FACT vs OPINION

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The numbers being presented by the CDC, WHO and other official sources, don't provide any nuance. They give the total number and for the most part, if you had Covid, you get listed as a Covid death even if it really had no impact on why you died.

That's BS. Mythology from back in the spring that lives forever in the covid-skeptic echo-chambers.

People can live for months and years with many co-morbidities. If one catches covid and dies, and they wouldn't have necessarily died if they didn't catch covid, that's a covid death.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Singularity

... When it becomes normative to accept (for one reason or another) a "Vietnam war population loss of working-age people" in order to keep restaurants open (insofar as people in the first can cook at home) this suggests to some that our values system as a country is fundamentally changing from times past (water in the frog's pan is getting hotter). But when so many of us rely on such work to make ends meet, what can we do.

Actually, much worse than that. More like WW II (maybe worse, by the time we're done).


US Covid-19 Deaths (9 months, March 2 - December 2, 2020) 277,026 Deaths
➥ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

America’s Wars ~ US Dept. Of Veterans Affairs
World War II (4 years, 1941 –1945) 291,557 Battle Deaths
Vietnam War (11 years, 1964-1975): 47,434 Battle Deaths
America’s Wars Total(216 years, 1775 -1991): 651,031 Battle Deaths
➥ https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/...ricas_wars.pdf

U.S. coronavirus deaths now surpass fatalities in the Vietnam War
See how the COVID-19 death toll compares to the number of Americans killed in past conflicts. PUBLISHED April 28, 2020 (2 months)
➥ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...etnam-war-cvd/

[dwedeking2]

Not singling you out but you express many of the other sides of the argument well.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This idea that "it's not worth it to me or my clients, so I'm not going to comply"... There seems to be no understanding or acceptance of how COVID-19 spreads, and no willingness to share the effort to beat it down

It's not disregard of the threat, but rather a calculated risk (meaning you look at the chance of bad things happening vs the cost in resources/stability/loss other than life in the response). This disease is highly skewed towards the very old and those with health issues especially obesity. There is a large chunk of the population (I'm going to say without a citation that this demographic is larger than the over 65 crowd) that is living paycheck to paycheck to just stay afloat. I'll even give you the argument that a large percentage of those are there because of bad life choices. But that is no different than those that have put themselves at risk with this disease by making bad life choices that have led to obesity and health issues. Are the poors' lives worth less? (I know your argument is that society can step in to help those financially but the truth is that it won't. It's chosen to prop up the finances of those with 401ks and wall street).

Maybe this is a bigger issue in the US because there's less tradition or expectation that the government would (or should) step in or grant sufficient aid to make sure the burden of suppressing the pandemic is shared... hence the greater unwillingness to accept personal or business pain by complying, while other people/businesses do not.

I think this is given. It's not a majority (American's love their regulations and government cheese just like others) but there is a larger population that doesn't want the government involved in EVERY portion of their lives vs other cultures, and it's a vocal opposition to the "just go along crowd". The government doesn't help itself when it doesn't give consistent guidance. "masks work", "masks don't work", "masks will help", "you'll die without a mask" messaging destroyed their authority voice.

The 2nd-wave lockdown thing has now hit my town too. Even I think the total lockdown of most "non-essential" businesses (especially small ones), while big-box stores like Wallymart can stay open because they have food sections, is unfair and not that effective, and I've lent my voice to efforts to permit a limited opening of small businesses, many of whom depend on Christmas business every year to survive. But in Canada we still seem to accept the collective responsibility to act, and compliance is still pretty high.

So Wall Street can make their millions putting while putting everyone to risk, but a waitress making $24k a year needs to be put on the street. (I think we agree on this part). With the first lock down I read through our local "essential business" list. It was a joke.

It's currently on track to be a 400+k 'blip' in the US by spring. I still cannot get my head around the fact that most Americans aren't that bothered by the mounting toll. It's just olds and sickies, amirite?

When I first start researching this in January I was amazed at what the death rate was in the US (and the world) on a yearly and daily basis. In 2019 we had approx 250k deaths in the country each month. In March 2020 this spiked to 300k. We also had 300k deaths in Jan 2020 (probably spiked due to an earlier-than-orginally-thought-arrival of Covid), But there was no outcry in January and most people didn't even know. This is a 20% increase (not good for sure but not a extinction event either), and my opinion is that some of these deaths were "pulled forward" and a balancing shrinkage in the death rate for 2021 will lower that percentage when looked at long term.



https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/p...nal-tables.htm

But when so many of us rely on such work to make ends meet, what can we do.

Unfortunately our current economy has a large demographic that relies on these service jobs and have very little safety net built in. Their discretionary income per month is less than most on this board are using to make their car payments.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Agreed, those saying who cares if Grandma dies are wrong.
Likewise, those countering with "Grandma Killer!!!" when you try to discuss it logically are equally wrong.

The hyperbolic accusation of "Grandma Killer!" is wrong.
The sentiment that "who cares if Grandma dies" isn't even wrong (it's wronger than wrong), in the Pauli sense.
"That is not only not right; it is not even wrong” ~ Wolfgang Pauli

See also Asimov's axiom: Wronger than wrong is a statement that equates two errors, when one of the errors is clearly more wrong than the other.

[Jason Flare]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[dwedeking2]

Thanks dwedeking2. It's obviously your (and your store owner's) choice to make. As far as my 30-second Net-research shows, Florida allows restaurants to operate, and doesn't demand that masks be worn while at the table. Maybe your local ordinance is different?

There is a huge divide in Key West right now. There are the businesses here that serve the tourist industry (the only real industry in the area) vs the retiree/trust funders. The city has taken a far stronger approach to a mask mandate, threatening shut downs, threatening curfews etc than the state is taking (there is debate on whether this is legal or not).


In my opinion the largest argument/point of contention is making health recommendations into "forced mandates".

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

...In my opinion the largest argument/point of contention is making health recommendations into "forced mandates".

Like seatbelts? Liquor laws? Drug laws? Boating requirements of many sorts? Heck, stop signs?

Our societies are chock-a-block full of forced mandates based on health and safety. The principle is well accepted. But you are absolutely right to question the application in this case. I'm aware of a number of jurisdictions which have explicitly stated (hopefully based on good data) that restaurants aren't a significant source of spread. A couple of Canadian provinces have locked down, but left restaurants open (with restrictions).

As I said, it appears restaurants are allowed to operate in your area -- am I wrong? Masks are to be worn when not seated. I don't see that as a big ask, but if that's your red line, then the courts are always willing to hear the case.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... A couple of Canadian provinces have locked down, but left restaurants open (with restrictions)...

Using cellphone data from 1 in 3 Americans (98 million people’s hourly movements), researchers have identified the indoor public places most responsible (superspreader venues) for the spread of Covid-19 in the spring, and they argue that sharply limiting the occupancy of these locales (chiefly restaurants, gyms, cafes, hotels, and houses of worship) could control the raging pandemic without resorting to lockdowns.

Their analysis explains how disparities in risk contribute to the disproportionate disease burden borne by people of color who have been less able than higher-income white people to work remotely and who tend to visit grocery stores and other places that tend to be smaller and more crowded than those in white neighborhoods.

In Chicago, for example, 10% of the places people visited accounted for 85% of the predicted infections. Full-service restaurants, fitness centers, and places of worship had the highest overall risk for disease transmission, but that varied depending on the neighborhood. Across the 10 cities, snack bars and cafes were visited more often by people in high-income neighborhoods, but risk of disease transmission was higher in these businesses located in lower-income neighborhoods.

The study’s model predicts that setting an occupancy ceiling of 20% of maximum capacity for all these public spaces could cut new infections by more than 80% while reducing the overall number of visits by 42%.

“Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening” ~ by Serina Chang et al [Published: 10 November 2020]
“... Certain categories of points of interest (POIs) also contributed far more to infections (for example, full-service restaurants and hotels), although our model predicted time-dependent variation in how much each category contributed (Extended Data Fig. 2). For example, restaurants and fitness centres contributed less to the predicted number of infections over time, probably because of lockdown orders to close these POIs, whereas grocery stores remained steady or even grew in their contribution, which is in agreement with their status as essential businesses ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Like seatbelts? Liquor laws? Drug laws? Boating requirements of many sorts? Heck, stop signs?

Our societies are chock-a-block full of forced mandates based on health and safety. The principle is well accepted. But you are absolutely right to question the application in this case. I'm aware of a number of jurisdictions which have explicitly stated (hopefully based on good data) that restaurants aren't a significant source of spread. A couple of Canadian provinces have locked down, but left restaurants open (with restrictions).

As I said, it appears restaurants are allowed to operate in your area -- am I wrong? Masks are to be worn when not seated. I don't see that as a big ask, but if that's your red line, then the courts are always willing to hear the case.

Mike, I'm an extreme libertarian so my redline was way before the seat belt laws lol.



I was just giving input on your comment that some people would be locked out of a society without a vaccine. While large corporations have very similar policies and rules, as long as independent businesses are allowed to operate there will be ways around.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Actually, much worse than that. More like WW II (maybe worse, by the time we're done.........

No dispute. Just that sometimes a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down (perhaps better than a teaspoon of high fructose corn syrup).

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Using cellphone data from 1 in 3 Americans (98 million people’s hourly movements), researchers have identified the indoor public places most responsible (superspreader venues) for the spread of Covid-19 in the spring, and they argue that sharply limiting the occupancy of these locales (chiefly restaurants, gyms, cafes, hotels, and houses of worship) could control the raging pandemic without resorting to lockdowns.

I should have added, that in BC at least, restaurants are limited in many ways. I don't think they have specific percentage, but demand 2 m distance between tables. And people must be masked if not at their table.

In Alberta I think they've just limited capacity to 25%.

Both provinces claim that this is based on their own data regarding spread. I don't have the bandwidth to confirm this. Maybe you do Gord?

If we can identify where the spread is happening, I'm all for taking strong, but targeted measures, while allowing other places to operate. There is a real cost to all these lockdowns. People are being harmed. If we can reduce this collateral damage, while still achieving public health measures, then we're all better for it.

[Jason Flare]

Show of hands.

Who here has agreed with the assertion that this planet has too many people?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

Mike, I'm an extreme libertarian so my redline was way before the seat belt laws lol.

I'm actually with you ... except my line is: if it only affects the individual, then that person should be able to do whatever they want. Problem is, traffic accidents rarely only affect the individual. Much of the cost is still borne by society.

This is why I say, if you want to live by your own rules, you gotta move to a desert island. As long as you live with others, there will always be compromises. This is why a libertarian country can never exist .

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I was just giving input on your comment that some people would be locked out of a society without a vaccine. While large corporations have very similar policies and rules, as long as independent businesses are allowed to operate there will be ways around.

Perhaps in niche markets, but I don't think the basic economics that drive these decisions are going to be any different from big to small. As I said, it's hard to run a business if your customers and staff keep getting sick.

This is the problem with those who want to put the economy ahead of getting the pandemic under control. If we don't get it under control, there won't be an economy -- at least not one operating in the way it does today.

A good example: If a restaurant gets a reputation for being dirty, and serving tainted food that makes their customers sick, how long do you think that place will stay in business? Customers vote with their feet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

It's not disregard of the threat, but rather a calculated risk (meaning you look at the chance of bad things happening vs the cost in resources/stability/loss other than life in the response). This disease is highly skewed towards the very old and those with health issues especially obesity. There is a large chunk of the population (I'm going to say without a citation that this demographic is larger than the over 65 crowd) that is living paycheck to paycheck to just stay afloat. I'll even give you the argument that a large percentage of those are there because of bad life choices. But that is no different than those that have put themselves at risk with this disease by making bad life choices that have led to obesity and health issues. Are the poors' lives worth less? (I know your argument is that society can step in to help those financially but the truth is that it won't. It's chosen to prop up the finances of those with 401ks and wall street).

This is of course a choice - of an individual, and also a society, if there's a significant number of you. At least you recognize it as such, as opposed to those who try to deflect reality with excuses.

All I'd say in response is that whether precautions like lockdowns are enacted or not (and to varying degrees), there will be significant economic damage from this pandemic. Many of the working poor and precarious others WILL be economically knocked over. Even without the pandemic, the expected correction would have also harmed many... and in general we in the west are running out of good jobs. So... sooner or later, those on the lowest rung will have to be helped up. History tells us that being proactive with this sort of systemic problem costs less overall than ignoring/waiting til the problem is too big to ignore.

I also think that economic harm wouldn't result in as many deaths, because there are ways to pick those people back up, and time to do it, whereas there's no coming back from death or long-term health damage from COVID.

It's not a majority (American's love their regulations and government cheese just like others) but there is a larger population that doesn't want the government involved in EVERY portion of their lives vs other cultures, and it's a vocal opposition to the "just go along crowd". The government doesn't help itself when it doesn't give consistent guidance. "masks work", "masks don't work", "masks will help", "you'll die without a mask" messaging destroyed their authority voice.

I think that on messaging, we both know who the main culprit was there. But yes, cultural differences.

Still, I know that if my anchored boat started drifting toward shore, it would very likely be an American leading the group who comes to help me secure her. It's sad to think that this doesn't scale up, when it comes to the pandemic.

So Wall Street can make their millions putting while putting everyone to risk, but a waitress making $24k a year needs to be put on the street. (I think we agree on this part)

Yup. See above.

my opinion is that some of these deaths were "pulled forward" and a balancing shrinkage in the death rate for 2021 will lower that percentage when looked at long term.

Another way some have tried to put that is that, hey, the US would have lost approx 60k/yr of the same frail people to flu anyway. That argument has less traction when the current total of US COVID deaths is over 4x that.

I suspect that 2021 will be equal to, or slightly above the usual annual death rate, because of all the expected COVID deaths in early 2021 from the current surge, and until vaccinations begin to reduce new infections.

When we look back, I expect that we will see ~ 400k US deaths above the usual levels for the period, between Mar 2020 and June 2021. And honest hindsight will confirm that most of them could have been prevented with faster/better action.

Just my opinions, obviously.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.........
I really can't see the USA forcing anyone to take the vaccine. ........

That would not be the American way. First we get to be brainwashed with propaganda. Then we get to choose. There was a brief blip in the system though. Social media wasn't getting censored for toxic content. In 2020 the problem was solved. They have also solved the pesky problem of people getting together in person to discuss anything.

Nowadays it is completely taboo to show your face in public. Sound familiar?

Agenda(s) 2020/2030 announce some lofty goals for the near future. The superpowers responsible for the woes of the world are going to try to transform it all in ten years. If people need to die in order to enact more top down control, guess what?

Comparing WW2 casualty numbers in todays world needs to be adjusted for the almost 4x population growth.

While we are absorbed in our COVID trance, the real problems of the world get worse. Bombs keep dropping. Rain forest keeps burning. Clean water gets scarcer. The poor get poorer. At least we have solved population growth (the birth rate is almost down to replacement levels). Now that we have planetary surveillance we can get to work and let science solve the problems.
Make sure the poor don't have access to fertile land, food can be made in factories. Make sure populations don't have access to un biased information. They can be told what to think.

The old ways of controlling the world no longer work. Now we have cell phones. The entire world has them, even starving people (they get a better rate). Someone has to guard the henhouse. Looks like it will be the fox.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...veloping_World