Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV/COVID-19)

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this how the future of society will be handled now, number of covid cases? We going into full social mode with CERB and handouts every time a small spike happens, because this virus isn't going anywhere for a long time.

Or should we adopt Sweden model and say sucks to be you, it's your time anyway?

Legit question, even I'm feeling fatigue at this point.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Or should we adopt Sweden model and say sucks to be you, it's your time anyway?

Legit question, even I'm feeling fatigue at this point.

Actions taken have barely had effects on mortality rates regardless of what protocols were followed in different countries. So it's become quite clear that damaging economies has all been for nothing. There isn't much argument left to support lockdowns and other control measures. Personally I would support a bit of money being spent to protect the elderly homes and support them while we manage this, but only if we opened everything up and tried to make a swift transition through this like Sweden did.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Or should we adopt Sweden model and say sucks to be you, it's your time anyway?

Legit question, even I'm feeling fatigue at this point.

Whats wrong with the Sweden model?
Their economy is strong, they didn't add $$Hundredsofbillions in debt, and they are being spared a second wave...

I listened to an interview with Anders Tegnell and he expressed how the only way to beat Covid was by herd immunity.

They got hammered up front, but we need to understand Covid is part of life now, its not going away, shutting down and isolating is only going to extend the pandemic because the second we remove restrictions Covid cases spike yet again and the death toll will equalize across the board.

Sweden is the only country in the EU not being hit with wave #2 of Covid... I wonder why?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...es-since-march

[nzwasp]

Even though people aren't dying from it, I would still rather not get it.

[mr2mike]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even though people aren't dying from it, I would still rather not get it.

Versus risk of economic collapse and decades of hardship and employment uncertainty?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The charts (cases) do not show the number of tests being done. Raw numbers without context are meaningless.

A more appropriate chart would be cases per test.

If 10,000 people were tested in May and 500 were positive, thats a point of reference.

If eg. 100,000 people are tested in Augtust and the numbers 'JUMP" to 1,000 cases, thats exactly what the fear-based MSM will use. THE CASES HAVE DOUBLED!!!!!! LOCK DOWN - even though the actual relational stats show a 5x overall decrease.

even that's not enough, as testing strategies have changed over time. (asymptomatic allowed then not, etc).

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

even that's not enough, as testing strategies have changed over time. (asymptomatic allowed then not, etc).

Indeed - nothing like changing your sample/outcome variables, and then claim that further restrictions are necessary because of these variables - which have not been accounted for.

Thats why the raw number of people dying is a more stable metric than the raw number of cases.

[nzwasp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Versus risk of economic collapse and decades of hardship and employment uncertainty?

well this level that we are in right now seems to be alright; unsure how much better off we would be economically if all restrictions were lifted right now.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Indeed - nothing like changing your sample/outcome variables, and then claim that further restrictions are necessary because of these variables - which have not been accounted for.

Thats why the raw number of people dying is a more stable metric than the raw number of cases.

I would agree with you if deaths was the only significant negative outcome from the disease. But it's not...and we don't know the extend to which it is not.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would agree with you if deaths was the only significant negative outcome from the disease. But it's not...and we don't know the extend to which it is not.

Agreed there is much we dont know - but what should be manifest and obvious by now is that destroying the very fabric of our society is in no way appropriate - given what we do know now and especially looking at places like South Dakota were very little was done and most restrictions were lifted in May. (they have ~200 deaths in a state of 900,000 people).

The per capita deaths in Sweden were about 2 times of their neigbouring countires - but in the end, the relative low numbers of actual people dying meant they are in a far better position as a society now going forward.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agreed there is much we dont know - but what should be manifest and obvious by now is that destroying the very fabric of our society is in no way appropriate - given what we do know now and especially looking at places like South Dakota were very little was done and most restrictions were lifted in May. (they have ~200 deaths in a state of 900,000 people).

The per capita deaths in Sweden were about 2 times of their neigbouring countires - but in the end, the relative low numbers of actual people dying meant they are in a far better position as a society now going forward.

We can't use Sweden or ND as examples. In fact, any cross-geography comparisons are suspect. Too little mitigation destroys the economy. Too much destroys the economy. We need to find the goldilocks. It's not easy.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We can't use Sweden or ND as examples. In fact, any cross-geography comparisons are suspect. Too little mitigation destroys the economy. Too much destroys the economy. We need to find the goldilocks. It's not easy.

I would make the argument that comparing Sweden to its immediate neighbours (Finland/Norway) should serve as a good point of context - comparing to Canada, less so.

However, South Dakota could very easily be used as a comparison to us as a prairie province with a similar, spread out population.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even though people aren't dying from it, I would still rather not get it.

That's up to the individual then. Reduce your risk to exposure and follow all the health guidelines that have been out for months. Beyond that I don't believe the government should be responsible for your own actions. Attending a large party in a small setting is ultimately your choice. Assume everyone you come in contact with is infected.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even though people aren't dying from it, I would still rather not get it.

Hey I'd prefer to not risk these obscure potential long term effects too. But unfortunately these control measures aren't actually helping, simply delaying the inevitable. And even if they did help, a little decreased lung function in the future will be the least of our worries when we are fighting in the street for food and water. That's the scary part about this nonsense, is that Covid is being politically weaponized for leftists to push their agenda. It's fully expected for Trudeau to announce UBI shortly, to combat the economic effects of fighting covid(isn't that rich considering the government is the direct cause of the economic outcome we are in right now). Like they're literally trying to turn us into Venezuela FFS and people are worried about catching a cold.

At the end of the day whether the government tells people who is allowed to make a living and who isn't or not, you can always still take your own precautions to align with your own personal risk tolerance.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agreed there is much we dont know - but what should be manifest and obvious by now is that destroying the very fabric of our society is in no way appropriate - given what we do know now and especially looking at places like South Dakota were very little was done and most restrictions were lifted in May. (they have ~200 deaths in a state of 900,000 people).

The per capita deaths in Sweden were about 2 times of their neigbouring countires - but in the end, the relative low numbers of actual people dying meant they are in a far better position as a society now going forward.

Tell me more about South Dakota. I was asking about Sturgis a couple pages back. It seems there is wildly conflicting reports from that event.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tell me more about South Dakota. I was asking about Sturgis a couple pages back. It seems there is wildly conflicting reports from that event.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tell me more about South Dakota. I was asking about Sturgis a couple pages back. It seems there is wildly conflicting reports from that event.

I have no specific information about Sturgis, however it was completely vilified in the mass media while large, ongoing BLM groups and gatherings were not - that should tell you what to question anyway.

Regardless, put 1/2 million people in one spot in relative close proximity and diseases (all kinds) will break out.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no specific information about Sturgis, however it was completely vilified in the mass media while large, ongoing BLM groups and gatherings were not - that should tell you what to question anyway.

Not peer reviewed and there are some question methods.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27813

TLDR, tied to 200k+ cases and potential $12B in health care cost from 1 event.

For the record, the report is done by University of San Diego and people from John Hopkins are skeptical of the findings.

[Neil4Speed]

So, at the beginning, there was no playbook, no one knew how to handle this the best, a few counties took different approaches with different levels of success....

Fast-forward 6 months since this became 'real' in North America, the epicenter of this outbreak is enjoying pool parties, packed nightclubs etc, with no new cases, no mask, and the China itself has been without cases for a month. Canada, and the rest of the world is stumbling around trying to find a way to contain this, 'the non-believers', the compliant, the fatigued (Xtrema, I think lots of people are feeling this), the desensitized...

I am sure I am oversimplifying, but why can't NA (for the areas that care), just copy paste this approach? Surely this going on for years on end is more damaging to humanity than a strict short-term lockdown and controls?

Or is it that NA can't manage a strict lockdown due to our 'liberties'?

I am just curious to hear what other people think on this...

[Disoblige]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, at the beginning, there was no playbook, no one knew how to handle this the best, a few counties took different approaches with different levels of success....

Fast-forward 6 months since this became 'real' in North America, the epicenter of this outbreak is enjoying pool parties, packed nightclubs etc, with no new cases, no mask, and the China itself has been without cases for a month. Canada, and the rest of the world is stumbling around trying to find a way to contain this, 'the non-believers', the compliant, the fatigued (Xtrema, I think lots of people are feeling this), the desensitized...

I am sure I am oversimplifying, but why can't NA (for the areas that care), just copy paste this approach? Surely this going on for years on end is more damaging to humanity than a strict short-term lockdown and controls?

Or is it that NA can't manage a strict lockdown due to our 'liberties'?

I am just curious to hear what other people think on this...

Culture is different. When you say "areas that care", there is still way too many people who need to feel like their rights aren't imposed on. Lots of actions based on anecdotal evidence, and you can see how bad that can turn out (even on Beyond by some people).