Hellfire! Upside down world again... Hashi's spouting completely illogical bollocks and Skyweir's talking cast-iron common sense. Who knew?
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:TheFallen wrote:But for the love of God, cut the deliberately disingenuous sophistry - this is very obviously new, unforeseen and unaccepted shit that's in process of happening. Feel entirely free to argue over the severity of this new shit - but it is without a shred of doubt new shit... and thus unexpectedly incremental new shit.
The newness of corona is irrelevant--either deaths matter or they do not. We never locked down anything for all those other deaths so having done so now was a nothing more than a political and social experiment. You don't have to like me saying it but I will never stop saying it because the truth points to itself.
The actual severity of corona means that there was never going to be a curve which needed to be flattened--those recent CDC numbers show that 35% of people who contract corona never develop any symptoms at all even though they will test positive for both the virus and the antibodies against it. Combine that with the overall fatality rate of 0.4% (not stratified by age; by age we know that older = more deadly) and what initially looked like a mountain turned out to be a molehill after all.
Hashi, I see you're now adding the presentation of a false dichotomy to your other logical fallacies... but I'll get to that in a bit. Firstly...
"The newness of corona is irrelevant--either deaths matter or they do not." Riiiight...
As for the "newness" and unique nature of coronavirus being "irrelevant"... you're seriously maintaining that this is "just another thing"??? Okay...
name me one single other infectious disease within the last 70 years that has killed 100,000 US citizens in the space of 100 days?
And before you go groping for AIDS as an exemplar, that's killed about 720,000 people in the US since 1987 with maximum annual deaths peaking at around 42,000 (1994).
In fact, outside of heart disease and cancer, why don't you cite me *any* cause of US deaths that kills 100,000 people in 100 days? And yet, according to you, the newness of coronavirus is irrelevant.. it's just another thing, eh? Jesus...
"Combine that with the overall fatality rate of 0.4%..." Sorry - this is more utter and unadulterated bullshit. Your quoted mortality rate is just plain wrong by over an order of magnitude - disingenuous much? Now I'll freely admit that I still don't believe that mortality rate is much of a useful number, but since you quote it (and quote it entirely wrongly)...
Currently, the calculable US corona mortality rate is around
5.4%, averaged across all age ranges. Now even if we allow for your 35% of asymptomatic cases all going untested and thus being purely incremental and factor those in, the current US mortality rate would still be
3.8% - so around ten times the figure you're claiming. As you say, the truth points to itself...
Plus of course, those 35% untested asymptomatic cases are the absolute ideal spreaders of coronavirus, including to those 65% of people who won't be as lucky as them.
"...so having done so now was nothing more than a political and social experiment." Whoa - back to Independent Free State of Montana thinking. Okay, I'll run with this...
i) a
deliberately run political and social experiment? Yes or no?
ii) a political and social experiment
dreamt up and implemented by whom? Cui bono? Who exactly? (Another question previously asked and unanswered).
Right... time to pick at that false dichotomy.
"...either deaths matter or they do not." Hashi, since you're insistent on this being a purely digital paradigm...
on which side of that self-erected fence do you sit? Do deaths matter to you - or do they not? I am interested in your answer... no equivocation please and no relativism. This according to you is an utterly digital question.
And given your absolutism (which is showing itself pretty much to be a synonym for logical absurdism), here's another question for you...
is it ever a good thing for a government to attempt via legislation to mitigate risk to its citizenry? Yes or no? Presumably that must be a digital question to you as well, no? Even though the only logical answer would be a relativistic "it depends".
For example, are you in favour of the increased security checks at airports imposed following 9/11? And again as asked before, but not clearly answered, are you in favour of drink driving legislation? NB I am NOT referring to there being severe punishment for those who cause third party death or injury while drink driving, but instead those caught driving while drunk facing legal sanctions
even if they have caused no accident?
I'll bet you're in favour of safety regulations being imposed on manufacturers to mitigate the risk of them supplying unsafe products out to consumers. And I'll bet you're in favour of it being illegal for your next door neighbour to target shoot with a rifle in his backyard.
Sorry, dude. The foundations of your absolutist stance are simply absurd.
And over to Sky's comments. Pretty much bang on the money.
"The actual severity of corona means that there was never going to be a curve which needed to be flattened..." That's pure speculation - and completely fails to allow for the very likely possibility that the curve has only been successfully flattened and the impact of the virus dramatically lessened by the very measures you rail against.
As Sky points out, there is growing hard evidence that the curve has been flattened in most First World nations, precisely through imposed lockdown measures. Just look at the numbers coming in from Brazil and Russia, which she like me has cited as ideal exemplars as to what occurs without rigorous mandated lockdowns.
As Sky also completely correctly states:
Skyweir wrote:Its a significant global health threat .. each nation responding to this very real threat are doing the best they can with the little we know. That means yes sure, some response strategies may be overkill and some will be woefully inadequate.
Precisely.
And it's
*that* which should be being argued. Not the efficacy of imposed lockdowns in achieving their stated objective of reducing the R number - because it is by now fully evidenced that they of course do. But whether such imposed lockdowns are worth the concomitant costs (of all types)...
*THAT* is the sole question needing to be discussed or deserving of argument. Or to put it as Sky has, are we now in a position to be able to gauge that the degrees to which current lockdown measures have been imposed are on balance overkill?
And on that very subject, I now support the gradual and carefully monitored easing of lockdowns, now that we know more. The severity of current lockdowns is indeed unsustainable - and as everyone surely knew from the get-go, was always going to be thus. Now's the time to ease back on restrictions - BUT the key words are "carefully monitored"...
...and in direct relation to that, I note that today the following has been announced:
BBC.co.uk wrote:Coronavirus: South Korea closes schools again after biggest spike in weeks
More than 200 schools in South Korea have been forced to close just days after they re-opened, due to a new spike in virus cases.
Thousands of students had earlier on Wednesday returned to school as the country began easing virus restrictions.
But just a day later, 79 new cases were recorded, the highest daily figure in two months.
And here's your link.
You may recall that South Korea, through very rapid and prolific use of technology, testing, lockdown measures and contact tracing, was highly successful in keeping coronavirus infections down to noteworthily low levels. Today's news is therefore more than a little perturbing.