Auspol Infinity: Front of the queue off a cliff

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol Infinity: Front of the queue off a cliff

Yeah Nah? This poll is closed.
Yeah Nah	122	53.51%
Nah Yeah	64	28.07%
Nah Yee	18	7.89%
No Yes	9	3.95%
Yes No	15	6.58%
Total:	228 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Tommunist posted:

How do you figure

Well, if it cost everyone an average of 10c per day (which I think is a very conservative estimate), and went on for six weeks, that would be $22 million. How many cases will it prevent? That's very hard to estimate, but if we imagine that the current test-and-trace program is on track to eliminate the outbreak after another 100 cases, and the masks bring it down to 50 cases, then that's $500,000 per case.

But how much does masking actually cost? The first information available on google suggests that that a decent reusable mask will cost around $20 https://www.finder.com.au/reusable-face-mask-cost-analysis + shipping (which might be shared). I don't have any better information to hand (I've only used disposable masks because that's what I'm used to).

So that brings our cost over 6 weeks up to about 50c/day, or $2.5 million per case avoided in the above scenario.

Now the true number of cases avoided might be higher or lower, the actual cost of masks might be higher or lower, but there are very realistic scenarios where universal masking might be a poor use of money.

The bad thing about testing and tracing is that it's difficult, so you can't do it for millions of cases. But the nice thing about testing and tracing (if your outbreak is small enough to do it) is that it follows the course of the outbreak and applies only to people likely to be affected by the outbreak. Masks are a cheap, scattergun method of decreasing population susceptibility to the virus everywhere, and they're definitely a great idea in places where people are frequently being exposed to the virus, but there comes a point where making everyone where a mask *might* become inefficient.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 03:26

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

masks may save lives but is it too costly to the economy? the answer may surprise you! see our interview with doctor josef mengele for a naunced view on this controversial topic

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:15

TammyHEH: Dec 11, 2013; Alfrything is only the ghost of a memory...

The Artificial Kid posted:

Well, if it cost everyone an average of 10c per day (which I think is a very conservative estimate), and went on for six weeks, that would be $22 million. How many cases will it prevent? That's very hard to estimate, but if we imagine that the current test-and-trace program is on track to eliminate the outbreak after another 100 cases, and the masks bring it down to 50 cases, then that's $500,000 per case.

But how much does masking actually cost? The first information available on google suggests that that a decent reusable mask will cost around $20 https://www.finder.com.au/reusable-face-mask-cost-analysis + shipping (which might be shared). I don't have any better information to hand (I've only used disposable masks because that's what I'm used to).

So that brings our cost over 6 weeks up to about 50c/day, or $2.5 million per case avoided in the above scenario.

Now the true number of cases avoided might be higher or lower, the actual cost of masks might be higher or lower, but there are very realistic scenarios where universal masking might be a poor use of money.

Is this a troll

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:17

realbez: Mar 23, 2005; Fun Shoe

That is a Concern Troll: Finance

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:22

x1o: Aug 5, 2005; My focus is UNPARALLELED!

CelestialScribe posted:

Just shut the gently caress up already.

What you�re basically saying is that Victoria hasn�t improved contact tracing at all. Which simply isn�t the case.

I get you might have had a lovely 2020 like all of us but it�s simply too early to tell whether this will be contained or turn into something worse.

My 2020 was amazing, which I kinda feel awful about considering how many other people suffered during the year. But I'm going to assume it's going to get worse this virus is incredibly infectious, and as I pointed out, one of the infection sites is a popular shopping center during one of the most busiest shopping days of the year. In the worst case, there are now hundreds of cases resulting from that. It's unlikely, but best get ready for it.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:22

TammyHEH: Dec 11, 2013; Alfrything is only the ghost of a memory...

realbez posted:

That is a Concern Troll: Finance

Thanks I have made a note on my spreadsheet

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:24

Gridlocked: Aug 2, 2014; MR. STUPID MORON
WITH AN UGLY FACE
AND A BIG BUTT
AND HIS BUTT SMELLS
AND HE LIKES TO KISS
HIS OWN BUTT
by Roger Hargreaves

Hello Thread, Happy New Year.

It's a good time to join the Discord.

Also what the poo poo is this wakko on about :

The Artificial Kid posted:

Well, if it cost everyone an average of 10c per day (which I think is a very conservative estimate), and went on for six weeks, that would be $22 million. How many cases will it prevent? That's very hard to estimate, but if we imagine that the current test-and-trace program is on track to eliminate the outbreak after another 100 cases, and the masks bring it down to 50 cases, then that's $500,000 per case.

But how much does masking actually cost? The first information available on google suggests that that a decent reusable mask will cost around $20 https://www.finder.com.au/reusable-face-mask-cost-analysis + shipping (which might be shared). I don't have any better information to hand (I've only used disposable masks because that's what I'm used to).

So that brings our cost over 6 weeks up to about 50c/day, or $2.5 million per case avoided in the above scenario.

Now the true number of cases avoided might be higher or lower, the actual cost of masks might be higher or lower, but there are very realistic scenarios where universal masking might be a poor use of money.

The bad thing about testing and tracing is that it's difficult, so you can't do it for millions of cases. But the nice thing about testing and tracing (if your outbreak is small enough to do it) is that it follows the course of the outbreak and applies only to people likely to be affected by the outbreak. Masks are a cheap, scattergun method of decreasing population susceptibility to the virus everywhere, and they're definitely a great idea in places where people are frequently being exposed to the virus, but there comes a point where making everyone where a mask *might* become inefficient.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:26

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Airism masks are like $15 for three at Uniqlo you don't have to get masks from fancy online shops at $20+ a throw.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:26

Paracausal: Sep 5, 2011; Oh yeah, baby. Frame your suffering as a masterpiece. Only one problem - no one's watching. It's boring, buddy, boring as death.

look if we spent some money on local textiles to implement an easy way to hinder continued spread of a contagious virus... we might urrr... be spending money... wrong?

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:28

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Artificial kid probably works in public service (or more accurately a big consulting firm that services the public service) and has had their brain irrevocably broken by having to write regulatory impact statements. Having to write up stuff like what dollar value is too much to pay to prevent a child drowning in their backyard pool and getting permanent brain damage will do that to you.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:30

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Imagine how many privately owned mines you could fully subsidise with all the covid gravy train money smdh

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:34

TammyHEH: Dec 11, 2013; Alfrything is only the ghost of a memory...

Can we get the blood thirsty Dutch dude back I liked him

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:36

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Tommunist posted:

Can we get the blood thirsty Dutch dude back I liked him

Nah he�s left Melbourne for rural Mornington

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:38

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

x1o posted:

My 2020 was amazing, which I kinda feel awful about considering how many other people suffered during the year. But I'm going to assume it's going to get worse this virus is incredibly infectious, and as I pointed out, one of the infection sites is a popular shopping center during one of the most busiest shopping days of the year. In the worst case, there are now hundreds of cases resulting from that. It's unlikely, but best get ready for it.

Get ready for it, how exactly? This year is just full of people saying poo poo like �oh the world is ending�. Like you do you if you want to collapse in a puddle of despair.

If your point is that we need to be in stage 4 now then okay but I think that�s overkill.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:49

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Gridlocked posted:

Hello Thread, Happy New Year.

It's a good time to join the Discord.

Also what the poo poo is this wakko on about :

I think this guy got kicked out of uspol

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:49

TammyHEH: Dec 11, 2013; Alfrything is only the ghost of a memory...

The insidious stage 4 the thread collectively is pushing for

# ? Jan 1, 2021 06:53

TheLastRoboKy: May 2, 2009; Finishing the game with everyone else's continues

Really we should make it so that anyone who wants to leave their house during the pandemic has to beat world 4 of Super Mario: The Lost Levels.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 07:22

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

What is it with the australians who go into uspol to simp for neoliberalism to the point where even the seppos can't stand them anymore and by the time they come back to auspol they're completely incomprehensible wobbling piles of sheer myopic entitlement

# ? Jan 1, 2021 07:27

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

The Artificial Kid posted:

Well, if it cost everyone an average of 10c per day (which I think is a very conservative estimate), and went on for six weeks, that would be $22 million. How many cases will it prevent? That's very hard to estimate, but if we imagine that the current test-and-trace program is on track to eliminate the outbreak after another 100 cases, and the masks bring it down to 50 cases, then that's $500,000 per case.

But how much does masking actually cost? The first information available on google suggests that that a decent reusable mask will cost around $20 https://www.finder.com.au/reusable-face-mask-cost-analysis + shipping (which might be shared). I don't have any better information to hand (I've only used disposable masks because that's what I'm used to).

So that brings our cost over 6 weeks up to about 50c/day, or $2.5 million per case avoided in the above scenario.

Now the true number of cases avoided might be higher or lower, the actual cost of masks might be higher or lower, but there are very realistic scenarios where universal masking might be a poor use of money.

The bad thing about testing and tracing is that it's difficult, so you can't do it for millions of cases. But the nice thing about testing and tracing (if your outbreak is small enough to do it) is that it follows the course of the outbreak and applies only to people likely to be affected by the outbreak. Masks are a cheap, scattergun method of decreasing population susceptibility to the virus everywhere, and they're definitely a great idea in places where people are frequently being exposed to the virus, but there comes a point where making everyone where a mask *might* become inefficient.

It's not a cost borne by the state so who gives a gently caress

# ? Jan 1, 2021 07:40

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

The Artificial Kid posted:

So that brings our cost over 6 weeks up to about 50c/day, or $2.5 million per case avoided in the above scenario.

Do you want to pay millions or have a cost of billions. Clearly, you and the NSW LNP want it to cost billions.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 07:42

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

# ? Jan 1, 2021 07:44

Eediot Jedi: Dec 25, 2007; This is where I begin to speculate what being a
man of my word costs me

Tommunist posted:

The insidious stage 4 the thread collectively is pushing for

Pfft, I want stage 6, where the ring of steel is mad max gangs.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:26

GoldStandardConure: Jun 11, 2010; I have to kill fast
and mayflies too slow; Pillbug

Eediot Jedi posted:

Pfft, I want stage 6, where the ring of steel is mad max gangs.

stage 7: execute everyone outside of WA

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:36

Eediot Jedi: Dec 25, 2007; This is where I begin to speculate what being a
man of my word costs me

McGowan: deploy the emus.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:45

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Tommunist posted:

Is this a troll

No, it's not a troll. It's standard practice in public health policy to analyse interventions in terms benefit vs. financial cost and other negative impacts. If everyone in the world had stopped in their tracks, gone home, locked their door and not come out for four weeks when the first case was identified in Wuhan, there would be no COVID in the world right now, but that was obviously not feasible. If nobody in Australia had done anything to halt the pandemic, the cost of inaction would be overwhelmingly more than the cost we have born so far. The difficulty is in the edge cases.

As I said, it's clearly better for everyone to wear masks in a country where the virus is running rampant, and it's probably a good idea in NSW, but it's not as clear cut as people are making out.

freebooter posted:

It's not a cost borne by the state so who gives a gently caress

A mandatory cost borne by all of the people on an individual/family level might as well be a cost borne by the state. Saying "it's ok because everyone will bear the cost privately" is just the obverse of the right-wing coin face that reads "I don't want my taxes going to the government". If we want the state to provide for people and act at least partially as a socialist collective, then we have to accept that farming out costs to the people is just a parlour trick to make it look like it's not "government spending".

Solemn Sloth posted:

Artificial kid probably works in public service (or more accurately a big consulting firm that services the public service) and has had their brain irrevocably broken by having to write regulatory impact statements. Having to write up stuff like what dollar value is too much to pay to prevent a child drowning in their backyard pool and getting permanent brain damage will do that to you.

I'm not that, and I'm drawing on what I've learned about public health. Refusing to analyse interventions in terms of cost-benefit is not an act of charity, it's a sure way to misallocate resources and do less good than you otherwise could have. You think saying "that would cost $500,000 per case avoided" is a way of saying "I don't want to save lives", but it's also the first step towards saying "...and we could keep 8 people on dialysis for a year with that money". And $500,000 per case avoided means $25+ million per life saved, which would be enough to set up a whole dialysis unit and run it for years. Which is the better thing to do? Cost-benefit analysis helps us know. I get the sense you've decided I'm a poo poo human being and your enemy, but I don't think we are enemies, if you care about helping people.

The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jan 1, 2021

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:50

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Eediot Jedi posted:

McGowan: deploy the emus.

Export the Emus.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:52

realbez: Mar 23, 2005; Fun Shoe

Don�t engage don�t engage don�t engage

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:53

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY: Feb 3, 2006

The genocide defender has logged on.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:54

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY: Feb 3, 2006

Please only post in good faith. It's in the rules.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:55

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

CelestialScribe posted:

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. I said the decision to reduce visitor numbers and introduce masks for indoors is good.

If you're trying to attack me for saying we shouldn't go into stage 4 lockdown right now, then go ahead I guess? Sorry for thinking there can be some actual nuance in our response here rather than re-introducing curfews and 5km limits right away.

I can't believe that literally 12 months of COVID hasn't indicated to you that the best strategy is moving swiftly, rather than the "will they, won't they" mentality that we can't seem to shake.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:57

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

The Artificial Kid posted:

No, it's not a troll. It's standard practice in public health policy to analyse interventions in terms benefit vs. financial cost and other negative impacts. If everyone in the world had stopped in their tracks, gone home, locked their door and not come out for four weeks when the first case was identified in Wuhan, there would be no COVID in the world right now, but that was obviously not feasible. If nobody in Australia had done anything to halt the pandemic, the cost of inaction would be overwhelmingly more than the cost we have born so far. The difficulty is in the edge cases.

As I said, it's clearly better for everyone to wear masks in a country where the virus is running rampant, and it's probably a good idea in NSW, but it's not as clear cut as people are making out.
A mandatory cost borne by all of the people on an individual/family level might as well be a cost borne by the state. Saying "it's ok because everyone will bear the cost privately" is just the obverse of the right-wing coin face that reads "I don't want my taxes going to the government". If we want the state to provide for people and act at least partially as a socialist collective, then we have to accept that farming out costs to the people is just a parlour trick to make it look like it's not "government spending".
I'm not that, and I'm drawing on what I've learned about public health. Refusing to analyse interventions in terms of cost-benefit is not an act of charity, it's a sure way to misallocate resources and do less good than you otherwise could have. You think saying "that would cost $500,000 per case avoided" is a way of saying "I don't want to save lives", but it's also the first step towards saying "...and we could keep 8 people on dialysis for a year with that money". And $500,000 per case avoided means $25+ million per life saved, which would be enough to set up a whole dialysis unit and run it for years. Which is the better thing to do? Cost-benefit analysis helps us know. I get the sense you've decided I'm a poo poo human being and your enemy, but I don't think we are enemies, if you care about helping people.

Glad you've volunteered to sacrifice you and your family for the greater good. I mean, it's just good financial sense.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 08:58

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

NSW can have a little covid, as a treat

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:08

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

7 News running a puff piece on the Howard Government atm. It has a clip of Scomo on holidays saying "Only a Liberal government could have delivered the 2000 Olympics."

To a nodding 7 News reporter.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:12

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Recoome posted:

Glad you've volunteered to sacrifice you and your family for the greater good. I mean, it's just good financial sense.

What little remains of my entire family is in NSW, my dad is very elderly and frail, and also extremely lonely since my mum got crushed to death by an actual truck a few years ago, so working out when and how to visit him as been taxing when there are outbreaks. My partner works in a hospital every day, although luckily neither of us have had a cold all year and she hasn't needed even a test at any point so far. In March we had conversations about whether we should try to get infected early while there were still ventilators, because we thought we were both going to be called up to work in crushed COVID ICUs a la Italy at some point.

All of that is in the background of anything I say about the cost-benefit of mandatory masking in NSW. And again, I stress, I'm not arguing against masks in general, they're obviously needed in the US, Europe, and anywhere else with a runaway epidemic. And I'm not even saying that they're *definitely* unnecessary in NSW, I'm only commenting on whether or not it's clear cut that they're needed here. If you're arguing that we shouldn't even think about the cost-benefit of things we do in healthcare than I'm going to have to disagree, because thinking about that leads to better decisions and better health outcomes.

The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jan 1, 2021

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:14

kirbysuperstar: Nov 11, 2012; Let the fools who stand before us be destroyed by the power you and I possess.

The Artificial Kid posted:

In March we had conversations about whether we should try to get infected early while there were still ventilators, because we thought we were both going to be called up to work in crushed COVID ICUs a la Italy at some point.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:17

iajanus: Aug 17, 2004; NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE

Anidav posted:

7 News running a puff piece on the Howard Government atm. It has a clip of Scomo on holidays saying "Only a Liberal government could have delivered the 2000 Olympics."

To a nodding 7 News reporter.

2000 NSW govt, famously a LNP one

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:17

RichardA: Sep 1, 2006; .; Dinosaur Gum

The Artificial Kid posted:

No, it's not a troll. It's standard practice in public health policy to analyse interventions in terms benefit vs. financial cost and other negative impacts.

It becomes a troll when you only consider the costs of one side and not the other. Where is your accounting for the cost of the 50 extra cases? The estimate for the amount of close contacts they would cause to go into isolation for weeks? The cost of keeping the restrictions up for longer because there are more cases for longer? Potential costs of long term effects from the virus?

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:21

TammyHEH: Dec 11, 2013; Alfrything is only the ghost of a memory...

RichardA posted:

It becomes a troll when you only consider the costs of one side and not the other. Where is your accounting for the cost of the 50 extra cases? The estimate for the amount of close contacts they would cause to go into isolation for weeks? The cost of keeping the restrictions up for longer because there are more cases for longer? Potential costs of long term effects from the virus?

Its also a 10 dollar piece of fabric that most people on the east should have at picked up at some point this year.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:23

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

RichardA posted:

It becomes a troll when you only consider the costs of one side and not the other. Where is your accounting for the cost of the 50 extra cases? The estimate for the amount of close contacts they would cause to go into isolation for weeks? The cost of keeping the restrictions up for longer because there are more cases for longer? Potential costs of long term effects from the virus?

I was trying to speak in terms of total cases. So between now and when there's no more COVID in NSW, how many cases will be avoided by mandatory masking? If the contact tracing system is going to succeed again as it did with the Crossroads cluster (and I was surprised it worked that time, I was jonesing for a lockdown and I thought our government was being stupid), then the answer could well be "not many". Obviously if the contact tracing system is going to fail, then we'd have been better off locking down now, but we won't know that until it succeeds or fails.

Another question is how likely are masks to make the difference between the tracing system succeeding or failing? I really don't know, I don't know how well anyone is equipped to calculate that. My guess would be not all that likely, but I admit I have no sure knowledge of that.

The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jan 1, 2021

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 03:26

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

The Artificial Kid posted:

In March we had conversations about whether we should try to get infected early while there were still ventilators, because we thought we were both going to be called up to work in crushed COVID ICUs a la Italy at some point.

Sucks about your family but ughhhhhhh doesn't your sad vignette kind of support the idea of proactive action. The short-term cost outweighs the long-term impacts of border closures/extended lockdowns which happen anyway.

# ? Jan 1, 2021 09:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol Infinity: Front of the queue off a cliff

«‹›164 »