensive care in hospitals. That is 0.57% of the positive tests require intensive care - not the same as them dying.

Average age of people dying is above 80. In countries we got good statistics on "underlying conditions" about 95% of the people dying had one or more. So how do we even know what the patient died from? Not unreasonable to say most people died WITH Covid-19 rather than FROM/OF.

Since mid-May 32 people have died with/from Covid-19 in Norway. Around 110 people die in Norway every single day. So since May we have had around 1/3 of a days worth of death that were connected to Covid-19.

Yes. We had people dying earlier. Not suggesting that isn't sad - obviously it is. But now we are on our way to kill a lot more through our over-reaction to the risks of Covid-19. There are some risks, but they are very very very small.

[Blackened]

I'm no fan of Matteo V's rhetoric, but I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

I want people to actually look up things before saying very strong statements without solid factual support. I suspect he got it off Ben Shapiro and thought it sounded smart.

I myself am guilty of it at times. Even in the instance of Covid19, my impression back in March was that it was just a particularly contagious flu, similar to the 1920 outbreak. I was extremely vexed when I became unemployed and wasn't allowed to kite. I also thought it might be a way to reduce pension debt many economies face.

After doing a bit of research on it myself, I realised we know extremely little about the problem at hand or the wider effects it would have. We didn't have much study information on the virus. Countries simply did not know what they were dealing with. To be honest, it's a large struggle with every outbreak, even years afterward to fully determine to full impact. And, even in hindsight, some of it is based off varied data modelling. The modelling for Covid19 was excessively varied in all aspects at the start, so under best case scenario, it was only about 5x more deadly than the average flu (so .1% flu to .5% c19). Under worst case it was well over 10% mortality rate. We also didn't know the R0 factor, the incubation period, the asymptomatic cases, survive-ability, etc. Basically, we knew very little and the models varied dramatically from no problem to everyone is going to die. There were few places with actual pandemic plans and few places equipped to deal with the potential medical emergency. ...And I've half done Matteo's assignment for him.

There are also an exceptionally large amount of other unknown factors. The main one constantly mentioned is the economic impact. What happens if Covid19 turns out to be as bad as predicted? How do people react? (panic, riot, or all the other very unhelpful things people generally do when they don't understand what is happening - i.e. toilet paper shortages) What does an economy in paralyzing fear do? How much do masses of dead people affect economies? Because of this, I completely disagree with your assertion that if we had let it run the economic impact would be less. Sweden was held as the golden example for open economy, but it still tanked. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy. In short, we still don't know what we don't know. We won't know for many years until it's thoroughly studied. I don't know what the right way of doing things is with so many unknowns. However, two things are fairly clear: The way the world has done it didn't work and the countries that did shut down early seem to be faring much better.

You are right though - some of the problem comes from news focusing on the worst case scenario. People then start dismissing it as hype and "scientists don't know what they're doing." A good example is anti-vaxxers. There haven't been many measles deaths in a couple decades, then someone reads online there is mercury in vaccines that can cause autism. The threat is measles is very overblown and vaccines aren't necessary anymore. Queue outbreak.

[Havre]

I'm no fan of Matteo V's rhetoric, but I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

I want people to actually look up things before saying very strong statements without solid factual support. I suspect he got it off Ben Shapiro and thought it sounded smart.

I myself am guilty of it at times. Even in the instance of Covid19, my impression back in March was that it was just a particularly contagious flu, similar to the 1920 outbreak. I was extremely vexed when I became unemployed and wasn't allowed to kite. I also thought it might be a way to reduce pension debt many economies face.

After doing a bit of research on it myself, I realised we know extremely little about the problem at hand or the wider effects it would have. We didn't have much study information on the virus. Countries simply did not know what they were dealing with. To be honest, it's a large struggle with every outbreak, even years afterward to fully determine to full impact. And, even in hindsight, some of it is based off varied data modelling. The modelling for Covid19 was excessively varied in all aspects at the start, so under best case scenario, it was only about 5x more deadly than the average flu (so .1% flu to .5% c19). Under worst case it was well over 10% mortality rate. We also didn't know the R0 factor, the incubation period, the asymptomatic cases, survive-ability, etc. Basically, we knew very little and the models varied dramatically from no problem to everyone is going to die. There were few places with actual pandemic plans and few places equipped to deal with the potential medical emergency. ...And I've half done Matteo's assignment for him.

There are also an exceptionally large amount of other unknown factors. The main one constantly mentioned is the economic impact. What happens if Covid19 turns out to be as bad as predicted? How do people react? (panic, riot, or all the other very unhelpful things people generally do when they don't understand what is happening - i.e. toilet paper shortages) What does an economy in paralyzing fear do? How much do masses of dead people affect economies? Because of this, I completely disagree with your assertion that if we had let it run the economic impact would be less. Sweden was held as the golden example for open economy, but it still tanked. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy. In short, we still don't know what we don't know. We won't know for many years until it's thoroughly studied. I don't know what the right way of doing things is with so many unknowns. However, two things are fairly clear: The way the world has done it didn't work and the countries that did shut down early seem to be faring much better.

You are right though - some of the problem comes from news focusing on the worst case scenario. People then start dismissing it as hype and "scientists don't know what they're doing." A good example is anti-vaxxers. There haven't been many measles deaths in a couple decades, then someone reads online there is mercury in vaccines that can cause autism. The threat is measles is very overblown and vaccines aren't necessary anymore. Queue outbreak.

I had no issues with restrictions that came in March for the reasons you list. I have huge issues with them now.

As for economic impact you cannot use Sweden as an example in such a way. Sweden is extremely export dependent so whatever consequences the economy is suffering that is probably more related to what the rest of the world are doing than what Sweden are.

Time will tell, but I have seen no evidence that show that countries locking down more severely have had less spread than countries that have kept open. If that is the case then all the economic suffering has been for nothing. I would challenge anyone that believe in the restrictions working to find data that support that claim.

[Mossy 757]

I have seen no evidence that show that countries locking down more severely have had less spread than countries that have kept open.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+that+sho ... +kept+open


3rd link down on the page:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli ... X/fulltext

"These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes."

So what I did there was directly copy your exact post quote into Google then I read what it said and found a scholarly article that directly rebuts the claim you're making.

Does that change your mind, or at least give you pause?

[Bille]

...
glad u r better!
Latest news from Geneve hospital doing covid 19 rehab, seems lungs are slowly repairing damage with exercise.
...

That makes me feel Great !! ---

Lungs hurt Less , every time i exercise , hard enough to
increase respiration ; so what ya said, appears to be true !

Bille

[Havre]

I have seen no evidence that show that countries locking down more severely have had less spread than countries that have kept open.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+that+sho ... +kept+open


3rd link down on the page:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli ... X/fulltext

"These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes."

So what I did there was directly copy your exact post quote into Google then I read what it said and found a scholarly article that directly rebuts the claim you're making.

Does that change your mind, or at least give you pause?

Are you an idiot in real life as well or is it just some internet persona thing?

So the best you could come up with was something that "suggest" and "may" be associated with less transmission? That is some strong evidence I tell you.

As I said. Time will tell. I have not said it doesn't work, but maybe there is one article suggesting that it may not have much to say as well?

Sweden deaths per million from January to June last 30 years. Really nothing special with 2020 - other than the very low rate for 2019. Maybe some of those that normally would have died in 2019 died in 2020?



Classic example of data from countries that have opened up.



If you want to continue being afraid I suggest buying a kite from 2005.

[knotwindy]

@ Havre
If you keep posting things like that people will get mad because they will now have to find something else to be scared about. It can get exhausting just trying to find the next manufactured issue.