RichardGibbons

I think you need to add contact tracing too. Largely, the places that have done well have done that.

Yeah, let's just ignore the potential for millions of deaths on the other side of the scale.

I also would include Investor20's point about nursing homes. I think it is a real thing and shouldn't be ignored simply because Investor20's focus seems to be on scoring political points rather than understanding the disease. Implementing best practices in nursing homes (as opposed to the previous worst practices of bringing in Covid-19 patients) can make a real difference in deaths. A big chunk of early deaths in Canada were because of nursing home infections, but there are far fewer cases now. And it seems clear by now that a randomly-selected infected person in a nursing home is on average going to have a much higher chance of death than a randomly-selected infected person who isn't in a nursing home. (Maybe you consider that part of your #2, but I'd include it as a separate item because improved infection avoidance of vulnerable people seems different than improved treatment.)

Yeah, this is so true. The world would be a much easier place to live in if everything were black and white, no shades of grey. It totally sucks that existence is so complicated. Its actually not complicated at all. Its defined by the constitution. Good point. I don't think anybody's every argued about the meaning of anything in the U.S. Constitution. Certainly no shades of grey there!

Yeah, this is so true. The world would be a much easier place to live in if everything were black and white, no shades of grey. It totally sucks that existence is so complicated.

You know, there's a very easy way around this problem of saying something today that doesn't agree with the stuff you said in the past. All you have to do is say something like, "Back when I said that, I thought the Swedish approach was working, but now it seems like it might not be. Today, the Japanese approach seems to be working and has had minimal impact on the economy, so I think that's a good approach. At all times, I try to support best-practices based on the information I have, so that's why my view has changed somewhat." When you just take your current view and pretend that you've always had that view--despite evidence that everyone can read--it just makes you seem stubborn and silly for no good reason. Seriously, there's nothing wrong with changing your opinions when new evidence arises.

Don't be ridiculous--the obvious solution is to listen to the President, and not test at all. Then there won't be any cases.

OK, I was assuming when on April 24, when you said, "Take Sweden with low mitigation efforts. They had 213 deaths/million or 72000 deaths for 340 million (US population)…. The 500K deaths prediction by Dr. Fauci is off with Sweden by 7 fold, let alone Japan by 500 fold, both countries with low mitigation efforts", it meant that you thought the Swedish approach was a good one. I guess maybe you threw it in there as random trivia, not to imply that their low mitigation approach was effective. Perhaps, though you were referencing Sweden and Japan in parallel ways in the same sentence, you simply just didn't get around to saying that the Swedish low mitigation approach would eventually prove a bad idea, while the Japan approach was actually the path that you preferred.... (I actually think the main reason for Japan's success relative to most other places is the culture.) Yeah, I think you have a different definition of "conservative approach" than me. I don't dispute that the costs of a lockdown are pretty high. However, I think that, when it becomes apparent that the worst pandemic in 100 years is hitting, I don't think the conservative approach is to ignore the people who have spent decades of their lives studying how it mitigate the problem, just to go with the same strategy that is used for diseases that aren't "once in a century" pandemics. Rather, I think that's the "gamble with other people's lives" approach.

Yeah, my argument isn't at all about where morality comes from, because, while I could speculate about it, it's out of scope. I'm also not claiming that morality is short-term rational. I'm claiming that believing a higher morality has to come from a deity is silly. I think I've show that with a simple argument, and that you don't have a good counterargument for that, because if you did, you'd probably have written that counterargument rather writing a bunch of stuff unrelated to the original claim. (OK, I'm done polluting the thread with this argument now. Sorry, everyone.)

Ah, I see. You want to very narrowly define where morality might come from, then beat down that straw man, and claim therefore morality is impossible. Morality is basically treating others how you'd want to be treated. One can nitpick at the details--as I'm sure you will--but the core of it is very simple, and doesn't require a God. Without such a basic agreement in place, society breaks, and the world sucks for pretty well everyone.

Yeah, the problem is that this sort of reasoning is basically, "find the country whose outcome supports my thesis, then say that the outcome in that country was somewhat predictable in the early days", when that's not true at all. I mean, there's a reason that the "we shouldn't lockdown" people were talking about Sweden, and now they aren't. Basically, if you put your life savings on Red 17 on a roulette wheel, and it turns out that Red 17 comes up, that doesn't imply that it was a good decision to put your life savings on Red 17. During a pandemic, before you have knowledge, you should take the conservative approach because a non-conservative approach can potentially lead to massive numbers of deaths. Then, as you better understand the situation, you should revise your approach.)

Unless you literally intend "higher" to mean "some God who by definition is always right", then this is a pretty silly argument. (If that is what you're claiming, then, yay, circular argument!) I'm not sure why anyone at all would seriously believe higher moral standards need to be inextricably tied to a deity, unless they need to use that deity to justify doing something immoral.

That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag. I am a fan of protecting peoples rights and freedoms afforded to them by the constitution. Peoples rights should not change like stock prices based on the flavor of the month or the rotation of parties in power. They should be unassailable and without question. I really dont care about the flag issue. Like, in the course of things that are important in my life, saying its not even on the radar would still be giving it too much priority. If all flags are banned I would get by just fine, and if anyone was allowed to display any flag they wanted, I wouldn't care either. I just think its worth noting how fundamentally hypocritical a lot of people are. I mean, was there just, for the past few years, this massive deal made by some about how taking a knee was fine because "the flag doesnt mean to you what it means to me"? And now, many of those same people are claiming that, "this is what the flag means to me so thats what it has to mean to you"! At the end of the day, if we are consistent, let people fly whatever flag they want, no different than how we can also let Twitter ban or modify content from whoever they want, bakeries can chose to sell cakes to whomever they want, and Sanjeev can choose who gets to be a part of CoBF. From there, society, and the laws of supply and demand will determine the viability of those behaviors, and if, a for profit organization(arguable in Twitters case), people can vote "this is unacceptable" and give the proverbial thumbs down by choosing to take their business elsewhere. Interesting perspective--I think it is consistent. I really like that you're owning the idea, and not backing down just because the consequences are pretty nauseating.

Lockdown is very hard on many people. It is one thing to say open your shop and have good ventilation. Another to say shut your shop and sit at home. So, are you "pro-mask" then? You seem to change the subject whenever anyone mentions masks. IMO, shutting down was a no-brainer at the start, and now opening shops while requiring masks in public enclosed spaces (and ideally good ventilation) is also a no brainer.

That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag.

Clearly this is true. The Confederation used the flag from 1863 to 1865. People care a lot about it now because it can be used to show hate, not because 150 years ago, people's long-dead ancestors used it for three years.

Bonnie Henry, British Columbia's pandemic leader--who's likely the single person most responsible for BC's success against COVID-19--has said that there hasn't been a pandemic in recorded history that hasn't had a second wave. I have no idea if that's hyperbole, or something built into the definition of pandemic (like, if it doesn't have a second wave, it isn't problematic enough to be called a pandemic). But I'm inclined to believe her.

I love that you didn't include a period at the end of this rant. It adds imagery of your face turning red, spittle flying everywhere. You're so furious at those damn liberals that Fox tells you are ruining the world that words and more words just need to spew out.

The irony is that because of who Trump is, and how his supporters act, it isn't too late for him to support masks. Trump constantly flips positions, and his propaganda network pretends his previous statements don't exist, and his supporters all jump in line. And there's no real political cost to him from flip-flopping. (The non-Trump supporters largely don't need to be persuaded, since the mostly understand science and accepting mild inconvenience for the greater good.) So, if Trump did reverse his position, it would probably work out quite well. But he won't, because he's vain.

It's worthwhile noting that Investor20 is right about the masks. There's a huge amount of value to everyone just wearing masks. That said, it's now a political issue so it will be hard to get everyone wearing masks, but it's still worth doing it.

One interesting contrast for the crowd who believes that the whole world is out to get Trump is the reaction to Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario. When Ford was elected, people were literally calling him "Donald Trump of the North" (for the obvious reasons: a populist, conservative, not too bright, loves applause....) Nevertheless, in general, the media has been lauding Ford for his efforts on COVID-19. Most of the reporting is basically, "wow, this guy can actually deal with a crisis and govern." It's an interesting contrast, particularly considering that, Canada's media is to the left of America's. I think the main difference--to those who actually care about objective reality--is that this crisis has revealed Trump's incompetence. It's essentially a crisis tailor-made to fit Trump's weaknesses. In contrast, it's revealed Ford's competence and perhaps a difference in willingness to listen to experts.

Let me ask Investor20 a few questions: Can people get COVID-19 when they never have contact with someone who is infected? If you are in your house with uninfected people, will the virus magically teleport through the walls into your bloodstream? Do you really believe this ridiculous argument you keep making and everyone keeps ignoring because it's so stupid? I mean, I get it. You really want the world to reopen. Sure, it's better being outside with someone who is infected than being inside with someone who is infected. But it's better not coming into contact with infected people at all.

Cool story, dude. Let's keep going! Now tell us why Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un are persecuted and misunderstood, and how their actions are all the fault of that darn Liberal media.

LOL, yeah, me too. I still think it's a pretty accurate description.

That there were hundreds of thousands or millions of cases of COVID-19 in the USA in February or early March and that it wasn't a big deal. We now know what hundreds of thousands or millions of cases of COVID-19 looks like, and it wasn't what it looked like back then. (Same answer as last time.)