Coronavirus Thread V: A Shot in the Arm (READ OP)

[Post War America]

Dude, for the hundredth time: even without a lockdown, businesses would have been in dire straits anyway. Not locking down wouldn't have saved most of those businesses. What might have helped would have been the state providing financial aid to small and medium businesses while they remained on lockdown.

Sweden seems to be doing just fine, certainly doesn't have the same evisceration of its economy like the states that pursued the lockdowns...in fact things are far, far better than the catastrophic damage elsewhere and are recovering much faster, in fact their economy is growing again. A lot of simple precautions that are now in place post-lockdown could have been implemented instead and achieved much better results than shutting down arbitrarily-defined "nonessential" businesses at the whim of government.

I don't understand why people are so desperate to defend a terrible policy decision based on flawed evidence, especially when it so completely and utterly failed to actually do anything to protect those most vulnerable from death due to the coronavirus.

Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.

[Salandriagado]

Except as a way to make profit... To the point that even families are being side-winded in favor of workplace success.

Ironically the idiotic lockdown approach achieved exactly that...eviscerated small and medium businesses and concentrated even more power into the world's largest corporations while simultaneously engendering one of the largest transfers of wealth to the 0.01% that has ever happened. Even better, it destroyed a huge number of these businesses permanently so now there is a huge pool of desperate unemployed people to be taken advantage of. We will never recover from this without a degree of social and political change and upheaval that hasn't happened, at least in the Western world, for 170 years or so.

Stop fucking lying, it's obnoxious.

[Ghost Land]

Did you know that some people (especially poor and/or old people) don't have Internet access? Their best options are the telephone, mail, and face-to-face conversation.

I remember people being scared of a global pandemic in 2014-2015 when Ebola was ravaging West Africa.

You're too late Ghost. 160,000 Americans are dead and now we know for certain covid is a pandemic and it's no longer just a rumor.

See below.

Did you know that some people (especially poor and/or old people) don't have Internet access? Their best options are the telephone, mail, and face-to-face conversation.

I remember people being scared of a global pandemic in 2014-2015 when Ebola was ravaging West Africa.

Hmmm? Have you been on holiday for the last 6 months? You might want to look up the statistics. The US alone is on track for 300000 dead.

What people were scared of in the past is irrelevant to what is going on now.

Way to read too far into my post, you guys. I'm not denying COVID-19 is a pandemic. It's been about 7.5 months since I first heard about this in the news and it's pretty much all they've been talking about ever since, so I'm well aware of what's happening; my other posts in this thread show as much. I'm just POINTING OUT as a relative aside that there was widespread FEAR of a pandemic with Ebola in 2014-2015. I'm not pretending Ebola is or was as widespread as COVID-19. Don't put words in my mouth, people.

Edit: I just remembered we actually were in a pandemic in 2014: AIDS, which has been a pandemic since 1981.

Sweden seems to be doing just fine, certainly doesn't have the same evisceration of its economy like the states that pursued the lockdowns...in fact things are far, far better than the catastrophic damage elsewhere and are recovering much faster, in fact their economy is growing again. A lot of simple precautions that are now in place post-lockdown could have been implemented instead and achieved much better results than shutting down arbitrarily-defined "nonessential" businesses at the whim of government.

I don't understand why people are so desperate to defend a terrible policy decision based on flawed evidence, especially when it so completely and utterly failed to actually do anything to protect those most vulnerable from death due to the coronavirus.

Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.

Counterpoint: as of right now, Sweden's daily new case points seem to be on a broadly steady to downward trend, while Denmark and Norway are both showing recent increases. More proof that the lockdowns just increased the amount of time this whole thing lasted and did little to PREVENT (as opposed to slowing) the spread.

[Vetalia]

Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.

Honestly, though, it's all over the place in terms of mortality, lockdown or not, and many lockdown countries have fared far worse than they have (and are now contending with a revival of the virus that is not happening in Sweden).

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

And Sweden's population isn't really that highly dispersed, it's really pretty densely clustered around a few major cities. The US has a more dispersed population which would make this kind of approach even more effective.

Lastly, we also can't excuse the fact that the vast majority of these deaths occurred in long-term care facilities and other places that ostensibly should have benefited the most from these policies yet the lockdowns did absolutely nothing to prevent these deaths (and in fact the problem was actively exacerbated during this period by policy decisions that are either mind-bogglingly idiotic or outright evil); were these vulnerable populations the focus of controlling the damage from this pandemic the death toll would be massively lower, with up to 60-70% in many places occurring in these kinds of facilities and many of the rest among non-institutionalized populations with serious health issues.

Fact is, unless you are very old or very sick the threat posed by this virus is very low especially when combined with good hygiene practices and mask wearing in public, indoor places. Keeping things open and operating with a simple mask mandate would have achieved much better results with minimal economic disruption.

[Liriena]

Dude, for the hundredth time: even without a lockdown, businesses would have been in dire straits anyway. Not locking down wouldn't have saved most of those businesses. What might have helped would have been the state providing financial aid to small and medium businesses while they remained on lockdown.

Sweden

Sweden had ten times the deaths that the rest of Scandinavia did.

If you want to sacrifice your grandma to small businesses instead of advocating for giving them state financial aid during lockdown, that's your problem. I for one am not comfortable sacrificing lives for profit.

[The Rich Port]

Sweden

Sweden had ten times the deaths that the rest of Scandinavia did.

If you want to sacrifice your grandma to small businesses instead of advocating for giving them state financial aid during lockdown, that's your problem. I for one am not comfortable sacrificing lives for profit.

If you just ignore the virus it'll go away man come on do it for the economy.

I dunno what da hek you talking bout, nothing makes me wanna spend and screams "consumer confidence" like grandma keeling over in the shopping mall.

[Vetalia]

Sweden had ten times the deaths that the rest of Scandinavia did.

If you want to sacrifice your grandma to small businesses instead of advocating for giving them state financial aid during lockdown, that's your problem. I for one am not comfortable sacrificing lives for profit.

For a small business owner, it's a matter of their livelihood. I don't think you understand just how much it would cost to give them aid during lockdown, you would literally have to come up with money to support a massive chunk of the overall economy. That is simply not possible and without these businesses operating, the ripple effect spreads throughout the rest of the economy even if you give them money...what are they going to spend it on? Inventory they previously purchased to simply let rot?

And a lot of those deaths were due to the failure to take proper precautions to protect vulnerable populations in places like long term care facilities...and if "grandma" thinks she's vulnerable, she needs to self isolate, not force everyone else to do so. Policy is not and should not based on emotivist reasoning about "killing grandma", it should be based on pragmatic economic reality and which makes the most sense in the long-term for the benefit of the nation as a whole. This is the way decisions have been made in every prior pandemic yet for some reason it's different now.

And if we really wanted to get into the deaths aspect, how many people are you willing to let die in the name of the lockdowns?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Sweden seems to be doing just fine, certainly doesn't have the same evisceration of its economy like the states that pursued the lockdowns...in fact things are far, far better than the catastrophic damage elsewhere and are recovering much faster, in fact their economy is growing again. A lot of simple precautions that are now in place post-lockdown could have been implemented instead and achieved much better results than shutting down arbitrarily-defined "nonessential" businesses at the whim of government.

I don't understand why people are so desperate to defend a terrible policy decision based on flawed evidence, especially when it so completely and utterly failed to actually do anything to protect those most vulnerable from death due to the coronavirus.

Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.

Also their economy did take a hit.

[Vetalia]

If you just ignore the virus it'll go away man come on do it for the economy.

I dunno what da hek you talking bout, nothing makes me wanna spend and screams "consumer confidence" like grandma keeling over in the shopping mall.

Maybe grandma should stay home then, ever think of that? Haven't exactly seen anyone keeling over from COVID at any point, either.

Oddly enough, Sweden doesn't have any problems with consumer confidence while the countries that imposed lockdowns are in total economic collapse and will not recover for the foreseeable future even with all the money printing propping things up.

[Vetalia]

Also their economy did take a hit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354

True, but not even remotely close to the lockdown states in Europe.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.

Honestly, though, it's all over the place in terms of mortality, lockdown or not, and many lockdown countries have fared far worse than they have (and are now contending with a revival of the virus that is not happening in Sweden).

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

And Sweden's population isn't really that highly dispersed, it's really pretty densely clustered around a few major cities. The US has a more dispersed population which would make this kind of approach even more effective.

Lastly, we also can't excuse the fact that the vast majority of these deaths occurred in long-term care facilities and other places that ostensibly should have benefited the most from these policies

Sweden's voluntary approach didn't work where you would expect it to work best: those long-term care facilities. Their staff were already trained in infection control (or should have been) so for the benefit of their clients and their own livelihoods you'd expect them to voluntarily comply with recommendations far better than the general population does.

What went wrong? Maybe commercial interests came before the safety of their clients and the livelihoods of workers in that industry ..?

yet the lockdowns did absolutely nothing to prevent these deaths (and in fact the problem was actively exacerbated during this period by policy decisions that are either mind-bogglingly idiotic or outright evil); were these vulnerable populations the focus of controlling the damage from this pandemic the death toll would be massively lower, with up to 60-70% in many places occurring in these kinds of facilities and many of the rest among non-institutionalized populations with serious health issues.

You're going with the death rate being so high in aged care (etc), but of course that rate would be higher than the death rate in the general population. Whatever preventative measures were required by government, let alone actually implemented, would need to keep the infection rate there to a MUCH lower level.

Before declaring that they utterly failed, you should talk about the infection rate in long-term care (etc). If that's as high or higher than the general population, THEN you can say they utterly failed to keep infection out. If it's significantly lower then you must concede they partially succeeded.

The most vulnerable should be the most protected, and clearly they're not. But your case that attempts to protect them did "absolutely nothing" lacks the relevant data: not death rates, but infection rates.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Also their economy did take a hit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354

True, but not even remotely close to the lockdown states in Europe.

-8.6 is not that different from -10.5 in Germany. "Not even remotely close" isn't very honest of you.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Top ten most heart breaking anime betrayals

[The Huskar Social Union]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative but I’m staying in my room as I can feel some minor symptoms starting to come on

[Kowani]

Russia claims to have a vaccine.

[Shamhnan Insir]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative but I’m staying in my room as I can feel some minor symptoms starting to come on

Hope you'll be feeling better soon Husk, take care.

[-Astoria-]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative but I’m staying in my room as I can feel some minor symptoms starting to come on

This does not spark joy: get well soon.

[The Alma Mater]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Get well soon. Hope you will only suffer some minor symptoms.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative

That's a comfort

[The Blaatschapen]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative but I’m staying in my room as I can feel some minor symptoms starting to come on

Get well soon

[The Rich Port]

Russia claims to have a vaccine.

And I'm in the fucking Mickey Mouse Club.

Then again sure Russia is full of despotic backroom backstabbers but they also would be the ones to brag about having a vaccine to sell.

Trump is third behind them and China though.

[Costa Fierro]

New Zealand has four cases of community transmission. Auckland is in Level 3 from noon tomorrow, the rest of the country at Level 2 effective immediately.

[The Rich Port]

I got a text from the NHS just a few minutes ago, I tested positive for the virus.

Thankfully the rest of my family tested negative but I’m staying in my room as I can feel some minor symptoms starting to come on

Scary as the virus is, it has a high survivability rate, even among people who are at risk for dying.

Stay positive, stay hopeful, it will help you stay strong. Hey maybe I will join you soon in dying, we haven't gotten our own test results back yet.

Might as well have a "are we dying timer" set to 14 days every time we get exposed to the damn thing.

[Knask]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354

True, but not even remotely close to the lockdown states in Europe.

-8.6 is not that different from -10.5 in Germany. "Not even remotely close" isn't very honest of you.

Also, it's going to be more telling when you compare with Norway and Denmark, which has yet to release their numbers.

It is also worth pointing out that although Norway and Denmark have not yet posted their GDP results for the second quarter, they are expected to see a yearly 3.5 and 4.1 percent drop, respectively, at the end of 2020, which would be better than the six percent GDP drop the Swedish government has previously predicted. Norway and Denmark both had far tougher coronavirus restrictions than Sweden.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200805/what-does-swedens-gdp-drop-actually-tell-us-about-lockdown-and-the-economy

[Nobel Hobos 2]

New Zealand has four cases of community transmission. Auckland is in Level 3 from noon tomorrow, the rest of the country at Level 2 effective immediately.

I heard it was 4 people from the same family. Do you know if they lived together?

[Costa Fierro]

New Zealand has four cases of community transmission. Auckland is in Level 3 from noon tomorrow, the rest of the country at Level 2 effective immediately.

I heard it was 4 people from the same family. Do you know if they lived together?

As far as I know yes. There was also an aged care facility in Christchurch that was put onto partial lockdown for testing.