|
SplitSoul posted:
 It makes me loving angry that the current government used this crisis as an excuse to funnel more money to tax dodging rear end in a top hat companies while loving up stønad to unemployed folks, when the entire thing was so predictable and the result so obvious it had to be by design. Accept no excuses. Meanwhile the same fucks in government have underfunded and understaffed/equipped the entire health care system including a total lack of emergency medical stores in violation of national emergency readiness principles AND had to have their hand forced by the municipalities to even have a coherent pandemic response. It is by loving luck and coincidence Norway hasn't been destroyed by this virus, and we haveno idea how bad the rest of this year is gonna be. gently caress Høyre, Venstre and Krf. They need to gtfo of office. Frp needs to just stop being a thing.
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:This I agree with. Also, far too much of economical support is geared towards those who already have the best situation. For example propping up companies with full time employed office workers, who to a large degree can just safely work from home without problems, compared to safekeeping temp workers and those employed in the service industry (which, to a large degree, are the same thing). quote:Skania (Skåne), less affected than Stockholm - introduced tough measures The region that acted more quickly and more decisively and did more than the hosed up national Swedish strategy of letting everyone die did better, huh, weird.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 12:01
|
|
|
My god they shut down the theatre AND some dentists a week earlier. Wow. If that explains having only one tenth of the death rate even partially then im not really sure what the purpose of a full lockdown even is? Anyway iirc most Stockholm retirement homes shut down visitation earlier than that on their own volition. A popular current theory is that corona was spread by part time staff that couldnt afford to stay home sick. No one expected that apparently.... Threadkiller Dog fucked around with this message at 12:32 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1265245448987488258 even if these numbers are underreported by a factor 2 or 3 it's still very hard to explain
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
military cervix posted:Do you honestly think that there is no correlation between the number of superspreaders and the lockdown strategies implemented? The statement that strategies and lockdowns don't matter is just mindboggling, and requires a pretty selective reading of the data. I will say that timing of lockdowns is very important, but this does not discredit the strategy as a whole. It's extremely hard to actually enforce a lockdown, and if the right people choose to ignore it, a few indoor gatherings of certain types can lead to hundreds or thousands of infections. We want to think that we are in control of society, that the authorities implementing a policy actually has a well-defined and immediate result in reality, but this is simply not true, neither in disease control nor in politics in general. There are measures that authorities can take to control the spread but I firmly believe people are massively overestimating both how much control authorities have and also the efficacy of lockdowns in general. Japan is of course the obvious example to take and people ascribe their results to all sorts of more or less mysterious orientalist causes. As for myself I'm happy to admit I have no loving clue why any of this is happening, and as such it's far too early to say that the Swedish authorities have failed in their general strategy. On certain specific points like the elderly care fuckups, absolutely, but in general, who the gently caress knows? It's way too early to tell what is cause and what is effect here. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 13:14 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
ted hitler hunter posted:The region that acted more quickly and more decisively and did more than the hosed up national Swedish strategy of letting everyone die did better, huh, weird. This is not even a 100th of the slam dunk you seem to think it is.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
I think it is sort of silly to argue that the Swedish strategy may turn out better in the long run, unless that argument is explicitly economic. The only other argument I have seen, is the incredibly misguided herd immunity one, which is sort of like removing all traffic regulations in the hopes of achieving herd immunity for car crashes. If you disregard the economic arguments - which I'm personally willing to do, to a very large extent - then countries with stricter measures are going to be better off, in terms of preventing deaths. If there is a second round coming in the fall, as a result of seasonal variance, then countries with fewer people still infected, and an already established framework for stricter measures, are going to do a lot better. Perhaps more importantly, I think the discussion ignores the topic of changing behavior. When the government and experts declare that the situation is dire, and back that up with actual law, and are willing to accept that the result is an economic catastrophe that politicians are usually desperate to avoid - then that sends a very clear signal. It is a lot easier to accept small changes like frequent hand washing and social distancing, when they are part of a much larger effort that we have no choice about. People see it as stupid - as a waste of enormous effort - to shut down most of society, and then still cough directly into each other's faces at the yearly reunion and buffet lunch for lung disease patients. People are afraid to be shamed for not doing their part when everyone else is doing theirs - regardless of the precise efficacy of those parts. If nothing else - even if the strict shutdown and changes in behavior do nothing to fight COVID-19 - then we have at least kept hundreds or thousands of people from being hospitalized with influenza, at a point in time where we didn't have the intensive care beds for them. Azram Legion fucked around with this message at 13:28 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
It's weird how people are compelled to have strong opinions either way about corona strategies, seeing how little we know of the subject and how there is so little solid data to work with. Why do these takes just keep on coming?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:27
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:It's weird how people are compelled to have strong opinions either way about corona strategies, seeing how little we know of the subject and how there is so little solid data to work with. Why do these takes just keep on coming? because it's the single biggest issue of maybe the last decade
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:30
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:because it's the single biggest issue of maybe the last decade But no one knows anything. It's ridiculous. It's like watching the man on the street go "Well if I was building a space rocket I'd just..."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:32
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:I think it is sort of silly to argue that the Swedish strategy may turn out better in the long run That's sort of a strawman though. The argument is "Tegnell directly caused thousands of otherwise preventable deaths and people should be calling for his head on a platter", and the counter-argument is "there is no way we can know to what degree those deaths were actually preventable, and especially not if they were preventable given what we knew back in March". Azram Legion posted:countries with stricter measures are going to be better off, in terms of preventing deaths [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:32
|
|
|
We just don't know whether it was worth it to kill the olds, as a strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:It's weird how people are compelled to have strong opinions either way about corona strategies, seeing how little we know of the subject and how there is so little solid data to work with. Why do these takes just keep on coming? It is very human to look for meaning in all things and ascribe intent and causality to almost everything under the sun. People want there to be a right and a wrong and a good guy and a bad guy. They want to ascribe events to a single cause, preferably one with a human actor behind it. Anything to avoid the cold indifference of random chance and bizarre coincidences. Most commonly you see it in pop history (and especially military history, where everything is about good generals and bad generals) but it's really everywhere. SplitSoul posted:We just don't know whether it was worth it to kill the olds, as a strategy. 
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 13:42 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:But no one knows anything. It's ridiculous. It's like watching the man on the street go "Well if I was building a space rocket I'd just..." this is the case with every political issue, it's a big part of why we have freedom of speech and public discourse and, you know, just bourgeois democracy in general the way people learn isn't usually in a classroom, it's in lunch breaks and pubs and cafes and online message boards, and in the end the people are supposed to decide how things are to be run
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:It's extremely hard to actually enforce a lockdown, and if the right people choose to ignore it, a few indoor gatherings of certain types can lead to hundreds or thousands of infections. We want to think that we are in control of society, that the authorities implementing a policy actually has a well-defined and immediate result in reality, but this is simply not true, neither in disease control nor in politics in general. There are measures that authorities can take to control the spread but I firmly believe people are massively overestimating both how much control authorities have and also the efficacy of lockdowns in general. I've studied public policy, I know full well how difficult it is to actually implement changes in a lot of fields. This is not an example of this difficulty. Denmark/Norway have demonstrably shown that it is not actually that hard to enforce a lockdown to a large degree. In a very short amount of time, Norway: 1. Closed schools. 2. Closed kindergardens. 3. Canceled all large cultural/sporting events. 4. Closed effectively all bars and restaurants. 5. Closed a wide variety of businesses such as hairdressers, gyms, massage parlors etc. 6. Quarantined travellers/ people with symptoms. This combined with widespread work-from home, distancing rules and extra protection of nursing homes effectively caused a lockdown. While there was of course cases of people breaking the rules, the impact of this is severely limited because the rest of society is in lockdown. Superspreaders do not operate in a vacuum, you can only really effectively function as a superspreader in a generally open society. You are right that there is limited capacity to enforce a lockdown in the "bodyslam people breaking the rules"-sense, but this really isn't necessary. This sort of lockdown does heavily rely on public trust in government though, perhaps making it less transferrable to non-scandinavian countries.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:41
|
|
|
the alternative is a sort of bizarre quasi-meritocratic society where freaks from a couple of universities who all know each other are the only ones permitted to speak about issues and you immediately end up with a high-bourgeois elite mostly uninformed discussion is Good, Actually. sometimes the emperor really doesn't wear clothes
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:42
|
|
|
As a layman, I think there's a difference between debating, say, ideological issues (valuable) and aspects of a specific scientific field (pointless). But to each their own.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
i tend to agree that we should talk more about principles and less about specifics, but that's not where our discursive drivers are at for the most part however, the measures taken depend on the underlying technical reality, and so it's necessary that people talk about those realities in order to get a sort of working understanding of them. this naturally morphs into discussions for which people aren't really qualified, but usually everyone walks away slightly more enlightened afterwards this sort of exchange is the entire point of liberal governance, and absolutely vital for a functioning democracy of any kind
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
military cervix posted:I've studied public policy, I know full well how difficult it is to actually implement changes in a lot of fields. This is not an example of this difficulty. Denmark/Norway have demonstrably shown that it is not actually that hard to enforce a lockdown to a large degree. In a very short amount of time, Norway: Then why have basically these exact measures led to France being on par with Sweden and Switzerland being halfway in between Denmark and Sweden? Why has the total lockdown in Spain led to some of the worst results in the world? Why have Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan gotten away far easier with far less restrictive measures? TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:13 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i tend to agree that we should talk more about principles and less about specifics, but that's not where our discursive drivers are at for the most part 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:05
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Then why have basically these exact measures led to France being on par with Sweden and Switzerland being halfway in between Denmark and Sweden? Why has the total lockdown in Spain led to some of the worst results in the world? Why have Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan gotten away far easier with far less restrictive measures? Because there are other forces at hand and comparing Sweden to these countries with very different situations as regards the timing of outbreak, who carried the infection, and other factors like trust in government, demographiocs, health care systems and a host of other issues isn't as useful as comparing Sweden to the actual countries which to a very large degree resemble it. Also what is your basis for saying that the measures taking to halt the spread of the virus are responsible for the numbers of deaths we're seeing in those countries? In many instances the measures taken in the hardest hit countries are a response to the fact that they are so hard hit.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Because there are other forces at hand and comparing Sweden to these countries with very different situations as regards the timing of outbreak, who carried the infection, and other factors like trust in government, demographiocs, health care systems and a host of other issues isn't as useful as comparing Sweden to the actual countries which to a very large degree resemble it. it's almost as if factors other than lockdown strategies dominate the outcome...? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:it's almost as if factors other than lockdown strategies dominate the outcome...? This smug dismissiveness of yours is uncalled for. edit: clarified And the lesson to be learned is that lockdown strategies are a preventive measure and dependent on their effectivness on when they were put in place, especially as this virus can have a relatively long incubation period. In the same breath as you say there is no way to pass judgement on the effectiveness of Sweden's laissez faire policy you pass tremendous judgement on the measures taken by other countries. And again, it probably does not do you much good to compare Sweden with France, Vietnam or Japan, but with Denmark and Norway (and Finland too probably), especially given the very similar starting points and situations, yes, it makes a whole bunch of sense. edit2: Also on France. France had the first confirmed cases of the virus in Europe and went on for months doing nothing. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 14:30 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
honestly, 'politics doesn't matter' strikes me as a rather counterintuitive interpretation of the covid-19 response - countries with younger populations seem to have a lower rate of transmission, and some countries are almost certainly under- or misreporting, making comparisons difficult. what constitutes a confirmed case, or a covid death or whatever is going to be tremendously difficult. the excess deaths statistic, however, seems to me to be a good measure, and sweden was doing worse on that than comparable countries. policy exists in a certain context - a country with a young population can get away with policy that older, sicker populations cannot. it's not that underlying structural issues makes policy relatively insignificant, it's whether policy is suited for the society in which it's implemented - basic dialectical thinking, in other words i expect we'll see more thorough analyses as time passes, but for now it does not seem unreasonable to say that the swedish approach looks generally worse than e.g. the norwegian one
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
the ideological implications of the willingness of so many stembros to throw out all previous models for the spread of infectious diseases and triple down on "we just don't know  " are hard to ignore
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Also what is your basis for saying that the measures taking to halt the spread of the virus are responsible for the numbers of deaths we're seeing in those countries? In many instances the measures taken in the hardest hit countries are a response to the fact that they are so hard hit. I'm not saying the measures taken are responsible for anything, in fact I'm saying the opposite - lockdown measures don't seem to have any consistent effect. Although Spain locked down fairly late, when they already had several hundred deaths (~2.5 deaths/million people), they locked down harder than almost anyone else, and it still didn't stop the spread. France is pretty similar. The argument from military cervix was that lockdown is an effective measure that prevents superspreading events, but I don't think there's nearly enough evidence to say that with any sort of confidence. Randarkman posted:This smug dismissiveness of yours is uncalled for. I don't see any reason for you calling for Tegnell's head on a platter either?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
tegnell's entire purpose is to be thrown to the wolves if things turn bad, you realise
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:In the same breath as you say there is no way to pass judgement on the effectiveness of Sweden's laissez faire policy you pass tremendous judgement on the measures taken by other countries. that's exactly what I'm not doing you gigantic moron I'm saying that at this point there's no loving way we can attribute bad or good outcomes to any particular action or lack thereof because we don't loving understand poo poo! I'm not loving saying Spain bad, Sweden good! Sweden is definitely not doing well. But nobody loving knows why! Every loving expert is saying "yeah we have no idea either lol" and yet here you are confidently proclaiming there's cause and effect, bing bong so simple. The data quality is generally garbage, the infection mechanisms are very poorly understood, there's a gazillion influencing factors that nobody knows how to control for and yet people are incredibly fixated on "number go up more here than there". It's nonsense. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
thotsky posted:the ideological implications of the willingness of so many stembros to throw out all previous models for the spread of infectious diseases and triple down on "we just don't know Oh no not the stembros
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:that's exactly what I'm not doing you gigantic moron So it's just magic then? A virus that spreads through contact can't be limited by measures to prevent or restrict physical contact? And your wording was that the measures in Spain had led to some of the worst outcomes in the world. That's just wording but it stood out. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:honestly, 'politics doesn't matter' strikes me as a rather counterintuitive interpretation of the covid-19 response - countries with younger populations seem to have a lower rate of transmission, and some countries are almost certainly under- or misreporting, making comparisons difficult. what constitutes a confirmed case, or a covid death or whatever is going to be tremendously difficult. the excess deaths statistic, however, seems to me to be a good measure, and sweden was doing worse on that than comparable countries. japan has basically the oldest population in the world. hong kong is not far behind. how does that fit? I'm not saying that authority measures literally don't matter either, they absolutely do, it's just impossible to say at this point what is the result of authority measures and what is any number of a hundred other factors ranging from mask wearing habits to number of choirs per capita.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
maybe death is actually a good thing, it's way too early to tell, the afterlife might exists, we don't know
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
The Kalmar Union of Posting... torn asunder before our very eyes
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:japan has basically the oldest population in the world. hong kong is not far behind. how does that fit? What if like. Various types of Corona have been moving around Asia for centuries and people there have a slight resistance to it? I mean India has no public healthcare to speak of and people live crowded with poor sanitation. Their numbers should be in the millions easily. Even if they're bad at testing the bodies should have been piled to the rooftops at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:japan has basically the oldest population in the world. hong kong is not far behind. how does that fit? japan is almost certainly lying their asses off and have since the beginning (excess death data for japan in march seems to bear this out), don't know about hong kong the point being, when there's a huge number of confounding factors it's best to take relatively similar bins as a basis for comparison, and from such comparison it seems very much as though the swedish response has been lacking relative to the other fennoscandi countries. whether this is due to masks or population structure or deeper social issues is of course going to be subject to investigation and discussion, but atm we don't really need that level of analysis to assert 'sweden hasn't handled covid-19 well, given its circumstances' - we need a reasonable contrast, which is provided by relatively comparable countries who chose different strategies. which specific parts of the strategy that did the trick isn't really relevant to that general point. the fact is, sweden seems to have had a lot more excess deaths per capita to date than denmark, norway or finland, the natural bases for comparison in most cases. unless there's some compelling reason to assume that sweden is more similar to hong kong than to norway for relevant purposes, it should be compared to norway and not hong kong.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:So it's just magic then? A virus that spreads through contact can't be limited by measures to prevent or restrict physical contact? And your wording was that the masures in Spain had led to some of the worst outcomes in the world. That's just wording but it stood out. What part of "the transmission is very poorly understood" is hard to grasp? Do you just call anything that science does not currently have a well established explanation for "magic"? There are countries with strong lockdowns and many deaths and there are countries with weak or no lockdowns and very few deaths. The conclusion I draw from that is there must be other factors that we don't understand yet that play a bigger role, not that the virus is literally magic. You assert that the Scandinavian countries are very similar, but since Sweden locked down less that must be the cause of the higher number of deaths. I don't think that's a strong case to make at all, given how much of this we don't understand and how inconsistent the lockdowns have been globally. I'm not even prepared to accept the assertion that the Scandinavian countries are similar unconditionally in this case - culturally and socially they are, in many respects, but with regards to how the virus spread when there's so much we don't understand about that? Who knows!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
basically the position that we need to understand everything before being able to say anything seems a bit too epistemically pessimistic to me
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:It's really really simple: the way I see it, everything points to strategies/lockdown/masks not really mattering much. TheFluff posted:that's exactly what I'm not doing you gigantic moron At one hand, you can pretty confidently state that "everything points to strategies/lockdown/masks not really mattering much." and on the other hand you state that there is "no loving way we can attribute bad or good outcomes to any particular action or lack thereof "because we don't loving understand poo poo!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:japan is almost certainly lying their asses off and have since the beginning (excess death data for japan in march seems to bear this out), don't know about hong kong Even if Japan has 50-60% more cases than they're reporting (figures I've seen circulating recently) that still puts them far, far ahead of almost anyone else. Even with the oldest population in the world. V. Illych L. posted:the point being, when there's a huge number of confounding factors it's best to take relatively similar bins as a basis for comparison, and from such comparison it seems very much as though the swedish response has been lacking relative to the other fennoscandi countries. whether this is due to masks or population structure or deeper social issues is of course going to be subject to investigation and discussion, but atm we don't really need that level of analysis to assert 'sweden hasn't handled covid-19 well, given its circumstances' - we need a reasonable contrast, which is provided by relatively comparable countries who chose different strategies. which specific parts of the strategy that did the trick isn't really relevant to that general point. the fact is, sweden seems to have had a lot more excess deaths per capita to date than denmark, norway or finland, the natural bases for comparison in most cases. unless there's some compelling reason to assume that sweden is more similar to hong kong than to norway for relevant purposes, it should be compared to norway and not hong kong. what this reads as to me is "i'm going to ignore any evidence that clashes with my pet hypothesis" V. Illych L. posted:basically the position that we need to understand everything before being able to say anything seems a bit too epistemically pessimistic to me all i'm saying is, when the evidence is all over the loving place and the data quality is garbage and the experts are openly stating that this is very poorly understood, it's a bit too early to be yelling "off with his head"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
military cervix posted:At one hand, you can pretty confidently state that "everything points to strategies/lockdown/masks not really mattering much." and on the other hand you state that there is "no loving way we can attribute bad or good outcomes to any particular action or lack thereof "because we don't loving understand poo poo! fine, reword the first sentence to "there is no conclusive evidence that shows lockdown strategies to be effective". masks seem to help a bit i guess?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 15:31
|
|