dada » Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:45 pm wrote:Say that the coming highly infectious superstrain of rabies was spreading right now. Those that catch it lierally behave like brain-eating zombies.
But this is not the case. Not even close, not by a longshot. So any content beyond the quoted hypothetical isn't worthy of consideration.
What we ARE actually experiencing right now, collectively, are: lives, livelihoods, jobs and businesses -- almost exclusively targeting working classes and the poor, which by extension, involves many in minority communities -- being devastated due to LOCKDOWN measures for a virus with a high survival rate
There simply is no justification for it. A more balanced approach, especially now that we have a far better sense of what this virus is, and what it ISN'T, could/should have been implemented.
I guess that I will belabor the point, afterall. The demons of despair that cause the suicidal individual to give up the ghost did not suddenly appear this year. Reconfiguring our current cultural disfiguration would go a long way toward helping those contemplating suicide to overcome the despair demons. Give them a reason to live, instead of letting them drown in the spectacle of superficiality.
That way when something like this happens, or worse, the feelings of isolation that some might wrestle with will not be the straw that breaks them.
Not an easy task, certainly. Much easier to ignore the roots of the problem, and blame the straw.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
dada » 11 Dec 2020 13:33 wrote:I guess that I will belabor the point, afterall. The demons of despair that cause the suicidal individual to give up the ghost did not suddenly appear this year. Reconfiguring our current cultural disfiguration would go a long way toward helping those contemplating suicide to overcome the despair demons. Give them a reason to live, instead of letting them drown in the spectacle of superficiality.
That way when something like this happens, or worse, the feelings of isolation that some might wrestle with will not be the straw that breaks them.
Not an easy task, certainly. Much easier to ignore the roots of the problem, and blame the straw.
If you are referring to Jeff's tweet...
Yeah, I agree - its a fair chance something might have tipped that kid over the edge soon enough anyway even without COVID. But there is a very old saying in the US "Its morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money." Or wtte. It seems from the outside that US culture is one of predatory brutality toward the weak. If that changes it may be a different country. Not necessarily a bad thing but its not an easy thing either.
BTW That comment about leadership was really an afterthought and had nothing to do with the point you were making. It wouldn't matter a bit which leader was in power, what you are talking about is the US as a nation opening its heart or its heart chakra...
Yes, I was referring to Jeff's tweet, or rather the conversation that began with it.
Specifically, I was elaborating on what I meant by my example of the next pandemic, the rabies superstrain of the future. It was a way of bringing out the point that pandemics and the responses to them are not the primary causes of "excess" or "indirect" deaths.
Where do I start, though. Probably everywhere at once.
So, first I need to actually be everywhere at once. Not as easy as it sounds.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
dada » Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:33 pm wrote:...The demons of despair that cause the suicidal individual to give up the ghost did not suddenly appear this year. Reconfiguring our current cultural disfiguration would go a long way toward helping those contemplating suicide to overcome the despair demons. Give them a reason to live, instead of letting them drown in the spectacle of superficiality.
That way when something like this happens, or worse, the feelings of isolation that some might wrestle with will not be the straw that breaks them.
Not an easy task, certainly. Much easier to ignore the roots of the problem, and blame the straw.
No disagreement with the above, though I think it's a presumption to suggest Jeff Wells hasn't factored/considered all this as well. There's nothing in the tweet in question that indicates otherwise. Taking one's life is rarely, if ever, a consequence of a single event or circumstance. It's generally an aggregate of ills. This doesn't take away from the role lockdowns play in exacerbating/enhancing deleterious mental health tendencies, however. First, do no harm -- right?
With respect to this:
Give them a reason to live, instead of letting them drown in the spectacle of superficiality.
Indeed. Unfortunately those with the most resources and influence, demonstrably, appear to be aiming for the converse: emphasis on superficiality and consumerism at the expense of well-being.
dada » Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:45 pm wrote:Say that the coming highly infectious superstrain of rabies was spreading right now. Those that catch it lierally behave like brain-eating zombies.
But this is not the case. Not even close, not by a longshot. So any content beyond the quoted hypothetical isn't worthy of consideration.
What we ARE actually experiencing right now, collectively, are: lives, livelihoods, jobs and businesses -- almost exclusively targeting working classes and the poor, which by extension, involves many in minority communities -- being devastated due to LOCKDOWN measures for a virus with a high survival rate
There simply is no justification for it. A more balanced approach, especially now that we have a far better sense of what this virus is, and what it ISN'T, could/should have been implemented.
How?
The question of "How" has been explored in this thread and others going back months, so much of what I may convey here, now, will be largely redundant. That aside, before we get to How, we can first start with inquiring about the efficacy of current measures: are lockdowns markedly reducing death tallies? Are lockdowns improving circumstances for the majority? The answer is NO on both counts, particularly in areas where a fair amount of the populace are working class/poor.
This link was shared earlier, but I'm going to re-paste certain excerpts, as it focuses on the impact quarantine/lockdowns have on the younger age groups, those least effected by this virus:
Quarantine May Negatively Affect Kids’ Immune Systems By Donna L. Farber and Thomas Connors Dr. Farber is a professor of immunology and surgery at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, where Dr. Connors is an assistant professor of pediatrics.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the largest immunological experiment in history on our own children. We have been keeping children inside, relentlessly sanitizing their living spaces and their hands and largely isolating them. In doing so, we have prevented large numbers of them from becoming infected or transmitting the virus. But in the course of social distancing to mitigate the spread, we may also be unintentionally inhibiting the proper development of children’s immune systems.
Most children are born with a functioning immune system with the capacity to respond to diverse types of foreign substances, called antigens, encountered through exposure to microorganisms, food and the environment. The eradication of harmful pathogens, establishment of protective immunity and proper immune regulation depends on the immune cells known as T lymphocytes. With each new infection, pathogen-specific T cells multiply and orchestrate the clearance of the infectious organism from the body, after which some persist as memory T cells with enhanced immune functions.
Over time, children develop increasing numbers and types of memory T cells, which remain throughout the body as a record of past exposures and stand ready to provide lifelong protection. For other antigen exposures that are not infectious or dangerous, a type of healthy stalemate can result, called immune tolerance. Immunological memory and tolerance learned during childhood serves as the basis for immunity and health throughout adulthood.
Memory T cells begin to form during the first years of life and accumulate during childhood. However, for memory T cells to become functionally mature, multiple exposures may be necessary, particularly for cells residing in tissues such as the lung and intestines, where we encounter numerous pathogens. These exposures typically and naturally occur during the everyday experiences of childhood — such as interactions with friends, teachers, trips to the playground, sports — all of which have been curtailed or shut down entirely during efforts to mitigate viral spread. As a result, we are altering the frequency, breadth and degree of exposures that are crucial for immune memory development.
While the immune system is influenced by multiple factors, including genetics and everyday exposures to family members and pets, the long term effects of removing the social system that brings children in contact with other people, places and things remains uncharted territory. However, there is now substantial evidence that antigen exposure during the formative period of childhood is important not only for protection but also for reducing the incidence of allergies, asthma and inflammatory diseases. A well-known theory, called the “hygiene hypothesis,” proposes that the increased incidence of allergies and other immune disorders involving inappropriate immune reactions across industrialized societies is a result of the move away from agrarian society toward a highly sanitized urban setting.
Failing to train our immune systems properly can have serious consequences. When laboratory mice raised in nearly sterile conditions were housed together in the same cage with pet mice raised in standard conditions, some of the laboratory mice succumbed to pathogens that the pet mice were able to fight off. Additional studies of the microbiome — the bacteria that normally inhabit our intestines and other sites — have shown that mice raised in germ-free conditions or in the presence of antibiotics had reduced and altered immune responses to many types of pathogens. These studies suggest that for establishing a healthy immune system, the more diverse and frequent the encounters with antigens, the better. ... the longer we need to socially distance our children in the midst of uncontrolled viral spread, the greater the possibility that their immune systems will miss learning important immunological lessons (what’s harmful, what’s not) that we usually acquire during childhood.
There is already well-justified concern about the impact of prolonged virtual learning on social and intellectual development, especially for elementary and middle-school-age children. The sooner we can safely restore the normal experiences of childhood, interacting with other children and — paradoxically — with pathogens and diverse microorganisms, the better we can ensure their ability to thrive as adults in this changing world.
Earlier I included content from an article that referenced the following:
Donald A. Henderson, who as head of the World Health Organization is given primary credit for the eradication of smallpox. He wrote as follows in 2006:
Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.
I also previously shared this a couple pages or so back:
In the debate over coronavirus policy, there has been far too little focus on the costs of lockdowns. It’s very common for the proponents of these interventions to write articles and large studies without even mentioning the downsides.
Here is a brief look at the cost of stringencies in the United States, and around the world, including stay-at-home orders, closings of business and schools, restrictions on gatherings, shutting of arts and sports, restrictions on medical services, and interventions in the freedom of movement.
[more chart data info at link]
There is no easy answer as far as "how", but clearly, excessive lockdown measures are NOT working.
Irish Scientists and Doctors Inveigh Against Lockdowns
A team of Irish medical and public health professionals recently published a White Paper entitled “COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing,” calling for an “evidence-based” approach to pandemic management. In the paper, the team provides a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and scrutinizes their overall efficacy while citing extensive supporting research. They find excessive costs associated with lockdowns compared to their intended benefits. The paper’s findings suggest that a second set of lockdown measures will be even more detrimental, especially given their hypothesis that the virus is transitioning from its initial epidemic stage to endemic stage.
The paper shows that testing and lockdown strategies are ineffective in lowering Covid-19 deaths. PCR tests are not reliable and tend to overestimate the number of people sick with Covid-19, which misinforms policy decisions. The 2020 mortality and virus-related hospitalization rates also do not deviate drastically from previous years, suggesting Covid-19 did not create a significant increase in mortality. In addition, they demonstrate that there is no correlation between lower mortality and more stringent lockdowns.
Although the authors suggest the idea of “Flatten the Curve” might have been a suitable strategy at first for the purpose of not overwhelming hospitals, they find that there are significant unintended consequences of lockdowns, especially regarding public health. The majority of Covid-19 deaths occur in people close to life expectancy, while lockdown-induced deaths occur in young people far from life expectancy, resulting in a high number of total life years lost. The authors cite various studies showing that children, adolescents, women, individuals with young children, and at-risk individuals are experiencing diminished mental health. They also report that cancer and cardiovascular deaths are increasing due to lockdowns because less people are receiving necessary screenings or going to hospitals.
In its conclusion, the White Paper recommends four overarching strategies consistent with the 2019 WHO and Irish pandemic guidelines, including the removal of lockdowns and a focused protection of the vulnerable. Overall, this paper is an impressive study on lockdowns and presents a mountain of evidence that demonstrates lockdowns are not only ineffective but harmful to people and must be stopped to maintain a healthy society.
Another question to ask: are current -- excessively restrictive -- measures being implemented with intent to help lessen large-scale damage, or to hasten it? How have those in the upper reaches of power/influence acted, historically, towards their respective populace (not to mention populations outside their respective territories)?
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The conclusion section of the white paper authored by Irish doctors/scientists (“COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing,”) referenced in my prior reply.
Given the evidence captured in the sections above, we wish to assist in the design of an evidence- based path forward. Much of our strategy is consistent with the 2019 Irish and WHO pandemic management guidelines.
Several essential strategies that should be considered and are advocated by our group include:
1. Removal of hard lockdown policy as a mitigation measure
a. Focus on established, time-honoured pre-2020 epidemic management evidence- based principles (WHO, 2019 etc.)
b. A functioning society is a healthy society – we consider lockdown to be dysfunctional and cyclical in nature with potential to render repeated harm on our society in the absence of a credible alternative approach. Reliance on lockdown strategy until such time as a vaccine is fully implemented and effective,would be unsustainable and an error, in our view.
c. Implement an updated epidemic/pandemic action plan that is Ireland-focused, and can be used to address any such emergency in the future. The existing Ireland Pandemic Management Plan of 2019 could act as a ready-made template for such a reworked plan.
d. Serious consideration of safe, workable and reasonable proposals for the reopening of our education; hospitality; travel; tourism; sports and recreation sectors.
e. Commensurate consideration of the mental and physical health impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures so far, and strategies for their management.
2. Begin “intensive and focused protection of the vulnerable”:
a. Bring clarity on the use of PCR testing: policy around high Ct values and “weak positives”, repeat testing with or without rapid antigen tests, alignment of policy on PCR testing kits used nationally; clinical interpretation of all cases using Ct values; use of Ct values in identifying priority cases in the contact tracing system.
b. Focus our testing resources - ideally rapid antigen (saliva sample) for workers engaged with high-risk groups - especially high-risk settings such as nursing homes, hospices etc. Introduce antigen testing pre-departure for passengers at airports and on arrival where deemed appropriate.
c. We support the view that face coverings have a role where the general population cannot effectively apply social distancing requirements. This should apply to both indoor and outdoor situations (spectator sports; cultural etc.) in an effort to protect vulnerable populations until such time as the virus is under control.
d. Government sponsored recruitment initiatives for at-risk work places such as nursing homes, with subsidies for wages and improved terms of employment (sick pay; rent allowances etc.)
e. Regular testing (preferably antigen based) for workers in at-risk work places and carers of the vulnerable in the home.
3. Restoration of a functional health service
a. Restoration of cancer screening and diagnostic services to pre-2020 levels
b. Restoration of other key elective medical services such as cardiac screening services, orthopaedic joint replacement surgery and cataract surgery
c. Policy for management of preventable lifestyle conditions that pre dispose to significant COVID-19 impact e.g. obesity, insulin resistance, vitamin D deficiency.
d. Clarity around the timing and logistics for the safe implementation of a vaccine when it becomes available. Uncertainty around this issue will be detrimental to our progress out of this crisis.
e. Realistic and implementable policies for staff recruitment (nurses and doctors) and increasing capacity of hospital beds and ICU beds in our hospital system.
4. Restore public morale and self-belief in the Irish population, empowering them to deliver solutions
a. Re-establish the Special Committee on the COVID-19 response, to ensure legislative oversight for some of the most critical decisions faced by our country in many generations.
b. NPHET daily briefings of ‘case’ numbers are open to misinterpretation and sensationalism by media – this in turn drives fear and concern among our population. We recommend that these briefings be stopped or reduced in frequency and that data be presented with context and perspective.
c. We are deeply concerned by the absence of balance and debate in our media (print; tv; radio; social) around COVID-19 related issues and urge our leadership to consider and address this in a meaningful way.
d. We must work together to update messaging and communication about COVID-19 to the people of Ireland: fear must be replaced with realistic information about actual risk in specific population groups; achievable goals, especially for our youth, which will have tangible benefits in the fight against the virus: hygiene; distancing; personal responsibility and empowerment.
e. We encourage our Government to re-balance the emphasis in our health sector away from COVID-19 as its sole focus and towards the entirety of public health.
dada » 12 Dec 2020 03:25 wrote:Yes, I was referring to Jeff's tweet, or rather the conversation that began with it.
Specifically, I was elaborating on what I meant by my example of the next pandemic, the rabies superstrain of the future. It was a way of bringing out the point that pandemics and the responses to them are not the primary causes of "excess" or "indirect" deaths.
Where do I start, though. Probably everywhere at once.
So, first I need to actually be everywhere at once. Not as easy as it sounds.
There are things growing in the paddocks round here that might help with that.
dada » Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:45 pm wrote:Say that the coming highly infectious superstrain of rabies was spreading right now. Those that catch it lierally behave like brain-eating zombies.
But this is not the case. Not even close, not by a longshot. So any content beyond the quoted hypothetical isn't worthy of consideration.
What we ARE actually experiencing right now, collectively, are: lives, livelihoods, jobs and businesses -- almost exclusively targeting working classes and the poor, which by extension, involves many in minority communities -- being devastated due to LOCKDOWN measures for a virus with a high survival rate
There simply is no justification for it. A more balanced approach, especially now that we have a far better sense of what this virus is, and what it ISN'T, could/should have been implemented.
How?
The question of "How" has been explored in this thread and others going back months, so much of what I may convey here, now, will be largely redundant. That aside, before we get to How, we can first start with inquiring about the efficacy of current measures: are lockdowns markedly reducing death tallies? Are lockdowns improving circumstances for the majority? The answer is [b]NO on both counts, particularly in areas where a fair amount of the populace are working class/poor.[/b]
Well in Australia Lockdowns have done that stuff twice now. Particularly in areas where a fair amount of the population are working class/poor. So that bolded statement is obviously false.
This link was shared earlier, but I'm going to re-paste certain excerpts, as it focuses on the impact quarantine/lockdowns have on the younger age groups, those least effected by this virus:
Quarantine May Negatively Affect Kids’ Immune Systems By Donna L. Farber and Thomas Connors Dr. Farber is a professor of immunology and surgery at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, where Dr. Connors is an assistant professor of pediatrics.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the largest immunological experiment in history on our own children. We have been keeping children inside, relentlessly sanitizing their living spaces and their hands and largely isolating them. In doing so, we have prevented large numbers of them from becoming infected or transmitting the virus. But in the course of social distancing to mitigate the spread, we may also be unintentionally inhibiting the proper development of children’s immune systems.
Most children are born with a functioning immune system with the capacity to respond to diverse types of foreign substances, called antigens, encountered through exposure to microorganisms, food and the environment. The eradication of harmful pathogens, establishment of protective immunity and proper immune regulation depends on the immune cells known as T lymphocytes. With each new infection, pathogen-specific T cells multiply and orchestrate the clearance of the infectious organism from the body, after which some persist as memory T cells with enhanced immune functions.
Over time, children develop increasing numbers and types of memory T cells, which remain throughout the body as a record of past exposures and stand ready to provide lifelong protection. For other antigen exposures that are not infectious or dangerous, a type of healthy stalemate can result, called immune tolerance. Immunological memory and tolerance learned during childhood serves as the basis for immunity and health throughout adulthood.
Memory T cells begin to form during the first years of life and accumulate during childhood. However, for memory T cells to become functionally mature, multiple exposures may be necessary, particularly for cells residing in tissues such as the lung and intestines, where we encounter numerous pathogens. These exposures typically and naturally occur during the everyday experiences of childhood — such as interactions with friends, teachers, trips to the playground, sports — all of which have been curtailed or shut down entirely during efforts to mitigate viral spread. As a result, we are altering the frequency, breadth and degree of exposures that are crucial for immune memory development.
While the immune system is influenced by multiple factors, including genetics and everyday exposures to family members and pets, the long term effects of removing the social system that brings children in contact with other people, places and things remains uncharted territory. However, there is now substantial evidence that antigen exposure during the formative period of childhood is important not only for protection but also for reducing the incidence of allergies, asthma and inflammatory diseases. A well-known theory, called the “hygiene hypothesis,” proposes that the increased incidence of allergies and other immune disorders involving inappropriate immune reactions across industrialized societies is a result of the move away from agrarian society toward a highly sanitized urban setting.
Failing to train our immune systems properly can have serious consequences. When laboratory mice raised in nearly sterile conditions were housed together in the same cage with pet mice raised in standard conditions, some of the laboratory mice succumbed to pathogens that the pet mice were able to fight off. Additional studies of the microbiome — the bacteria that normally inhabit our intestines and other sites — have shown that mice raised in germ-free conditions or in the presence of antibiotics had reduced and altered immune responses to many types of pathogens. These studies suggest that for establishing a healthy immune system, the more diverse and frequent the encounters with antigens, the better. ... the longer we need to socially distance our children in the midst of uncontrolled viral spread, the greater the possibility that their immune systems will miss learning important immunological lessons (what’s harmful, what’s not) that we usually acquire during childhood.
There is already well-justified concern about the impact of prolonged virtual learning on social and intellectual development, especially for elementary and middle-school-age children. The sooner we can safely restore the normal experiences of childhood, interacting with other children and — paradoxically — with pathogens and diverse microorganisms, the better we can ensure their ability to thrive as adults in this changing world.
it may have an effect on kids immune system development.
- but the immune system adapts and learn via exposure to pathogens over years not the few months lockdowns have lasted. It also assumes households are free of all the stuff they usually aren't free of that people get exposed to. As soon as children are reintroduced to school or playgrounds tehn the process can restart and children have a decade of adaptive immune development for this to happen.
There is as much or more danger of the issues raised in that article effecting kids if you obsessively sterilise your house with anti bacterial cleaners the way shitloads of modern families and households do because it lowers the exposure rate of those pathogens over a very long time. Good hygeine, ie washing your hands before meals and after shitting does this as well, but it also lowers the risk of exposure to pathogens that would overwhelm your system. Like everything its a matter of weighing risks.
Earlier I included content from an article that referenced the following:
Donald A. Henderson, who as head of the World Health Organization is given primary credit for the eradication of smallpox. He wrote as follows in 2006:
Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.
One of the reasons this virus has sparked such panic is the insane levels of disruption places like Wuhan and Northern Italy copped when people started dying. Whatever the Chinese official figures cremations in Wuhan in the first half of this year went thru the roof.
Background: Epidemiological data provide important information for decision making. COVID-19 statistics from China fall outside of recognized and accepted medical norms. As the epicenter of the COVID-19 initial outbreak, the epidemiological information from Wuhan affects the response and preparation of other parts of China and rest of the world. Here we estimated the incidence, death and starting time of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and China based on medical literature from China, official and non-official Chinese data sources. Methods: Data sources included literature on COVID-19 in China, official Chinese government figures, state-run and non state-run media reports. Our estimates are based on investigative media reports of crematory operations in Wuhan, which is considered as a common data end point to life. A range of estimates is presented by an exponential growth rate model from lockdown (Jan 23,2020) until the intervention started to show effects, which was estimated 14.5 days after lockdown. Results: For the cumulative infections and total deaths, under different assumptions of death rates (from 2.5% to 10%) and doubling time 6.4 days, the estimates projected on February 7, 2020 in Wuhan range from 305,000 to 1,272,000 for infections and from 6,811 to 7,223 for deaths - on the order of at least 10 times the official figures (13,603 and 545). The implied starting time of the outbreak is October 2019. Under the assumption of the official 3.14% death rate and doubling time of 2.54 days (which was derived based on Chinese official data), the infection cases reached 2.2 million on February 7. The estimates of cumulative deaths, based on both funeral urns distribution and continuous full capacity operation of cremation services up to March 23, 2020, give results around 36,000, more than 10 times of the official death toll of 2,524. Conclusions: Our study indicates a significant under-reporting in Chinese official data on the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan. The magnitude of discrepancy between our estimates based on cremation related data and Chinese official figures in early February, the critical time for response to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests the need to reevaluate official statistics from China and consider all available and reasonable data sources for a better understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic.
So this isn't an all or nothing situation where the only cause of disruption is the lockdown. In Italy the collapse of the medical system and widespread panic were accompanied by a huge number of dead medical staff amounting to the loss of thousands of years of training and experience from their medical system. Again we are talking about balancing risks but it seems you aren't acknowledging all the risks only one side of them.
I also previously shared this a couple pages or so back:
In the debate over coronavirus policy, there has been far too little focus on the costs of lockdowns. It’s very common for the proponents of these interventions to write articles and large studies without even mentioning the downsides.
Here is a brief look at the cost of stringencies in the United States, and around the world, including stay-at-home orders, closings of business and schools, restrictions on gatherings, shutting of arts and sports, restrictions on medical services, and interventions in the freedom of movement.
[more chart data info at link]
There is no easy answer as far as "how", but clearly, excessive lockdown measures are NOT working.
Well as I said before they obviously worked here. None the less alot of this stuff needs to be "cross examined". For example:
Despite comparing the numbers of suicidal thoughts there is no comparison for the 40% of Americans "struggling wiuth mental health or substance abuse." How many normally struggle with this?
What causes the symptoms of depression and anxiety? The lockdown alone or the fact there is a massive pandemic accompanied by more neo liberal bullshit? All of the mental health data in those charts is claimed to be at the feet of the lockdown but it could be the pandemic, people having lost loved ones etc etc ... its disingenuous to claim all that stuff is because of the response to the pandemic instead of the pandemic itself without providing further evidence to show how and why. There is even a stat from an increase in ODs between January and March desp[ite the fact that lockdowns in the US didn't start till when? Mid to late March definitely not in the first two months of the year. Before this epidemic there were some studies showing 90% of gen z members had some symptoms of depression.
The stuff on hunger and malnutrition ... Yemen ffs, that famine is the US' fault and has been for years before this virus came along. None of the African data has any relevance for what is happening in the US or Europe. The food insecurity experienced in the US is directly related to economic and cultural policies not the pandemic or the lockdown.
the medical data is not much good either as it doesn't cit5e instances of those conditions increasing. It also cites stuff about the Italian medical system without acknowledging its collapse at the start of the year.
Irish Scientists and Doctors Inveigh Against Lockdowns
A team of Irish medical and public health professionals recently published a White Paper entitled “COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing,” calling for an “evidence-based” approach to pandemic management. In the paper, the team provides a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and scrutinizes their overall efficacy while citing extensive supporting research. They find excessive costs associated with lockdowns compared to their intended benefits. The paper’s findings suggest that a second set of lockdown measures will be even more detrimental, especially given their hypothesis that the virus is transitioning from its initial epidemic stage to endemic stage.
The paper shows that testing and lockdown strategies are ineffective in lowering Covid-19 deaths. PCR tests are not reliable and tend to overestimate the number of people sick with Covid-19, which misinforms policy decisions. The 2020 mortality and virus-related hospitalization rates also do not deviate drastically from previous years, suggesting Covid-19 did not create a significant increase in mortality. In addition, they demonstrate that there is no correlation between lower mortality and more stringent lockdowns.
Although the authors suggest the idea of “Flatten the Curve” might have been a suitable strategy at first for the purpose of not overwhelming hospitals, they find that there are significant unintended consequences of lockdowns, especially regarding public health. The majority of Covid-19 deaths occur in people close to life expectancy, while lockdown-induced deaths occur in young people far from life expectancy, resulting in a high number of total life years lost. The authors cite various studies showing that children, adolescents, women, individuals with young children, and at-risk individuals are experiencing diminished mental health. They also report that cancer and cardiovascular deaths are increasing due to lockdowns because less people are receiving necessary screenings or going to hospitals.
In its conclusion, the White Paper recommends four overarching strategies consistent with the 2019 WHO and Irish pandemic guidelines, including the removal of lockdowns and a focused protection of the vulnerable. Overall, this paper is an impressive study on lockdowns and presents a mountain of evidence that demonstrates lockdowns are not only ineffective but harmful to people and must be stopped to maintain a healthy society.
I have heaps of questions about the assumptions in this paper but i've been responding to you for hours and have to feed my kids. But there are heaps of unfounded assumptions and they cite the Lancet saying Lockdowns don't have an effect on mortality even tho they clearly did in Australia (twice) and New Zealand.
You haven't demonstrate that lockdowns don't work and you can't because where I live they did work. I've watched it happen twice this year.
"There are things growing in the paddocks round here that might help with that."
There may be something to that. I have heard that one side of the mushroom will make you grow taller.
Altered states are temporary by nature, though. I need to always be everywhere at once. I'm going with the light of gnosis. Shows promise. As methods go, the best results I've seen so far.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
dada » 12 Dec 2020 17:26 wrote:"There are things growing in the paddocks round here that might help with that."
There may be something to that. I have heard that one side of the mushroom will make you grow taller.
Altered states are temporary by nature, though. I need to always be everywhere at once. I'm going with the light of gnosis. Shows promise. As methods go, the best results I've seen so far.
They seem temporary but one thing that has never gone away is that sense of connection to everything everywhere.
But that might just be me. Not everyone says the same thing. Anyway we all walk our own path you'll do what you need to.
I'm sure the big bang is just an explosion that is still happening and forever is just how long it takes for everything to happen at once. So there is a doorway in that somewhere.
I can't disagree. And to tie this line of thinking to the thread topic, I'd say that a psychedelic-friendly culture might have an easier time dealing with everything coming up right now. Issues of health, physical, mental and otherwise, death, change, economic instability, loss of consumer identity.
Even isolation. We talk about set and setting. Set is by far the more important of the two. With the right mindset, setting doesn't even matter. Tim took trips in federal jail.
I think the only place I might differ with you here is my view of the big bang, forever, and the doorway. I'm sure all three are angels. Conscious beings with personalities and everything.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
You haven't demonstrate that lockdowns don't work and you can't because where I live they did work. I've watched it happen twice this year.
So my original question remains.
A fair amount of your responses consist of hand-waving gestures.
If one parses through the contents of the link (Re: impact of lockdowns), they will see they cite various case studies, most of which compare this year's figures with those of prior years.
NONE of the links are explicitly stating depression/suicide, etc are due solely to lockdowns, but lockdowns clearly seem to have contributed to many of the ills faced by populations during lockdowns vs prior years.
To indicate otherwise is a strawman argument.
lockdowns have caused devastation to lives and livelihoods. To suggest otherwise, or to minimize the impact of the more excessive measures on populations over the past ~year, is to be in denial of the reality of current global circumstances.
I'd like for you to explain exactly how lockdowns 'worked' in Australia, however. What does this mean, exactly? How did it work? "Cases" are a faulty/misleading metric, for reasons cited numerous times in this thread.
Death counts, broadly -- globally -- are not going down due to lockdowns.*
*bearing in mind that death tallies have also been misleading and outright inaccurate.
It remains the case that, overwhelmingly, this virus has been most damaging to the elderly and immunity-compromised. For all others, the mortality rates are essentially no different than the flu, outside of a few outliers. The average age of death is ~80! That's higher than the average age of death for ANY cause (including old age/natural causes).
All of this is to say that BROAD-SWEEPING LOCKDOWNS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
There are better alternatives. You haven't refuted them in a satisfactory way.
Also: the scientists/doctors that published their report on recommended alternative approaches towards combating COVID (the report from Ireland, per my prior posting) did far more than merely cite the Lancet, for chrissakes. Did you actually read and digest the study?
Hand-waving gestures alone will not suffice as sound refutation.
All that aside, i've grown fatigued discussing this topic here.
Believe what you wish to believe. I'd like to say the next ~3 yrs will make most of this more clear, but i've little faith the 'truth', such as it is, will make its way to broad distribution/awareness. 20 years later and there are many that still believe the official narratives on 911, for example. i foresee a similar fate with this latest affront, though if there is a potential silver lining this time around, it's that communities will spring forth, banding together in opposition to Reset plans in store for the months/years ahead.
There will indeed be a tuning out by segments of the populace, while the many remain programmed/conditioned/subservient.
There are/will be a segment of us that will not simply comply.
Leave y'all with this gem. Good, biting satire is not yet dead, after all.
Cheers. Signing off until early 2021, or thereabouts.
--------------
Brief side-note: the video clip makes reference to 'technocratic socialism', which, in the context of her rant, is little more than a re-branded form of fascism.
Are there aspects of pure socialism that work, and have worked, demonstrably, for the benefit of the majority? Sure. But that's not the reference point in this clip.
The 'Great Reset' is another Trojan Horse attempt at [cyberpunk] Fascism. They aren't interested in betterment of the People.
As mentioned before in another thread, this is not to say a 'Reset' of some sort (an overhaul would be more fitting) isn't needed/inevitable. But not on their unilateral terms.*
*the possibility remains that it may never come to fruition as currently touted. Can't assume or discount anything at this point given the events of the past ~year.
A fair amount of your responses consist of hand-waving gestures.
I don't rate the stuff you posted as rigorous enough, its too dogmatic. Its taking random data to fit a pre ordained conclusion.
If one parses through the contents of the link (Re: impact of lockdowns), they will see they cite various case studies, most of which compare this year's figures with those of prior years.
NONE of the links are explicitly stating depression/suicide, etc are due solely to lockdowns, but lockdowns clearly seem to have contributed to many of the ills faced by populations during lockdowns vs prior years.
To indicate otherwise is a strawman argument.
So you are saying the lockdowns and only the lockdowns could have contributed to depression, suicide etc etc. Not some other unusual scary situation that happened at the same time? Not the virus itself, grief over the loss of loved ones because of it, or even grief at the loss of people like John Prine or Tim Brooke-Taylor. There is no way to effectively work out the proportional causes of this increased level of depression and separate the isolation from other factors or to blame the isolation alone or even find a metric that can accurately assess the damage it has caused on its own separate from the ongoing virus crisis. It can't be done, its a religious point of view not a rational one.
So the data is meaningless.
lockdowns have caused devastation to lives and livelihoods. To suggest otherwise, or to minimize the impact of the more excessive measures on populations over the past ~year, is to be in denial of the reality of current global circumstances.
But COVID hasn't? Lockdowns are fucked. This virus running rampant thru the community is worse. And in some circumstances, like Australia's in 2020 lockdowns can eliminate the virus from the community. That is all I'm saying.
I'd like for you to explain exactly how lockdowns 'worked' in Australia, however. What does this mean, exactly? How did it work? "Cases" are a faulty/misleading metric, for reasons cited numerous times in this thread.
Death counts, broadly -- globally -- are not going down due to lockdowns.*
We had uncontrolled community transmission in Australia and a series of nationwide lockdowns significantly slowed it in some places and effectively eliminated it in others.
As of now I don't think is any community transmission in Australia tho we have people arriving from overseas in quarantine and every day there are up to ten new cases in that group of people.
There are figures at the Australian Bureau of Stats and in state and federal health department websites if you want to look up the way we went from uncontrolled commmunity transmission to no community transmission across most of the country and in Victoria twice. I have told you multiple times that lockdowns have stopped community transmission, eliminated the virus from the community and as a result stopped the death rate by dropping it to zero COVID deaths.
That last sentence is meaningless btw. You've got no data to show that and I doubt you'd know how to gather and examine it properly anyway.
*bearing in mind that death tallies have also been misleading and outright inaccurate.
Prove it.
It remains the case that, overwhelmingly, this virus has been most damaging to the elderly and immunity-compromised. For all others, the mortality rates are essentially no different than the flu, outside of a few outliers. The average age of death is ~80! That's higher than the average age of death for ANY cause (including old age/natural causes).
You are right, we should cull the old and infirm. Why should the least productive, most expensive to maintain of population based economic units be allowed to slow our economic development? Their productive lifespan is over anyway and they are useless. This virus also disproportionly effects the people you claim to be protecting from lockdowns - the working class, working poor and members of various underclasses. But who cares about expendable, replaceable economic drone units with no reasonable access to healthcare.
All of this is to say that BROAD-SWEEPING LOCKDOWNS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
There are better alternatives. You haven't refuted them in a satisfactory way.
Also: the scientists/doctors that published their report on recommended alternative approaches towards combating COVID (the report from Ireland, per my prior posting) did far more than merely cite the Lancet, for chrissakes. Did you actually read and digest the study?
Hand-waving gestures alone will not suffice as sound refutation.
All that aside, i've grown fatigued discussing this topic here.
Believe what you wish to believe. I'd like to say the next ~3 yrs will make most of this more clear, but i've little faith the 'truth', such as it is, will make its way to broad distribution/awareness. 20 years later and there are many that still believe the official narratives on 911, for example. i foresee a similar fate with this latest affront, though if there is a potential silver lining this time around, it's that communities will spring forth, banding together in opposition to Reset plans in store for the months/years ahead.
There will indeed be a tuning out by segments of the populace, while the many remain programmed/conditioned/subservient.
There are/will be a segment of us that will not simply comply.
Leave y'all with this gem. Good, biting satire is not yet dead, after all.
Cheers. Signing off until early 2021, or thereabouts.
--------------
Brief side-note: the video clip makes reference to 'technocratic socialism', which, in the context of her rant, is little more than a re-branded form of fascism.
Are there aspects of pure socialism that work, and have worked, demonstrably, for the benefit of the majority? Sure. But that's not the reference point in this clip.
The 'Great Reset' is another Trojan Horse attempt at [cyberpunk] Fascism. They aren't interested in betterment of the People.
As mentioned before in another thread, this is not to say a 'Reset' of some sort (an overhaul would be more fitting) isn't needed/inevitable. But not on their unilateral terms.*
*the possibility remains that it may never come to fruition as currently touted. Can't assume or discount anything at this point given the events of the past ~year.
Awesome pontification. Enjoy your dopamine rush.
We're never gonna agree on this so have a happy and safe new year.
'pontification' is a fair/accurate assessment. Guilty as charged -- one of several reasons for my self-imposed shut down (and this time I'll actually follow through with it. I'm making an exception here, now, given my regard for your contributions. You can thank me later).
Truth is we're likely not as much at odds as it may appear. Again, my primary objection is to the sweeping/broad-based mandates handed down unilaterally by authority figures, when a more measured approach can likely be more effective. A more measured/targeted approach would minimize/avoid current devastation to lives/livelihoods caused by more restrictive lockdowns.
Masks -- while limited in their ability to "block" smaller virus particles -- have their benefit when indoors, or even outdoors, when in close proximity to others, or when distancing is not a viable option. I disagree however, again, with this broad-based 'mask mandate', especially when outdoors and keeping distance. CONTEXT IS KEY.
The lack of context - the lack of useful information sharing to the public at large - and the outright overload of fear/scare tactics by media and govt is where I strongly object.
There is much misinfo/disinfo, and not just by those in leadership positions. Of course there are the reactionaries -- and I can appreciate how I may have presented myself here as one -- that believe all of the worst-possible outcomes that may come as a result of current measures. There are clicks that will be accumulated and monetized on both ends of the spectrum. Speaking for myself, I've adjusted my position on this since the early weeks of this outbreak, and may well do so again.
There is just cause to be cynical of any broad-sweeping measures, though. Particularly given the players involved.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sun Dec 13, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I wrote it in response to this latest exchange, up until Joe's last one but accidentally posted it in the wrong thread. Here it is:
.
2021 Resolution
This is really fucking interesting, the last few posts.
I hereby proscribe that on their return in early 2021*, Belligerent Savant and Joe Hillshoist find a goddamn synthesis, because you're both outrageously correct on different aspects, and close to wholes, but still talking past each other (not always, in parts) and in combat mode. (BS, the choice of style in your posts has more to do with starting it. On the other hand, Joe, I don't think BS wants to genocide the octagenarians.)**
Don't split down the middle, spend a few minutes being and seeing like the other, reconsider, synthesize.
.
Notes
* Only saying that because that's what you're both implying.
** That's just how I call it. In case I have to add, given that people see me posting and recall I'm like the local co-monarch and cop, I mean that as a criticism of the essays, absolutely not as an administrative admonition or warning.
.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
