Post New

Powerful stuff. We need more civic leaders to articulate these things more often:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-592...

Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain
in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

And here we have the inherent danger of the Approved Sources argument.

How many still believe the media got COVID right? How about the government? How did our so-called "experts" in public health do?

How many still believe the media got COVID right? How about the government? How did our so-called "experts" in public health do?

It's a mixed bag. They got some stuff right, some stuff wrong. With hindsight it is easy to armchair quarterback this. But, at the time, all we knew is that hospitals were slammed, morgues were overflowing into refrigerator trucks, misinformation was rampant, and officials were dealing with a very fluid situation from what limited information they had. I approve of the philosophy that when you don't know, err on the side of caution.

And there was plenty of "err". There was also plenty of good. For example, our lockdowns protected our seniors better than, say, Scandinavia where the disease tore through their elder population (they have since admitted they did a poor job protecting their seniors). It appears now that shutting down the schools was iffy, at best. It didn't spread through fomites, so sanitizing everything didn't do much (though that year the flu caused far fewer deaths and illnesses because everyone was isolating and sanitizing).

I admit my bias here in that 1poorlady was diagnosed with cancer a couple of weeks before COVID was in the news. So she had MAJOR surgery that should have required about 4 days in the hospital, but instead it was outpatient. I was her nurse at home, dealing with drains, and other stuff as best I could. They did it outpatient because a) there were no beds, and b) they didn't want her catching COVID because the hospital was full of COVID patients. I couldn't even wait for her in the waiting room. I had to wait in the car in the parking lot (the waiting room was closed). So I still get angry when folks say it was a hoax, and precautions were useless, because had everyone done what they should have, maybe she could have had a normal surgery and recovery. (And don't get my started on the chemo...her immune system nuked, and with nobody following protocols we had to be hypercareful that we didn't get sick and then bring it home to her.) So, yeah...I'm a bit biased about the deniers, and I admit it.

In hindsight, we are fortunate that the disease wasn't more virulent. If it had been, combined with people (including POTUS) calling it a hoax, we could have lost a significant chunk of the world's population. Some nations did a good job reacting early (e.g. ROK, Taiwan). Because of partisan bickering, the US much less so. Red states were hit the worst because of the partisanship, even though a virus has no party. Contagion was a very prescient movie...it even predicted deniers and people with phony cures, just like we saw in 2020/2021.

With hindsight it is easy to armchair quarterback this. But, at the time, all we knew is that hospitals were slammed, morgues were overflowing into refrigerator trucks, misinformation was rampant, and officials were dealing with a very fluid situation from what limited information they had. I approve of the philosophy that when you don't know, err on the side of caution.

That's the point. We allowed the government and others to label everything that didn't conform to The Official Narrative as "misinformation". Some of that had devastating effects.

For example. Sweden never locked down and they were going to lose everyone in the country went the narrative. Yet their case fatality rate was on 0.9%...comparable to the UK and Spain and less than ours and Canada (1.1% each).

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

There was data from several sources that should have informed the national health strategy but once The Official Narrative took hold the idea of using that cruise ship that was parked off the coast wasn't allowable for some reason.

And don't get me started on school closings. We're going to pay for that in so many ways for DECADES.

I admit my bias here in that 1poorlady was diagnosed with cancer a couple of weeks before COVID was in the news. So she had MAJOR surgery that should have required about 4 days in the hospital, but instead it was outpatient. I was her nurse at home, dealing with drains, and other stuff as best I could. They did it outpatient because a) there were no beds, and b) they didn't want her catching COVID because the hospital was full of COVID patients. I couldn't even wait for her in the waiting room.

Sorry to hear that. Is she okay now?

Because of partisan bickering, the US much less so. Red states were hit the worst because of the partisanship,

Were they?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/covid19_...

The data shows a pretty clean break along north-south lines...as in the weather probably played more of a role than thought.

As for partisanship:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/...
Here's what Harris said:
"Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us. I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it. He wants us to inject bleach. I ' no, I will not take his word."

(Politifact tries *mightily* to spin this in her favor)

We allowed the government and others to label everything that didn't conform to The Official Narrative as "misinformation". Some of that had devastating effects.

Depends on what part of the government. There was the executive who insisted it was a hoax, and then it wasn't but maybe injecting bleach would help (full quotes included: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/con... ). Meanwhile his people were "clarifying" some of his comments (e.g. don't inject the bleach, use it to clean surfaces), and both CDC and WHO were correcting with the latest info they had. Plus phony cures (ivermectin), which numerous studies have shown did not affect COVID (it's not an anti-viral).

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089809588/ivermect...
https://www.conwaymedicalcenter.com/news/false-hor...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/turns-out-...

(these were just the first to pop up when googling...there were a LOT more)

Weather likely had some effect (though I have not seen a study as to how much), but counties that voted for Trump fared far worse than that voted Biden (I think one difference is that you presented state data, but the disparity mostly shows up at the county level).

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/th...

Which makes sense. A state is going to give you an average over rural and urban, and political affiliation. The county is a smaller 'bin', so the averaging is less and you see spots that just pop-out at you (see the map in that link, and the bar graphs below that). Over time there was geographical variation (kinda interesting to watch). The bar graphs clearly show the result as of the publication of that article.

Sweden? Google "sweden covid" and you'll get a slew of articles like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/ange...

Overall, Sweden did pretty well. But their senior demographic got nailed because they didn't protect them. Which you can see here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number...

Sorry to hear that. Is she okay now?

The chemo was pretty hard on her. And she's taking some meds to help prevent recurrence, but they have side effects. Overall, yes, she's okay. Latest scans show she is still cancer-free (after 3 years). Achy joints, but she's strong again. We retired last year in part because she felt her mind wasn't as sharp, and because we both realized that your health will be fine until it isn't...and then it's too late. Before our health deteriorates (as almost everyone's does over time), we wanted to travel and indulge in hobbies while we could. Just got back from 7 weeks in Asia, and almost a week on Port Angeles. We'll be venturing out again later this year (Europe).

Dope1: For example. Sweden never locked down and they were going to lose everyone in the country went the narrative. Yet their case fatality rate was on 0.9%...comparable to the UK and Spain and less than ours and Canada (1.1% each).

Why compare them to the UK and Spain rather than other immediately neighboring Nordic countries?

Finland 0.2%

Norway 0.4%

Denmark 0.6%

Finland had over 75% fewer deaths, Norway had over 50% fewer deaths, and Denmark about 30% fewer deaths.

Even deep into the pandemic when the Omicron wave came around, Sweden had 5 deaths per million, double Denmark's 2.4 deaths per million. Finland and Norway were even lower.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scathing-evaluation-...

This is not a surprise, as prevention policy has skewed toward progressives since the time of Ralph Nader, if not before.
Most prevention policies trade either freedom or money for human lives. Sometimes it is to protect people from themselves.
The importance of prevention policy increases as population density increases, which is consistent with the blue/red divide in the country.

I still know conservatives who believe seat belt usage would have happened even without government intervention.
I know conservatives who believe having Naloxone readily available is bad policy as it reduces the perception of harm for opiates, which increases first time use.
Of course gun policy and teen pregnancy prevention are other examples.

While the benefits of prevention are very difficult to measure (how do you know if you prevented something?), most studies show a payback of around $10 for every $1 spent on prevention.
I think for these reasons most prevention policy needs to remain local rather than federal, but we need to continue with federal funding for local prevention programs.
Alan

Why compare them to the UK and Spain rather than other immediately neighboring Nordic countries?

Why not look at excess deaths while we're at it? If we're interested in the full story.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

Across the different measures, the majority of countries remained at a similar ranking. The five countries with the lowest cumulative excess mortality up to week 26 2022 in the ONS' comparisons of all-cause mortality between European countries and regions release, were amongst the lowest across all measures available; these were Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden.

At any rate. Gorsuch was right.

While the benefits of prevention are very difficult to measure (how do you know if you prevented something?), most studies show a payback of around $10 for every $1 spent on prevention.
I think for these reasons most prevention policy needs to remain local rather than federal, but we need to continue with federal funding for local prevention programs.

This conflating a very wise proverb ("An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure") with the wholesale restriction of *many* civil rights, including freedom of speech.

At some point one has to ask is it worth it? I could eliminate 100% of crimes in the country if I was allowed to lock people in their homes, conduct searches without warrants, and quarter policemen with the residents. But how many rights are worth surrendering for safety and security? That's where the divide will be.

But how many rights are worth surrendering for safety and security? That's where the divide will be.

"Safety and Security" is another way of saying human lives. How many human lives is a given "right" or freedom worth?

This is going to change over time, with different cultures, and with different population densities.
Alan

"Safety and Security" is another way of saying human lives. How many human lives is a given "right" or freedom worth?

This is going to change over time, with different cultures, and with different population densities.

I suppose. But if you had to live in a locked cage all day...are you still really living?
Note that the choices aren't "Cage" or "Instant Death", but rather "Severe restrictions" vs. "Assume some risk".

This is going to change over time, with different cultures, and with different population densities.
Alan

-----------

And with different perceptions about the effectiveness of government, the veracity of government, and the likelihood of unintended consequences or hidden agendas.

Note that the choices aren't "Cage" or "Instant Death", but rather "Severe restrictions" vs. "Assume some risk". = Dopr1

----------------

Succinct and self evident. Different people will make different choices about the position along that spectrum. That is fine an normal. A big issue arises when they want to impose their choice on others rather them allowing each to decide for themselves.

Depends on the level of threat to the public.

Let's suppose we have a Typhoid Mary. For whatever reason, for this example, we can't cure her. She's a walking contagion who will infect other people. Do we let her interact with the public? After all, it's an infringement of her rights of free movement if we confine her to her home or an isolation ward.

That's the problem.

If you're assuming risk just for yourself, I don't care. Have at it. If you're assuming risk that could involve me, then I have something to say about it. For example, drunk driving.

Let's suppose we have a Typhoid Mary. For whatever reason, for this example, we can't cure her. She's a walking contagion who will infect other people. Do we let her interact with the public? After all, it's an infringement of her rights of free movement if we confine her to her home or an isolation ward.

That's the problem. - 1pg

-----------------------

The veracity and track record of the people claiming she is a walking contagion is a factor. Blind faith in whatever government is telling you is pretty risky too. Not saying there isn't any middle ground but Covid lockdowns should convince us that government is not infallible.

...but Covid lockdowns should convince us that government is not infallible.

No one is claiming that they are. However, they tend to do the best they can with the information they have at the time. I'm referring to the government (civil employees), not the elected officials. Elected officials have agendas, and often whore to their base. Civil servants generally are trying to do their jobs the best they can (just like the rest of us).

Covid lockdowns should convince us that government is not infallible.

Covid lockdowns prevented millions of avoidable deaths.

Economics can recover. A corpse can not.

Civil servants generally are trying to do their jobs the best they can (just like the rest of us). = 1pg

----------------

Generally agree but we must remember they owe their livelihood to the Government and overwhelmingly donate to democrat candidates and liberal causes. Co-incidence?

Economics can recover. A corpse can not. - sano

Neither can the hundreds of thousands of mom and pop stores who were forced out of the business they had built up over a lifetime by the oh-so-wise government overlords. Meanwhile, the bog box sores were allowed to remain open?

Also worth mentioning is the millions of school kids who no doubt will trail behind their potential due to school closings by the oh-so-wise government overlords with the full support and encouragement from the NEA. The only good thing that came from that was parents became keenly aware of the crap that was being taught and the tendency for schools to keep the parents out of the loop.

Neither can the hundreds of thousands of mom and pop stores who were forced out of the business they had built up over a lifetime by the oh-so-wise government overlords. Meanwhile, the bog box sores were allowed to remain open?


Some folks want to focus on COVID deaths...but is that all that we should look at?

How about the concept of "Excess deaths"? It's not like those lockdowns were free of consequences.

...overwhelmingly donate to democrat candidates and liberal causes. Co-incidence?

I did a quick check. I didn't find an ideological distribution of federal employees. But one bit I read was that postal workers contributed record amounts. Which isn't surprising since the Reps want to destroy the USPS, and have since at least Reagan. So thinking about it further, it makes complete sense that civil servants would donate more to the Dems because the Reps want to fire a lot them -what do you think "budget cuts" means in terms of their jobs?

I won't fact check the numbers ("hundreds of thousands"), and simply reply to the intent of your missive. Or what I think is the intent.

Yes, it's true. Some small businesses went under. Kids were negatively affected in terms of education. That is verifiable from many sources.

And while it's difficult to put a number on lives saved, there is little dispute among the studies I have seen that many thousands (millions?) of lives were saved by the lockdowns. Had this been more virulent, officials probably would be being criticized now for acting too slowly to limit travel, isolate people, and try to reduce the spread. Because it only had about a 4% mortality, people are criticizing the "overreaction".

IMHO, it's better to overreact until you KNOW, rather than say "it's no problem, go on with your lives" when you DON'T know. You can always walk protections back, but you can't really contain a spread that's already out of control. Err on the side of caution.

The only good thing that came from that was parents became keenly aware of the crap that was being taught and the tendency for schools to keep the parents out of the loop.

Not my experience with public schools. 1poorkid's schools kept us extremely well-informed. That was a decade ago now, but I don't think policies have changed much. Granted, one data point.

Neither can the hundreds of thousands of mom and pop stores who were forced out of the business they had built up over a lifetime by the oh-so-wise government overlords.

They're alive. Jobs are going unfilled. Help wanted signs everywhere.

IMHO, it's better to overreact until you KNOW, rather than say "it's no problem, go on with your lives" when you DON'T know. You can always walk protections back, but you can't really contain a spread that's already out of control. Err on the side of caution.


Except that for many things we should have known. It's like the medical field had to rediscover how deep lung viruses worked and all common sense went out the window. Remember the guy the LA PD wanted to arrest for paddle boarding by himself in the ocean? Silly. Ditto all the people driving around in their cars - by themselves - and triple masked. And also for the revelation that viruses don't like direct sunlight (i.e. UV radiation) and/high temperatures.

European schools also weren't closed for very long. How many years will our kids have to play catch up both academically and socially because we listened to Randi Weingarten and her ilk for 2 years? One dirty secret of all the mass shootings going on right now is that we have a whole generation of vulnerable kids who might be social time bombs in the making...

A dear friend's son has a couple of learning disabilities and thanks to the lockdowns he's now reading 2 or 3 years lower than where he should be. It'll be very interesting tracking the career earnings of students in states that opened early (Florida, Georgia) versus those that stayed closed for the longest (Washington).

They're alive. Jobs are going unfilled. Help wanted signs everywhere. - sano

--------------------

Great, mom and pop who put their life savings and heart and soul into operating their small hardware store for forty years. Not living an extravagant life style but paying their bills and proud of their achievement. Along comes Covid, they are ordered closed, don't have the resources to set it out so sadly close their store forever.

Now they can spending their remaining years taking one of those unfilled jobs at the Home Depot that was allowed to stay open. How very compassionate of you.

How very compassionate of you.

Oh gee.... now you're 'compassionate guy?"

Got it.

But you don't extend that compassion to the people whose lives were spared because of precautionary responses, and to their families... or to the soaring numbers of people needlessly dying from gun violence....etc etc etc

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.