uziq
Member
+495|3691

Larssen wrote:

uziq wrote:

the thinking is that children can become 'super-spreaders', essentially dosing the adults with whom they come into contact with huge amounts of the virus. the fact they don't get seriously sick with it doesn't mean they aren't capable hosts.

once you let classrooms of 20-30 children mix, you are effectively stirring a petri dish of 20-30 households. who then all go home and have close contact with their parents, at the very least, and other immediate family. you can't social distance from a kid. they are not independent adults.
I mean the teachers among eachother rather than with kids. In any case, research in both Belgium and the Netherlands has stated children are much less likely to catch the virus let alone spread it. They aren't the feared superspreaders. Within families spread didn't happen because of infected children.
citation please.

lancet article (arxiv prepress) on a big cohort in china states that children are susceptible and do spread.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 … 20028423v3

Household contacts and those travelling with a case were at higher risk of infection (ORs 6 and 7) than other close contacts. The household secondary attack rate was 15%, and children were as likely to be infected as adults. The observed reproductive number was 0.4, with a mean serial interval of 6.3 days. Interpretation Our data on cases as well as their infected and uninfected close contacts provide key insights into SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. This work shows that heightened surveillance and isolation, particularly contact tracing, reduces the time cases are infectious in the community, thereby reducing R. Its overall impact, however, is uncertain and highly dependent on the number of asymptomatic cases. We further show that children are at similar risk of infection as the general population, though less likely to have severe symptoms; hence should be considered in analyses of transmission and control.
further, behaviourally, children are far more gregarious and in-contact than working-age adults. this is a factor in modelling the r0 factor. as i said, 20-30 children together in a classroom/playgroup at school are a much bigger risk for transmission than atomised working adults.

In one study, published last week in the journal Science, a team analyzed data from two cities in China — Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, and Shanghai — and found that children were about a third as susceptible to coronavirus infection as adults were. But when schools were open, they found, children had about three times as many contacts as adults, and three times as many opportunities to become infected, essentially evening out their risk.

Based on their data, the researchers estimated that closing schools is not enough on its own to stop an outbreak, but it can reduce the surge by about 40 to 60 percent and slow the epidemic’s course.

“My simulation shows that yes, if you reopen the schools, you’ll see a big increase in the reproduction number, which is exactly what you don’t want,” said Marco Ajelli, a mathematical epidemiologist who did the work while at the Bruno Kessler Foundation in Trento, Italy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/heal … chool.html

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-08 03:26:02)

Larssen
Member
+99|2126
https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/mi … gle.com%2F

You will have to push the above article through google translate. The other source would be the dutch head of the government's public health agency and was televised, so I can't cite it. He spent some 30 mins explaining all the national research done on infection rates among children. Conclusion was that they did not find a single family in which a child was the first or primary carrier, among other facts.

I haven't looked up french sources but have heard there might be some as well.

I do have to nuance that the information mostly concerns children in primary school. I don't know about high schoolers.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-08 03:29:52)

uziq
Member
+495|3691
i was going to say that my french reading is fine, but it’s in dutch ... further evidence that belgium is a fake country. ffs.

thanks for the link. it’s interesting. anecdotally i have a friend who is a doctor in belgium and she also says that the sense of crisis there is very low, lockdown and schools are easing.

context really is everything for this. in fact, it could even be more useful to discuss the ‘epidemics’ raging in care homes and facilities as separate from the main pandemic. they require different plans, different factors. we as a nation here in the UK are focussing in large (political) targets like ‘daily tests conducted’, which have no bearing on the actual situation at all.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3959
They aren't nursing homes. They are retirement communities.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+495|3691
stop being such a libcuck with your NYT's tv show references.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3959
Tony Soprano is my spirit animal. Mentally ill, alpha male, Catholic.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+495|3691
tony jnr is jay's. emotional, cynical, thinks nietzsche's bleak pessimism is profound. will have a second act in which he fathers a baby with a dominican and renounces his views.
Larssen
Member
+99|2126
I've said it before but the lockdowns in western society so far were very blunt policy instruments. The more we get to know about covid-19 and its mortality rates particularly with regard to certain demographics the more we should be able to figure out what we can allow and what we can't.

If say the majority of hospitalised and deaths all happen in retirement homes and among a certain age demographic already present in hospitals it would make very little sense to keep all of society in perpetual shutdown until there is a vaccine. Not to entice the Jays of this board as that is still a premature conclusion to draw. But, hopefully, the emergence of such indicators would make it possible for normal life to resume for large parts of the population with special requirements/safeguards for working with or around elderly, care homes, etc.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-08 04:15:11)

uziq
Member
+495|3691
way too many middle-aged people have been dying or requiring intensive care treatment here. people in their 40s and 50s, in a sufficiently high number. there's been several stories of multiple generations of families being wiped out by it. that's not a good situation and i don't think average working-age people are going to be allowed back to normality until a vaccine appears. it would be irresponsible. i think the 70+ are going to be pretty much cooped-up and quarantined for the foreseeable.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3959
It might be more horrific for society to open up and then go through the drama of having people you deal with daily disappearing randomly. The deaths are out of sight out of mind as of this moment.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Larssen
Member
+99|2126

uziq wrote:

way too many middle-aged people have been dying or requiring intensive care treatment here. people in their 40s and 50s, in a sufficiently high number. there's been several stories of multiple generations of families being wiped out by it. that's not a good situation and i don't think average working-age people are going to be allowed back to normality until a vaccine appears. it would be irresponsible. i think the 70+ are going to be pretty much cooped-up and quarantined for the foreseeable.
Sad thing to know that by the end of this some elderly will have died without having seen any family for months if not a year+.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
As Brits enter the ‘next phase’ of lockdowns, it’s high time for more scrutiny.

On Thursday, Dominic Raab, Britain’s foreign secretary, announced that Britain is ready for its “next phase” of the lockdowns. Raab said the prime minister will lay out the plans to “ease up” restrictions this weekend. This comes after Britain reached the highest death toll in Europe. At this point, many Brits will be wondering whether the lockdowns were worth it. Personally, I don’t know. I suspect that neither do you. And — I’m beginning to think — that neither do they. They, the politicians, the decision-makers, the officials, the scientists; the people we pay taxes to get us out of tight spots. If the models of the recently disgraced Neil Ferguson are anything to go by, then the U.K. lockdown has saved tens of thousands of lives. But if we’re to listen to Sweden’s leading epidemiologist, Johan Giesecke, instead, then these efforts have been “futile.” That’s a rather large margin of error.

When it was first announced, genuine critics of the lockdown, those who accepted that COVID-19 was a real and serious threat but disagreed that mandatory lockdowns were the correct response, were disregarded as nuts and right-wingers. Peter Hitchens was accused of killing people with this rhetoric. But then some heavyweights came into the fight. People such as the Oxford epidemiologists and Giesecke (the Swedish scientist) and, in the non-science camp, Jonathan Sumption, a widely respected former U.K. Supreme Court justice and historian, nicknamed “the brain of Britain,” who did the rounds in the Times, the BBC, and the Mail on Sunday, making the authoritative anti-lockdown case. Sumption said it “all boils down” to one question: “Is it worth it?” In other words, is the threat of coronavirus worth forcibly confining healthy people to their homes? He said that every citizen is entitled to ask himself this question; indeed, that he ought to ask it. And that he had done so and reached the answer, no.

Sumption considers the response to crisis as being disproportionate to the threat posed.  He argued that the threat of COVID-19 was clearly real but “exaggerated.” He argued that we ought to maintain a sense of perspective, do away with our “irrational horror of death,” and remember that this is “not the greatest crisis in our history” or even “the greatest public health crisis in our history.” Why, then, he asked, did it warrant the “greatest interference with personal liberty in our history”?

Whether he is right or not, it is true that the British government’s response was rushed and political. Sumption argued that it had responded in a “blind panic following the delivery of Imperial College London’s Professor Neil Ferguson’s statistical projections” after which it had “legislated the lockdown on the hoof in a late-night press conference.” Ferguson, who has since “stepped back” from his advisory role (after breaking his own lockdown rules in order to conduct an affair with a married woman), was not the only person warning the government, of course. Nevertheless, Sumption argued that those politicians in charge had become “trapped by their own decisions” and were, thereafter, merely trying to “avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists.”

When the nightly ritual of clapping for the National Health Service began, it did seem that something fundamental had shifted in the public’s thinking, almost overnight. Sumption put his finger on it: “Suddenly, it is our duty to save the NHS, not the other way around.” And in locking in everyone, not just the infected, we began to mimic the approach of the authoritarian Chinese. Indeed, one of the reasons that Sweden, a socially democratic country, refused to pursue this approach was that it believed it philosophically incompatible with the country’s liberal values. “A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilized people would want to live,” writes Sumption. “Guidance is fine. Voluntary self-isolation is fine, and strongly advisable for the more vulnerable. Most of them will do it by choice. But coercion is not fine. There is no moral or principled justification for it.”

The argument most commonly waged against Sumption’s position is that, writ large, it would cause mass death. That might be true, but the evidence is far from certain. The U.K.’s COVID-19 death rate, for instance, is almost double that of Sweden, despite its more-aggressive measures. Besides, Sumption’s point that “life is about more than avoiding death” still holds. “To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric,” he wrote, citing the example of going to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty, and driving cars because lives are worth losing for convenience. Of course, neither war nor road-traffic accidents are contagious. But the fact remains that, for most people who contract the virus, the threat is not existential. What is more existential is poverty. Already the chancellor of Britain has proposed £330 billion ($389 billion) of state guarantees for bank loans to firms, equivalent to 15 percent of GDP, in addition to £20 billion ($25 billion) of grants and tax reliefs for the leisure industry and small businesses.

It is impossible to know for sure what “would have” or “could have” been if the government had responded differently. Nevertheless, as Brits enter the next stage of lockdown, they should continue to scrutinize their government’s actions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ … kepticism/

Last edited by Jay (2020-05-08 05:51:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Larssen wrote:

I've said it before but the lockdowns in western society so far were very blunt policy instruments. The more we get to know about covid-19 and its mortality rates particularly with regard to certain demographics the more we should be able to figure out what we can allow and what we can't.

If say the majority of hospitalised and deaths all happen in retirement homes and among a certain age demographic already present in hospitals it would make very little sense to keep all of society in perpetual shutdown until there is a vaccine. Not to entice the Jays of this board as that is still a premature conclusion to draw. But, hopefully, the emergence of such indicators would make it possible for normal life to resume for large parts of the population with special requirements/safeguards for working with or around elderly, care homes, etc.
...which is precisely what I said from the start. High risk people stay home, everyone else carry on.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Larssen
Member
+99|2126
Jay you can't decide that without proof. That's the whole point. At this moment it's a big fat 'maybe, probably not'.
uziq
Member
+495|3691
i find sumption's argument wholly unpersuasive, and so do the majority of the country. 70% of britons are uncomfortable with relaxing lockdown. least of all whilst we are posting the worst numbers in europe. lines such as this are poor, dishonest rhetoric:

Sumption considers the response to crisis as being disproportionate to the threat posed.  He argued that the threat of COVID-19 was clearly real but “exaggerated.” He argued that we ought to maintain a sense of perspective, do away with our “irrational horror of death,” and remember that this is “not the greatest crisis in our history” or even “the greatest public health crisis in our history.” Why, then, he asked, did it warrant the “greatest interference with personal liberty in our history”?
do away with our 'irrational fear of death'? what really is the relevance of these metaphysical ruminations? is he the buddha now? you could argue that all medicine on the planet is motivated by our 'fear of death'. highfalutin' nonsense.

no one is claiming it is the greatest crisis in our history. this is a lot like your argument, jay, that 'human beings have dealt with worse plagues before'. so, what? we shouldn't do anything? let's just wait until the next bubonic plague comes along? i don't understand it at all. obviously different humans will have different thoughts on what is 'reasonable' curtailment of their freedom. most, unlike sumption, are fine with being confined for some 'greater good'. he is entitled to his opinion. to call a lockdown the 'greatest interference with personal liberty' in britain's history is completely fatuous. on VE day, of all things, you don't need to be reminded of the conditions that obtained during the blitz. you could be arrested and thrown in jail for having on a house-light. as for 'not the greatest public health crisis' in our history, it is indeed the first time that the NHS has declared an emergency of its level -- so it's at least the biggest public health crisis in the history of the NHS. isn't that enough?

and i hardly need remind you that it's very rich for a QC like sumption, a multi-millionaire member of the establishment, prescribe that people 'get over it' and 'get past their irrational fear'. meanwhile black britons are 4x as likely to die as white britons; and it grades heavily with poverty and urban living, too. he's very courageous to make such claims from his country pile.

the other huge assumption of your article is that britons aren't properly 'scrutinising' the government. the fact is that huge numbers of people are scrutinising the government, and finding them wanting -- but they want more control, more testing, more tracking and tracing. not to criticise the lockdown in favour of opening the country back up. this government has failed massively, and its response has been flawed. for the National Review to be writing articles in support of britain easing lockdown, whilst its own government leads the US off a precipice, is really quite something. you conservatives sure do love the smell of your own bullshit. what is it with you guys all promoting death? don't you know that the death drive was a core aspect of fascism? 'get over our irrational fear of death', what absolute arrant bollocks.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-08 06:39:51)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Larssen wrote:

Jay you can't decide that without proof. That's the whole point. At this moment it's a big fat 'maybe, probably not'.
I think it should've been the other way around. Catastrophe should've been proven first. Because it wasn't, a lot of lives have been irreparably damaged and people are looking for someone to blame. People have lost their jobs, some will lose their homes, people are unable to feed their children. It's a very bad situation that was created.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Larssen
Member
+99|2126
I don't think you're in a position to say that the worldwide medical community from China to South Korea, to Italy to the United States is all just caught up in a big bout of hysteria. Obviously hospitalisation rates combined with the uncertainty of the disease were of such a magnitude medical professionals across cultures have been quite unanimous in their recommendation: shut everything down.
uziq
Member
+495|3691

Jay wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Jay you can't decide that without proof. That's the whole point. At this moment it's a big fat 'maybe, probably not'.
I think it should've been the other way around. Catastrophe should've been proven first. Because it wasn't, a lot of lives have been irreparably damaged and people are looking for someone to blame. People have lost their jobs, some will lose their homes, people are unable to feed their children. It's a very bad situation that was created.
a day makes a huge difference in viral spreads. new viruses spread exponentially.

you're the same guy who was saying two pages ago 'it's too late, we are too late to do any good now, we're in the mess we're in', etc etc.

now you're saying 'the catastrophe should have been proved first'. WTF make sense.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Larssen wrote:

I don't think you're in a position to say that the worldwide medical community from China to South Korea, to Italy to the United States is all just caught up in a big bout of hysteria. Obviously hospitalisation rates combined with the uncertainty of the disease were of such a magnitude medical professionals across cultures have been quite unanimous in their recommendation: shut everything down.
The medical profession was caught off guard and unprepared. Now that the initial shock has worn off they're saying oh wait, not so bad. We're now shipping our excess ventilators to Russia even as we're reopening our economy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+495|3691
no they are not caught off guard. they were asking for more resources and recommendations were being made in january.

reports were published even pre-covid saying that pandemic stockpiling and planning was inadequate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Cygnus

again you recycle these empty lines about 'totally being taken unawares!' journals were reporting on covid in december. CDC and other task forces were pointing out that it was a big approaching issue in december.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
Yes, we should wait for a catastrophe to happen then pick up the pieces afterwards.
The thing about predictions is they can't be proven, I guess you didn't know that.

Again, didn't your hyper-rational and unemotional leaders go into a panic and predict that goat-herders living in caves would be able to assemble nuclear bombs?

I think what we're seeing is an indictment of the US education system, its subcontracting of childrens education to TV and allowing TV into classrooms.

"Big Bird says trains go choo choo" yes well done little Jay, have a cookie.

"Madeleine Kearns says liberals are mentally ill" yes well done Jay, isn't it time you progressed to thinking for your self?

Unglaublich is a great word and one of my favourites, its unglaublich that Jay is still posting articles written by "trained singers" to prove a point.
Fuck Israel
Larssen
Member
+99|2126
Have you forgotten the Chinese started frantically building hospitals and digging mass graves at breakneck speed? If there is any regime that would've supressed information about this new virus and let its people die it would have been that one. I'm quite certain the fact that it spread all over the world indicates it exceeded the expectations and danger assessments of the CCP.

Granted, this was all with incomplete information at hand, though the aformentioned points did occur. A virus being what it is, acting too late is a far, far more dangerous problem than acting too early and too carefully.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+641|3959
"Coronavirus Unemployment Hits 14.7 Percent, Highest Since Great Depression"

Trump, record low unemployment, record high unemployment.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+495|3691

Larssen wrote:

Have you forgotten the Chinese started frantically building hospitals and digging mass graves at breakneck speed? If there is any regime that would've supressed information about this new virus and let its people die it would have been that one. I'm quite certain the fact that it spread all over the world indicates it exceeded the expectations and danger assessments of the CCP.

Granted, this was all with incomplete information at hand, though the aformentioned points did occur. A virus being what it is, acting too late is a far, far more dangerous problem than acting too early and too carefully.
it's honestly EXHAUSTING having to repeat to jay, again and again, facts that have already been proven. events that have already passed.

in his weird cuckoo-land alternative media landscape, it's like they are reshaping history with every new article. totally dishonest.

'we had no warning', 'we were blindsided', 'the doctors were not prepared'. all of it is provably nonsense going on an even rudimentary timeline.

honestly how can someone be this thick?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The medical profession was caught off guard and unprepared. Now that the initial shock has worn off they're saying oh wait, not so bad. We're now shipping our excess ventilators to Russia even as we're reopening our economy.
I'm going to keep on posting this, and don't forget Trump was thoroughly warned early December.

https://i.imgur.com/x6WAmag.jpg

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-08 06:52:09)

Fuck Israel

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard