|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
I remember SARS as something other countries had to deal with. We (Australia) had a screening program for entry but it was relatively unobtrusive and nobody with SARS ever entered the country.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
So I found this excellent page (which I actually remember reading way back in Mlebourne's 202 lockdown) https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC_2021.html It seems to me that with high levels of vaccination, even with delta, it is possible to get the R number below 1. Obviously the length of that stay below one is variable on a whole host of things but I would guess boosters will come into play. So I guess the answer to the question VitalSigns posted:
No, that would be silly. and VitalSigns posted:Or are you advocating some middle path where we let cases go up and up and up exponentially until the hospitals get close to full and then lock down and finally start reducing cases? No, we vaccinate, and ease and apply lock downs and restrictions as necessary. This seems doable in Australia, but if 25% of your population has tied its entire identity to not getting vaccinated you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I genuinely don't know. What is the R0 with say 85% of the population (whole population not just adults) vaccinated? Hey, that's pretty much exactly the US' vaccination/infection seroprevalence going into the current Delta outbreak!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
StrangeThing posted:Yeah. And I'm asking you, what are "the things" necessary? Gio posted:And again, I say—look to China, what are they doing? Are those things they needed to do? If the answer is “yes,” then yeah those things are necessary. I’m not a lockdown expert nor do I have any interest in discussing every minutae of public policy down to who mows the lawns. China is not a great comparison for 'what should X country do'. Yes, they have done an amazing job of getting and keeping Covid under control despite it originating there, spreading there for months before it was recognized, having a billion people, etc. However, China has a few things in its favor that a lot of countries do not have and cannot just switch on overnight. It doesn't discount Chinese performance, but it does limit the transferability of the lessons. 1. People are a lot less likely to break these types of rules. This is not to say that Chinese people are drones. There is a gently caress-ton of rule breaking in China in many contexts. But generally speaking people almost don't even need to be reminded not to do things that are against a government priority. It loving sucks that so many countries are full of selfish dickheads who break rules meant to protect other people, but that doesn't change easily. 2. When people do break rules that are a priority, the government will do a helluva lot more than just hit you with a fine. Use your imagination. This is likely a big contributor to the first factor. There are things that liberal democracies with rule of law are not going to do, almost by definition. The Australian government (or whoever) can't sack the lovely mayor and end his career with a phone call and send in a replacement. They can't censor and imprison journalists for spreading misinformation (not that those imprisoned in China were spreading misinformation), much less shadowban ordinary people in messaging apps. China probably hasn't needed to harshly enforce rules for regular people because regular people have, knowing the unpleasant consequences, followed them. (And if they have harshly enforced the rules, we probably wouldn't hear about it.) 3. With the exception of the US, I'd be surprised if there were anywhere with as much public police presence as in China. There are lots of police around (especially in the minority quarters). There are cameras everywhere, and though I suspect that's true of a lot of countries now, they are far more operationalized in China. There are flunky security guards absolutely everywhere. Every podunk neighborhood has some old fogey sitting in a booth at the entrance. Combined, these things make it far more likely that people comply with rules and far easier to enforce them when people don't comply. (If Covid did get out of control, I think this system would reach its limits. The enforcement capacity is not infinite. But the trick is not to let it get out of control.) When I look at places like Australia, and especially the US, none of these advantages are in place. Significant portions of the population deliberately break rules. They deliberately do poo poo that directly hurts themselves! There is not as much policy-wise the authorities can do about noncompliance. This sucks during a pandemic, but it's also a blessing at other times. BLM protests? Never would have happened. And while there are tons of police in the US, they are often in the lovely group that is not going to enforce the rules. There are also a lot more enforcement gaps than you'd see in somewhere like China — more data privacy, less presence in residential communities, etc. — again stuff that is probably a net good during normal times. Additionally, a factor that I think is overlooked is political economy. There is tremendous incentive for China to prolong travel bans and keep a tight leash on things. They're pushing through major domestic political and economic reforms that would have been harder during ordinary times. The Beijing Olympics are early next year, and impressing the world with them is far more important to the Party than it would be for virtually any other country. Xi is breaking precedent and starting a third term next year and does not want to do anything to jeopardize that. I'm not saying these are the reasons PRC has had a effective Covid response, but it would be very different if the economy were dependent on tourism and labor migration. All that said, this does not mean that the alternative to Zero Covid is Let'er Rip. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that. I think everyone laments that we can't have more decisive and effective responses in many places. But people are rightly recognizing that some of the proposed solutions are basically fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Yeah that's true, I'm definitely guilty of seeing everything through the lens of the states, where it was basically game over once Trump ordered that plague ship unloaded and none of its passengers tracked or traced, because the way states work in the US is uncontrollable anarchy compared to pretty much everywhere else. Did Australia have as much of a scare/response to SARS? I know early on at least you could pretty reliably predict how well a country would contain COVID based on if they had to do a bunch of poo poo to stop SARS a decade before, probably makes a lot of difference having that fresh in people's minds when its still novel I don't think there was much of a response to SARS anywhere in the western world. I was in Toronto during SARS, which IIRC was the only place with a notable outbreak outside of Asia, and there wasn't any NPIs I can remember that average people would have encountered (my partner wore a mask out, but there was no requirement for that and it was considered VERY odd at the time). I vaguely recall hearing about temperature checks at the airport. Certainly nothing that even approached the response to COVID.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:No, we vaccinate, and ease and apply lock downs and restrictions as necessary. If the lockdowns and restriction you apply can get Rt below 1, why not do that now
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the lockdowns and restriction you apply can get Rt below 1, why not do that now Because they have to be in conjunction with the vaccination program. We have been in lockdown for 250 days. It has kept the R number low but not below 1. Now with a high percentage of vaccinations we can get that R number below 1. Without the vaccine that wouldn't be possible without resorting to your frankly unrealistic ideas about what a lockdown should be Illuminti fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Smeef posted:Combined, these things make it far more likely that people comply with rules and far easier to enforce them when people don't comply. (If Covid did get out of control, I think this system would reach its limits. The enforcement capacity is not infinite. But the trick is not to let it get out of control.) Exactly. Australia and New Zealand were also zero-COVID success stories until they weren't. The pandemic isn't over yet. VitalSigns posted:If the lockdowns and restriction you apply can get Rt below 1, why not do that now Because even with a highly vaccinated population you could only maintain a COVID-zero status by keeping closed borders, two-week quarantine, heavy restrictions and occasional snap lockdowns for years and years to come, and that goes in the Not Worth It Basket where it belongs
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the lockdowns and restriction you apply can get Rt below 1, why not do that now Case count in the US has been trending downwards for weeks, so what we are currently doing DOES have the Rt below 1. What the struggle is is that it keeps spiking back up and likely will again. Our measures have been sufficient repeatedly to cause case decline but not sufficient to maintain that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Because they have to be in conjunction with the vaccination program. We have been in lockdown for 250 days. It has kept the R number low but not below 1. Now with a high percentage of vaccinations we can get that R number below 1. I understand the reasoning of doing lockdowns in conjunction with vaccines, if you get 85% of people vaccinated the lockdowns can be less strict. I don't understand the reasoning of easing up the lockdowns while cases are increasing (meaning you haven't yet vaccinated enough people for the current lockdown to be enough, let alone an eased one). That seems backwards to me. Sounds like killing a bunch of extra people for very dubious benefit. freebooter posted:Because even with a highly vaccinated population you could only maintain a COVID-zero status by keeping closed borders, two-week quarantine, heavy restrictions and occasional snap lockdowns for years and years to come, and that goes in the Not Worth It Basket where it belongs If cases are trending down, you get to covid zero. If cases are trending up, they grow exponentially because that is how exponentials work, so is your proposal to let cases grow exponentially until they overwhelm hospitals and collapse the healthcare system, or is there a point where you have to lock down anyway and get cases to trend back down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Dude ahahahaha no loving way
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Case count in the US has been trending downwards for weeks, so what we are currently doing DOES have the Rt below 1. lmao Yeah U.S policy has been a great success. We succeeded in pushing the R0 below one by doing nothing and letting it rip through the population until it burns itself out—only to start up again in other parts of the country. Gio fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Healthcare is already ready to collapse and its not just from covid,, you literally have regions that are at capacity EMS and hospital wise that are ticking time bombs until the staff walk out. Hospitals that are shuttering regionals to take the staff there to help at the main hospitals. Or closing beds off because they literally do not have staff to run them. Its not even covid, its from all the health issues that people avoided dealing with during lockdown that have come to roust, and worse then they could have been. Or cant see their doctors and things went downhill. Screaming that covid is the sole thing ignores the fact that you have entire systems that are basically shuddering corpses that can barely staff a ward at this point. Prof beetus literally posted 3 articles detailing this a few weeks ago. And thats from an area that hasn't been hit by covid hard at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
After thinking more about "how could other countries have acted more like China/Taiwan/HK/other good performers," I do think there might have been a window of opportunity to overcome a lot of the issues that have been subsequent barriers. This is a purely theoretical exercise, though, and I'm not sure if it offers any real suggestions for what countries can do now. There was probably a brief window early in the pandemic when it was overwhelmingly obvious that a catastrophe was imminent but not too late to take action. A Republican US president — and I think only a Republican US president, given the state of US politics — could have passed a PATRIOT Act for pandemics. It would have framed the pandemic in a totally different manner. It would have enabled the US to strong arm other countries to follow suite. It would have to be the US in this role since I can't imagine anyone else having that power, and it requires global coordination to work. And today we'd be debating about abuse of its powers (which there no doubt would be) instead of the incompetence and impotence of so many countries. It still seems like a long shot even in this fantasy scenario. But it also reminds me just how much Trump hosed this up for everyone and how dumb the "Biden is doing just as bad/worse" takes are. Trump singlehandedly blundered an opportunity to greatly empower himself, win reelection, and save millions of lives. He instead seemingly did just about everything imaginable to make it permanently harder for anyone to control, including outside the US. It's now almost inconceivable to imagine repairing the harm he did. Public health crises will be violently political for a long time, and meaningful legislation on the issue seems unlikely thanks to the state of Congress and the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:Dude ahahahaha no loving way You haven't posted in awhile so I'll catch you up but you're gonna need to provide more than this
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:You haven't posted in awhile so I'll catch you up but you're gonna need to provide more than this Misread VS’s math, that’s on me
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Phigs posted:I remember SARS as something other countries had to deal with. We (Australia) had a screening program for entry but it was relatively unobtrusive and nobody with SARS ever entered the country. SARS was a lot easier to deal with because while it was deadlier, it didn't have all this asymptomatic transmission COVID-19 has. You weren't infectious until you had symptoms with SARS. Which made screening a hell of a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:Misread VS’s math, that’s on me No you read it correctly, I typo'd on that post, someone else pointed it out later my bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:SARS was a lot easier to deal with because while it was deadlier, it didn't have all this asymptomatic transmission COVID-19 has. You weren't infectious until you had symptoms with SARS. That makes a lot of sense, hadn't realized its asymptomatic spread was so minimal tbh VitalSigns posted:No you read it correctly, I typo'd on that post, someone else pointed it out later R0 calculations are a mess of variables in general, which is frustrating because of how valuable a tool they are for discussion of something so omnipresent and overwhelming as COVID.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
Gio posted:lmao Yes? Rt isn’t some morality award, if the count goes down the Rt is less than 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? yeah and it’s not because of any “measures” or anything we’re “doing.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? How many people die along the way might be. The death star took every R-variable down to zero on Alderaan but some question whether anyone involved in the policymaking that led to that should get morality awards. E: the Rt for the black death dropped below 1 eventually
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: the Rt for the black death dropped below 1 eventually It did do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I understand the reasoning of doing lockdowns in conjunction with vaccines, if you get 85% of people vaccinated the lockdowns can be less strict. I can't believe you think anyone is suggesting this.... Lockdowns are easing in concert with vaccination numbers going up. I should specify in Australia. There's definitely a certain amount of disagreement/cross-talking that is coming from the fact that people in this thread have vastly different experiences both with covid personally and how the governments of those areas are dealing with it. If any non-Aussies are interested here is Victoria's roadmap to "covid normal" https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/Roadmap_Summary_210921.pdf as you can see it's basically a huge push to get to a stage where you can have 30 people in your house by Christmas! That is our north star, our Everest, our shinning city on a hill...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If cases are trending down, you get to covid zero. Flu numbers trend up and down every year without us either eradicating influenza or overwhelming our hospital system. Sometimes in a bad flu year we implement precautions like restricting visitors to hospitals or aged care facilities. Most people do not notice this because most people don't regularly interact with hospitals or aged care facilities. This is what will occur in a highly vaccinated population with COVID. The restrictions will be stricter than for the flu and the death toll will be higher than for the flu. How much stricter and how much higher we don't know yet, because no country has gone through a winter spike with a highly vaccinated population yet. VitalSigns posted:I don't understand the reasoning of easing up the lockdowns while cases are increasing (meaning you haven't yet vaccinated enough people for the current lockdown to be enough, let alone an eased one). That seems backwards to me. Case numbers in New South Wales are falling and it's generally considered to be because they got a majority of the population with at least one jab. The same situation will eventuate with Melbourne and Auckland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Case numbers in New South Wales are falling and it's generally considered to be because they got a majority of the population with at least one jab. The same situation will eventuate with Melbourne and Auckland. The point is that R<1 should be an additional requirement to easing restrictions. Because if you're above 1 then you're already failing and opening up is only going to make it worse. So NSW can ease restriction under that logic but Vic should wait. Because maybe in Vic getting to 70% slows them down, but maybe it doesn't for whatever reason and they need a higher target. If we're targeting the vaccine % because that will contain cases, then we're aiming at a proxy for the thing we actually want to target; we should be aiming at cases being contained by the vaccinations directly. If Vic hits 70% and the cases keep going up then 70% is not working and they shouldn't ease restrictions unless they just want to give up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
But the point of vaccination is also to decouple case rates from hospitalisations and deaths. Even if you get to a hypothetical 100% vaccination rate the virus is still going to spread because they're not sterilising vaccines, and so (presuming people still got tested) you would still see case numbers skyrocket as we opened up. That wouldn't mean opening up is a bad idea, since the virus is never going away and the purpose of restrictions going forward should be to protect the healthcare system, not keep cases down when those cases are no longer lethally scything through the populace. edit - like, Sydney's numbers are going down now, but they'll shoot back up again when we open up. Melbourne's numbers are as bad as they've ever been, but probably still better than they'll look around New Year's. As much as I disdain the rest of the world for saddling us with this lovely new variant that makes elimination impossible, this is now the world we live in, and I'll take catching the novel virus over spending another six months of my life locked in my apartment. freebooter fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I'll take catching the novel virus over spending another six months of my life locked in my apartment. Frankly I don't think you have the context necessary to make this statement. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
This is not "just the way it is" in China, where life is basically 2019. 2019 is more a more precious achievement than American democracy and I suspect it will be exported just as vigorously, and often in better faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:2019 is more a more precious achievement than American democracy and I suspect it will be exported What in gently caress does this mean
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:Frankly I don't think you have the context necessary to make this statement. User "freebooter" does not have the lived experience necessary to make their own life choices wrt continued strict lockdown, vaccination, and COVID-19 risk? Who the hell are you to dictate what the necessary context for making personal decisions is? Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 07:09
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:This is not "just the way it is" in China, where life is basically 2019. 2019 is more a more precious achievement than American democracy and I suspect it will be exported just as vigorously, and often in better faith. Because China is an authoritarian police state. This isn’t difficult to understand. If I have to get vaccinated and face the fact I might catch COVID one day, I prefer that fate to living in a country like China. The benefit isn’t worth the cost. It clearly is to you, which is fine - but then you should move because liberal democracies will never crack down on that sort of scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 07:12
|
|
|
freebooter posted:But the point of vaccination is also to decouple case rates from hospitalisations and deaths. Even if you get to a hypothetical 100% vaccination rate the virus is still going to spread because they're not sterilising vaccines, and so (presuming people still got tested) you would still see case numbers skyrocket as we opened up. That wouldn't mean opening up is a bad idea, since the virus is never going away and the purpose of restrictions going forward should be to protect the healthcare system, not keep cases down when those cases are no longer lethally scything through the populace. Yeah this is the giving up I mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:Frankly I don't think you have the context necessary to make this statement. A resident of a city which has spent more days under harsh lockdown than any other city on the planet does not have the "context" to make this statement? I know we are not supposed to do personal attacks, but perhaps I'll be given leeway on this: 100% go gently caress yourself you fuckhead (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 08:47
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Yeah this is the giving up I mentioned. If cases are legitimately decoupled from hospitalization and deaths (I'd add long term consequences as well), how is that giving up? The problem with the decoupling argument is that too many places have been too eager to declare that it's happening before the data is actually showing it's occurring to a significant enough degree, but if it was achieved, why care about cases? There's probably no realistic scenario where deaths get to 0, and deaths and severe outcomes are absolutely too high in many places right now to say "boom, decoupled. Covid is over!", but saying absolutely zero worldwide deaths ever is the only acceptable outcome is putting blinders on to any negative consequences of lockdowns and restrictions. To give a hypothetical, if we got to a place where outcomes for COVID, including prevalence of oncoming symptoms were equivalent to influenza (note that I'm absolutely not saying that COVID is currently just the flu, or saying that it reducing severity to that level is a certainty or even likely, just as a thought experiment), would reducing it's prevalence even further be worth adopting some of the more restrictive measures that China adopts? (widespread surveillance, media control, more omnipresent and harsher policing) enki42 fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dvergano/status/1446101669159309314 "1 out of 500 children in the United States has experienced COVID-19-associated orphanhood or death of a grandparent caregiver."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:https://twitter.com/dvergano/status/1446101669159309314 They're defining "orphanhood" as including the death of one parent (including, I believe, among kids with more than one parent), which is... a way I've never heard that defined I mean this is still horrible, to be clear. But I think to most people that headline would be very misleading
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
The dictionary definition of orphan includes losing 1 parent to death. I can think of a good reason. There are plenty of children living with a single parent, the other parent having left long ago nobody knows where they are. If the child's caregiving parent dies, they're orphaned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: the Rt for the black death dropped below 1 eventually We don't have enough evidence to say that this wasn't caused by forcing children to smoke and fart jars. More study is needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Riptor posted:They're defining "orphanhood" as including the death of one parent (including, I believe, among kids with more than one parent), which is... a way I've never heard that defined Yeah that's a bit of tricky one. If an orphan is only a child that has no living parents, then it is going to be a pretty complicated definition with all the adoptive parents, step-parents, and grandparents out there. If it's someone that has no legal guardians, then it's a definition that basically includes hardly anyone at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 17:22
|
|
