COVID 19 greatest hits

[ZenRaiden]

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Google AI:

Master Morality:
This is the morality of the strong, who define "good" as that which aligns with their own power and self-interest, often valuing traits like nobility, courage, and creativity.
Slave Morality:
This is the morality of the weak, who, feeling resentment towards the powerful, flip the values and define "good" as the opposite of what the master values, often emphasizing traits like humility, kindness, and pity.
"Ressentiment":
A key concept in slave morality is "ressentiment," which is a deep-seated resentment and bitterness towards those who are considered superior, leading to the creation of a moral system that undermines the master's values.
"Slave Revolt in Morality":
Nietzsche argues that the "slave morality" can become dominant in society when the weak, through their numbers and moral rhetoric, successfully impose their values on the powerful.

Since it (Covid and Vaccines) keep getting brought up, I remember this case I was making.

Pretty much singing from the mountain top: are you sure you don't like the vaccine, or you don't like people are telling you to take it?

Is your reasoning based in your own search for truth or is your reasoning based on a reaction to someone else's reasoning?

The thread is still there, people were empty handed then, they'll be empty handed now.

Those comments are pretty cringe.

 

[dr froyd]

it's a historical record that's important to remember. It was a case where the masses of self-righteous mid-wits felt it was their duty to ostracize anyone who was capable of critical thinking. And they were doing so while operating on untruths.

one of them was this guy:

Pretty much singing from the mountain top: are you sure you don't like the vaccine, or you don't like people are telling you to take it?

i recall hearing about RNA vaccines in something like march 2020, when they were talking about how it was still in the theoretical stage and very far from a practical reality. It usually takes something like 10 years for a drug to go through all trials and reach approval. But 9 months later they were available under emergency-use authorization (which as far as I know they are to this day). I.e. this was a drug trial performed at mass scale. So based on a calculation of risk i never took it. It had nothing to do with politics.

 

[birdsnestfern]

I see all these points against RFK's theories, but...he might be right about Fluoride and vaccines? What I'd like to see is the actual medical data that they hide from us so we will know one way or another. He could be right. I don't really trust all the medical data we get. And, I agree that any drug that hasn't been around for ten years is experimental. I did not trust the vaccine, and I think INTP's are good at being hermits anyway, which is how I deal with it, just don't go out and mingle or wear a mask when you must be in public places. Also, if you have sinus issues, you likely have a natural defense against those receptors attaching to it anyway. And, just take a dropperful of colloidal silver or oil of oregano, or drop star anise in your tea, to kill viruses. Star anise kills 67 different viruses. There are natural ways of dealing with it. Oatmeal, Onions, Apples, Mushrooms, Barley, they are beta glucans that help line your passages to make it harder for anything to develop. And licorice tea helps you get over anything faster. And chickpea hummus also does something to protect you. So the perfect thing to feed your family is a beef or lamb barley stew or soup, and oatmeal with flax and berries when the weather cools down. Foods can be very protective.

RFK Jr.'s 10 Wildest Medical Theories

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was once known for environmental law. These days, he's more famous for his anti-vaxxer views and other fringe medical theories.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[scorpiomover]

Google AI:

This bothered me. I'm going to use reductionism to analyse it, by breaking it down into parts:

Master Morality:
This is the morality of the strong, who define "good" as that which aligns with their own power and self-interest,

Sounds like your typical selfish capitalist, who doesn't care about his employees or his customers, and is just interested in making as much money as possible, even if that would end up harming and killing millions of people.

often valuing traits like nobility, courage, and creativity.

These are all positive traits.

Nobility of spirit is all about having the strength of character to be nice to the people who are weaker than you and who could dominate and abuse if you wanted, but instead showing then grace and compassion =>The opposite of what aligns with your own pwero and self-interest.

Courage is about having the strength of character to risk one's life on something that is so important that it's worth dying for. Obviously, if someone dies, they don't benefit. So it's about doing things that could lose you everything that would benefit you, but would still be in the benefit of others =>The opposite of what aligns with your own pwero and self-interest.

Creativity is also about taking a risk to invest time and money in exploring many new possible ways of doing things and looking at things, when most of those new possible ideas will probably fail, because the few that succeed usually succeed so well, that you're much better off overall. But that also means that those who value creativity enough to invest in creativity, have to be willing to gamble their money and keep investing in people who are not getting anywhere and wasting their money, because eventually it will pay off. But those who are selfish, are usually only interested in getting a quick payoff, and so usually do NOT invest in creativity.

It is true that all of these qualities pay off in the long run for the entire group. However, that's a matter of enlightened self-interest, i.e. doing things that hurt one's self-interests in the short term, because they pay off better in the long-term.

So it's misleading to suggest that the Master Morality would support such values, as only a self-interested morality that values altruism in favour of group self-interest and long-term self-interest would support those values.

Slave Morality:
This is the morality of the weak, who, feeling resentment towards the powerful, flip the values and define "good" as the opposite of what the master values, often emphasizing traits like humility, kindness, and pity.

Pity is an example of helping others against one's self-interest, because the other person is weaker than you, and thus is an example of nobility.

Humility is about not boasting that one is greater than others who are weaker than them, so as not to humiliate those weaker than you unnecessarily, and so is also a matter of nobility.

Thus, kindness, pity and humility are completely compatible with nobility, creativity and courage, and with enlightened self-interest.

However, they are completely incompatible with short-term self-interest. Saying these values are the opposite values of Master Morality, implies that Master Morality rejects enlightened self-interest, and thus can only be about short-term self-interest.

"Ressentiment":
A key concept in slave morality is "ressentiment," which is a deep-seated resentment and bitterness towards those who are considered superior, leading to the creation of a moral system that undermines the master's values.

I know that some people talk this way about other people. However, you can find people who are nasty about when their colleague gets a promotion, among the rich people as well as the poor people. So I don't believe it's anything to do with either group.

This word implies that the general state of people is always to hate on those who happen to be doing better than you, and thus can be used to argue that when the Allies fought the Nazis, it was just because the Nazis were superior to the other nations, not because the Nazis were doing anything wrong.

So as you can see, it can seem rather offensive to some people.

Also, not coveting other people's partners, property, etc, is expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. This sort of attitude is a no-no in religions. So, inconsistent with the religions that preach humility, kindness and pity.

"Slave Revolt in Morality":
Nietzsche argues that the "slave morality" can become dominant in society when the weak, through their numbers and moral rhetoric, successfully impose their values on the powerful.

We already saw the weak proletariat take over control of the country and impose their values on the powerful aristocracy, during the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, and other revolutions. It hasn't ended well.

But that's usually been because other people ended up being chosen to lead France and Russia anyway, and then those people turned to self-interest and screwed over the rest, restoring Master Morality, just with different masters.

An example of Slave Morality becoming prevalent in the people, would be something like the Law of Jante in the Scandinavian countries ('you're not better than us'). The Scandinavian countries are often remarked as being examples of successful nations that other countries would be wise to emulate.

What do you make of all this?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It usually takes something like 10 years for a drug to go through all trials and reach approval. But 9 months later they were available under emergency-use authorization (which as far as I know they are to this day). I.e. this was a drug trial performed at mass scale. So based on a calculation of risk i never took it. It had nothing to do with politics.

Yeah guess who we can thank for that?

This guy.

This is historical material “frozen in time”. The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.

WhiteHouse.gov
Share
Remarks

Remarks by President Trump at the Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit
Healthcare

Issued on: December 8, 2020

All News
South Court Auditorium
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

2:06 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please. (Applause).
Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much.

I’m honored to welcome doctors, scientists, industry executives, and state and local leaders to our historic Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit. It’s been some journey for all of us. It’s been an incredible success.

We’re grateful to be joined by Vice President Mike Pence, who has done an absolutely incredible job on the Coronavirus Task Force. Mike, thank you. Stand up, Mike. (Applause.) Great job.

We’re here to discuss a monumental national achievement. From the instant the coronavirus invaded our shores, we raced into action to develop a safe and effective vaccine at breakneck speed. It would normally take five years, six years, seven years, or even more. In order to achieve this goal, we harnessed the full power of government, the genius of American scientists, and the might of American industry to save millions and millions of lives all over the world. We’re just days away from authorization from the FDA, and we’re pushing them hard, at which point we will immediately begin mass distribution.

Before Operation Warp Speed, the typical timeframe for development and approval, as you know, could be infinity. And we were very, very happy that we were able to get things done at a level that nobody has ever seen before. The gold standard vaccine has been done in less than nine months.

On behalf of the entire nation, I want to thank everyone here today who has been involved in this extraordinary American initiative. I also want to recognize members of my administration who have worked tirelessly in this effort:

Alex Azar. Please, Alex. Where’s Alex? Thank you, Alex. Great job. (Applause.)

Liberals don't bring it up because it makes Trump seem competent, and conservatives don't bring it up cuz they don't care for the vaccine.

Instead of doing the traditional way: first we do A, then we do B, then we do C, (10 years) with operation warpspeed, we did A, B, C as concurrently as possible.

Cutting through bureaucracy and to your point but not quite, ethical considerations for certain animals.

Imo not ideal, but we have made vaccines for corona viruses before. We'd know if there was anything catastrophic to know about.

And I'm sure you have to Google what a, b, and c (placeholders) consists of, so not like you're privy to what the process is typically.

It's not like EVERY multinational institutions are all coordinating for 10 years to get something like Tylenol on the market.

Typically the process is mediated between the FDA and private for profit organizations.

It's expensive and typically only a single or handful of institutions are developing a drug, of which 10% will make it, and of which you clinical trials are hidden in the shadows with life long NDAs, BUT still available to study.

Very different situation when the entire world closed down and everyone is afraid that some mutation will reek havoc at least among the vulnerable populations.

This bothered me. I'm going to use reductionism to analyse it, by breaking it down into parts:

Didn't have AI four years ago did I?

I think the impetus of that master slave dialectic ties into Ubermensch and other ideas Nietzsche had.

If you are strong then you of course decide your own morals. If you are weak, then you decide based on what the strong decide.

Master decides, while the slave reacts.

So if the master decides that strength is good, the slave will choose something according to the slaves interest, yet dependent on the masters decision.

Nietzsche thought that it would always be to spite the master, to try to turn them into someone dependent on the slave.

So the master values strength, the slave chooses to value meekness or something of the like.

I believe Nitches saw this as inauthentic, and an impediment to the master, who is more aligned with his idea of the Ubermensch.

I do think that he did value kindness, but not for the sake of weakness, so to speak. He was against cruelty I believe.

What do you make of all this?

Of it not being so cut and dry? This equals good/bad?

Well, I don't think Nietzsche was wrong necessarily. He was just trying to accomplish something specific that we would need to inhabit his environment to understand.

I think forsaking strength because weakness exists is a mistake.

If we are all on the monkey bars playing and only the strong kids can do pullups to the highest rung, the ones without the strength to do so, the weak ones, find something else to be good at,

but if they have such Resentment, maybe not for nothing, perhaps they are taunted due to such inadequacies. So, they may strategically undermine their strength by creating scenarios where such strength is judged or a liability.

If they succeed, then the strength to climb monkey bars to the highest rung, is now neglected.

Strength to do something that others can't, would be diminished, simply because weak people exist.

Master/slave morality doesn't say much about the outcome, but clearly Nietzsche developed the idea of the Uber man to make the ultimate master, someone who could indeed always be just.

He didn't think Masters of his day were Ubermench.

In the context of applying it to the political revolutions, which master slave morality seemingly fits, I would think that again, so long as the new regime change wasn't powered ENTIRELY by resentment, it's possible that things could go well, ya know.

 

[dr froyd]

@EndogenousRebel it's silly i have to point this out, but there's a bit of a difference between developing a new drug, and engage in coercion and deception at mass scale to force everyone to take it. Im not one of those who claim the vaccine was categorically bad - for certain groups it made perfect sense to take it (e.g. elderly people).

 

[fluffy]

Fluoride

Hm...

A waste product from the manufacturing of steel

Placed in the drinking water because steel mills can make money not to dispose of it.

Lead mercury and other poison just as bad

-

I agree that warp speed cut the red tape.

And these are science institutions not military.

But have you seen what government also does?

The videos Julian assange released of Iraq

Vietnam and the Pentagon papers

Regan and the Iran-Contra

@dr froyd is right that midwit people enforced people to take the vaccine via violent bullying.

I saw it myself.

Kids sat in chair being yelled at by other students (peak woke?)

Then they tell you drink fluoride it's good like lead and mercury.

The lizard people have better morality than the midwits.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

@EndogenousRebel it's silly i have to point this out, but there's a bit of a difference between developing a new drug, and engage in coercion and deception at mass scale to force everyone to take it. Im not one of those who claim the vaccine was categorically bad - for certain groups it made perfect sense to take it (e.g. elderly people).

I made this example then, but it's not like anyone is came into anyone's house and sterilized anyone else like they did in 20th century America.

"deception" what was the lie? Where did the lie come from? Big pharma?

Who is liable in the case where a media company like CNN or Facebook doesn't regulate the flow of information in a way that protects people?

Are the individuals potentially responsible for their own choices? I think so. This event in history shows people's capacity to reconcile that.

@dr froyd is right that midwit people enforced people to take the vaccine via violent bullying.

I can tell you 80% chance I would be making fun of my classmates if their reason for not taking were indecent.

In college I got a waiver for a meningitis vaccine due to health concerns. That is the only vaccine I had not taken up until recently.

Meningitis, you mainly have to worry about it in close quarters with lots of people, it'll kill you pretty fast, almost exclusively if you have no protection.

Bacterial meningitis: the impact of vaccination - PubMed

Acute bacterial meningitis remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in children. Children <2 years of age are particularly susceptible to infection with encapsulated bacteria due to their immature response to polysaccharide antigens. Conjugate vaccines, which induce T cell memory, ca …

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Covid, not as deadly for my demo, but spread like the flu.

Then people took this notion of "flu" and applied incorrect logic to say that Covid was just like the flu.

Complete nonsense and blatant exhibition of ignorance.

 

[fluffy]

@EndogenousRebel

I took the vax, I even got the booster shot, but then people said you needed three four five shots.

It's not as if only reasonable people exist that took the shot, crazy people took it too. Those crazies bullied others. This made more people skeptical and not just crazies but reasonable people as well. People said we didn't have Corona virus labs in China, that's a conspiracy theory. We do but there are hundreds of labs over the world built before the 1990s for bio research. You got bullied even further.

This all was happening during BLM and the autonomous zones in Seattle (the mole people aka homeless people) who now the government is saying it's illegal to be homeless. To have shopping carts for your stuff. And still Fluoride is good because people dislike Joe Rogan. Then the WEF conference made people crazy because Ukraine war is good or something, it can be won but not anymore.

Not saying vaxs are bad but in context... ?

 

[dr froyd]

"deception" what was the lie? Where did the lie come from? Big pharma?

the biggest one was probably the one used to make moral judgments on the unvaccinated; the myth of sterilizing immunity, i.e. that by taking the vaccine i protected my grandmother from getting covid. Incidentally, i think big pharma themselves never made such claims, probably because they could be legally liable for doing so. In fact i recall one of the execs from Phizer or one the big ones testifying in congress they never conducted tests for such effects. Instead the claim was repeated ad-nauseam, propaganda-style, by the media and politicians.

you've probably memory-holed the whole thing but i recall you pontificating quite strongly in favor of that claim

and of course this question

Who is liable in the case where a media company like CNN or Facebook doesn't regulate the flow of information in a way that protects people?

.. contains great irony because e.g. Facebook fully cooperated with the authorities in censorship of actual critical thinking on these questions, and helped to promote said unfounded claims

 

[EndogenousRebel]

@EndogenousRebel

I took the vax, I even got the booster shot, but then people said you needed three four five shots.

It's not as if only reasonable people exist that took the shot, crazy people took it too. Those crazies bullied others. This made more people skeptical and not just crazies but reasonable people as well. People said we didn't have Corona virus labs in China, that's a conspiracy theory. We do but there are hundreds of labs over the world built before the 1990s for bio research. You got bullied even further.

This all was happening during BLM and the autonomous zones in Seattle (the mole people aka homeless people) who now the government is saying it's illegal to be homeless. To have shopping carts for your stuff. And still Fluoride is good because people dislike Joe Rogan. Then the WEF conference made people crazy because Ukraine war is good or something, it can be won but not anymore.

Not saying vaxs are bad but in context... ?

I'm all for that skepticism tbh.

I could see why Pfizer may be able to excuse booster shots, because it is the most cutting edge vaccine and needs different criteria to be maximum effective.

Why did for example J&J who made a "traditional" vaccine not stick to the one vaccine like it has with all previous vaccinations. Why the sudden deviation?

It is a change from the norm isn't it?

I have no issue with these specific inquiries, I don't have an answer myself, and chop it up to your body throwing the antibodies for the vaccine in the garbage, and the reduced time to develop the vaccine that would usually be there.

If I want to look into it further, I could, but I don't expect foul play (only greed).

It's when you generalize and say that the government and the people on the media are responsible for X and Y grievence you have regarding the vaccine, that I'm like- please elaborate how you are being targeted and victimized?

"deception" what was the lie? Where did the lie come from? Big pharma?

the biggest one was probably the one used to make moral judgments on the unvaccinated; the myth of sterilizing immunity, i.e. that by taking the vaccine i protected my grandmother from getting covid. Incidentally, i think big pharma themselves never made such claims, probably because they could be legally liable for doing so. In fact i recall one of the execs from Phizer or one the big ones testifying in congress they never conducted tests for such effects. Instead the claim was repeated ad-nauseam, propaganda-style, by the media and politicians.

you've probably memory-holed the whole thing but i recall you pontificating quite strongly in favor of that claim

If you aren't ready for me to talk about how we needed to protect every hypothetical grandmother out of respect for their and our humanity I'm not sure this is going to go down smoothly.

Yes, it would seem that paranoid hypochondriacs everywhere felt vindicated for a couple years. Yikes.

So it would seem that freedom of speech < freedom to be safe is a decision that a lot of people made.

and of course this question

Who is liable in the case where a media company like CNN or Facebook doesn't regulate the flow of information in a way that protects people?

.. contains great irony because e.g. Facebook fully cooperated with the authorities in censorship of actual critical thinking on these questions, and helped to promote said unfounded claims

But did they get sued for saying false things? No because you sound like a cook. It's like suing someone because they gave you the best available advice.

Mind you the US is a litigious state. Fox was sued for telling lies that harmed someones business.

If these companies actually did something harmful, what is it exactly that they did?

What you seem to be upset about is the context and what transpired. You seem to frame it as if the governments of the world spiked our drinks and forced us to drink it.

There's a party, the government is the bouncer, if you didn't have a vaccine, worst case (in US) you get told to go somewhere else.

Perhaps I should ask you what you think about Google? they literally have ran the web for 20 years at this point. You think it should equally balanced on EVERY side of an issue? I don't have to tell you that this doesn't make sense in a lot of situations.

 

[dr froyd]

@EndogenousRebel
you don't seem to understand the problem, do you. Taking an experimental drug is not risk-free, so coercing people who have have minimal benefit from taking it is at best immoral, but arguably also a violation of the nuremberg code. It states quite clearly that as far as medical testing goes,

"the person involved should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion"

this point you keep bringing up that "well nobody was physically forced to take it" is quite foolish. Besides, it's funny how you set the bar at physical force for this, and simultaneously talk about the need to control information. So it's fine for government engage in propaganda and disinformation as long as they don't use physical force, but if the rest of society shares information freely that's dangerous? You might as well just admit that you love authoritarianism and that's about the extent of your logic. In fact i bet that if they did use physical force, you would be one of their cheerleaders.

 

[fluffy]

@dr froyd

The coersion was society at large.

So maybe the media told lies but that's normal. How accountability should be administered is a practical matter. Not all people are scientist and explaining why they should take the vaccine is hard. I cannot see how Geneva convention could be used by people to sue. They would need sue gov for what the media did? For the gov not punishing media corps?

The fact people have bullied is wrong but 75% took the vax and we cannot just say that we can sue the boss because who is there going to be to say they are being forced in a way that they are not informed. I don't know how experimental it was but I am not sueing them. Consent requires intelligence but people are not interested. If you can see where the gov did not give consent it needs to be explicit. The gov cannot control the media but I agree people talking to each other is something they try to prevent wether its said Google is the gov or not.

 

[Old Things]

it's silly i have to point this out, but there's a bit of a difference between developing a new drug, and engage in coercion and deception at mass scale to force everyone to take it.

Plot twist: Covid is a virus that was manufactured in a lab DECADES ago.

 

[Old Things]

I've seen people say,

"I'm vaccinated and still alive. Anyone else?"

The irony of a statement like this is unparalleled.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

this point you keep bringing up that "well nobody was physically forced to take it" is quite foolish. Besides, it's funny how you set the bar at physical force for this, and simultaneously talk about the need to control information. So it's fine for government engage in propaganda and disinformation as long as they don't use physical force, but if the rest of society shares information freely that's dangerous? You might as well just admit that you love authoritarianism and that's about the extent of your logic. In fact i bet that if they did use physical force, you would be one of their cheerleaders.

Well if free speech can't be violence I don't see how I'm the one bent into a pretzel about this.

I mean, maybe if it's like China or some middle eastern States, where people shutoff the internet all at once to quell insurgency, then I guess that censorship merits condemnation.

So long as the "landlord' accepts things is what the current state of affairs is.

Mask mandates and compulsory vaccination wasn't enforced federally in the US. Hardly anything was, federally.

People like much like you (independently yet) collectively came to decisions you apparently would disagree with.

Your doubt I guess is the only authority that matters.

I'm not claiming that what was done was the perfect ideal scenario.

I'm not saying that even censoring helped people make the "right decision".

If you want to have a nice even sided discussion, you could opt to be critisized by people who thought otherwise.

If you want to imply that there were people who were political puppets acting for these companies, that's a hard sell. If you think that there was a coordinated effort using bots and leverage it's not that hard to sell, but what isn't infested with bots these days?*

If you want to say that my previous paragraph was reflective of the environment, then I guess I would understand the outrage.

I don't see why you would act that way though, when prior to the pandemic, that would've been the case either way. The pieces were set in motion to play out like that for decades due to the policy decisions and infrastructure established by large organizations, namely, governments.

 

[scorpiomover]

"Flattening the curve" doesn't seem to take the maths into account.

1) If you look at your diagram, the white area that represents your healthcare capacity is basically a triangle. If the height = h and the length = l, then the area = 1/2*h*l. In terms of what the triangle represents, h = the healthcare capacity at the end, which is also the maximum healthcare capacity you will need, l = the number of days/weeks that you were increasing healthcare for, and the area = the total amount of healthcare resources used over the entire time.

However, if we define r as the rate of increase of healthcare resources, then r = the total at the end divided by the time = h / l.

So then the total amount of healthcare resources used to tackle the problem = 1/2 * h * (h / r) = 1/2 * h^2 / r.

So the total amount of healthcare resources you will end up using in all, is inversely proportional to the rate of increase.

Double the rate of increase of healthcare resources, you double the total amount you end up using.

So it's a false economy. You're actually spending more this way.

2) COVID was spreading exponentially. So the current week's number is approximately something lke R^t. So that means that the last week's number is going to be bigger than all the other weeks put together. So even if you save lots of lives while you are flattening the curve, you still have the problem that at the end, when your healthcare resources are not enough, the number of deaths you'll end up with because of that last week, is probably going to be more than all the deaths due to all of the previous weeks.

3) COVID was spreading exponentially.
Exponential functions are like the green line.
Linear functions are like the red line.
Eventually, the exponential line will always exceed any linear line.
So even if you kept increasing your healthcare capacity each week, at some point, the spread of COVID was bound to exceed your healthcare capacity. From then on in, the excess that cannot be met by healthcare capacity, would quickly grow to exponential proportions.

Fortunately, the exponential curves have a quirk about them that makes them incredibly easy to deal with. If you look at the graph, the red line is higher than the green exponential curve in the left side. This is because exponential functions start out much smaller than the linear functions, but quickly grow to be much bigger.

So if you use masses of healthcare early on, you can swamp the spread and wipe it out before it gets so big that it's uncontrollable.

But the key here is to use more earlier. Then you have a good chance of stopping the spread of the disease.

4) The other way to stop an exponential climb is to lower the R-rate below 1, as 1/x^n gets closer and closer to 0. But here's the thing: if you slack off at any point and the R-rate goes back to >1, you get exponential growth again. So lowering the R-rate only works when you lower it to below 1, and keep the R-rate below 1 until you've wiped out the disease.

For all these reasons, flattening the curve was just going to make things a LOT worse.

 

[fluffy]

For all these reasons, flattening the curve was just going to make things a LOT worse.

1) was mitigation effective?
Was hospital capacity not enough?
2) what would be effective in the alternative?
Did the vax not work to save lives?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

1) If you look at your diagram, the white area that represents your healthcare capacity is basically a triangle. If the height = h and the length = l, then the area = 1/2*h*l. In terms of what the triangle represents, h = the healthcare capacity at the end, which is also the maximum healthcare capacity you will need, l = the number of days/weeks that you were increasing healthcare for, and the area = the total amount of healthcare resources used over the entire time.

However, if we define r as the rate of increase of healthcare resources, then r = the total at the end divided by the time = h / l.

So then the total amount of healthcare resources used to tackle the problem = 1/2 * h * (h / r) = 1/2 * h^2 / r.

So the total amount of healthcare resources you will end up using in all, is inversely proportional to the rate of increase.

Double the rate of increase of healthcare resources, you double the total amount you end up using.

So it's a false economy. You're actually spending more this way.

2) COVID was spreading exponentially. So the current week's number is approximately something lke R^t. So that means that the last week's number is going to be bigger than all the other weeks put together. So even if you save lots of lives while you are flattening the curve, you still have the problem that at the end, when your healthcare resources are not enough, the number of deaths you'll end up with because of that last week, is probably going to be more than all the deaths due to all of the previous weeks.

3) COVID was spreading exponentially.
Exponential functions are like the green line.
Linear functions are like the red line.
Eventually, the exponential line will always exceed any linear line.
So even if you kept increasing your healthcare capacity each week, at some point, the spread of COVID was bound to exceed your healthcare capacity. From then on in, the excess that cannot be met by healthcare capacity, would quickly grow to exponential proportions.

Fortunately, the exponential curves have a quirk about them that makes them incredibly easy to deal with. If you look at the graph, the red line is higher than the green exponential curve in the left side. This is because exponential functions start out much smaller than the linear functions, but quickly grow to be much bigger.

So if you use masses of healthcare early on, you can swamp the spread and wipe it out before it gets so big that it's uncontrollable.

But the key here is to use more earlier. Then you have a good chance of stopping the spread of the disease.

4) The other way to stop an exponential climb is to lower the R-rate below 1, as 1/x^n gets closer and closer to 0. But here's the thing: if you slack off at any point and the R-rate goes back to >1, you get exponential growth again. So lowering the R-rate only works when you lower it to below 1, and keep the R-rate below 1 until you've wiped out the disease.

Right, I would say that if most people (most* practically meaing herd immunity size populations) practiced (admittedly, "ELABORATE") decontamination and hazard material procedure, that "R-rate" can easily be managed.

It's not even something anyone with a 700sqft apartment couldn't done. Of course, a lot of people means a lot of living situations, and the only way that was going to work out would've been more government involvement.

So, yeah, for a lot of people on this forum that might as well read " T U R N B A C K". It* would would make an interesting thread though, if you had global cooperation, what should have nations done in 2019?

 

[scorpiomover]

Right, I would say that if most people (most* practically meaing herd immunity size populations) practiced (admittedly, "ELABORATE") decontamination and hazard material procedure, that "R-rate" can easily be managed.

I gather that requires specialised equipment and training. But I get the point.

It's not even something anyone with a 700sqft apartment couldn't done. Of course, a lot of people means a lot of living situations, and the only way that was going to work out would've been more government involvement.

More like: better planning.

So, yeah, for a lot of people on this forum that might as well read " T U R N B A C K". It* would would make an interesting thread though, if you had global cooperation, what should have nations done in 2019?

1) Establish strict borders with strict quarantine rules, to ensure that once a wave has passed, it cannot pass again.

2) Where possible, use the immune to treat and deal with the sick, as they are the few people that cannot get infected and cannot infect other people.

3) Mandatory vitamin D supplements and other supplements.

4) Free TV, Netflix, etc. People were already glued to the couch before the lockdown, and would have loved to have 2 months off work, where they could watch their favourite programmes and eat as much pizza as they liked. All they had to do, to get people to be happy about the lockdown, was sell it as 2 months free holiday.

5) Lots of happy messages and happy thoughts, because the placebo effect counts for 25% to 50% of healing, which is HUGE.

6) Put those who are infected and at a low risk for death from COVID, on monitoring equipment, so if they have a turn for the worse, healthcare systems will immediately be made aware and they can act before they become serious. Singapore did this and had very low death rates.

6) Shopping with probably a very easy way of spreading COVID. All shopping is done by delivery. Taiwan did this. Very easy way of vastly reducing chances of infection. The delivery person doesn't even have to come inside and risk infection anyway, as they can just ring the mobile to let the customer know that their delivery is there, put it on the doorstep and walk well away.

7) Variolation: In the 1970s, when there was a disease like measles going around, mothers would make sure their kids got it, so they could watch the kids while they were sick and make sure that if they had a turn for the worse, they could take them to hospital immediately, and then they'd get better and be immune. That way, there was far less chance of death or permanent harm.

Probably more could have been done.

 

[dr froyd]

lockdowns and strict travel controls would be the correct courses of action in the first months of 2020. At that point practically nothing was known about it except being a SARS-1 derivative (which was a serious situation). Later on, when we knew it was nothing like SARS-1 in terms of fatality rates one could have opened up.

instead of course they did it exactly in reverse. How many normies were clutching their pearls over covid in january 2020? None, because the government told them to not worry about it.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Right, I would say that if most people (most* practically meaing herd immunity size populations) practiced (admittedly, "ELABORATE") decontamination and hazard material procedure, that "R-rate" can easily be managed.

I gather that requires specialised equipment and training. But I get the point.

It's not even something anyone with a 700sqft apartment couldn't done. Of course, a lot of people means a lot of living situations, and the only way that was going to work out would've been more government involvement.

More like: better planning.

Well the word would be something like "federated nesting doll quarantines".

If we split 700/2 = 450 where quarantined person(s) would be, I think the it would mostly consist of rolls of plastic, some tape, and simple ventilation.

The government gave out testing kits like hot-cakes. Supposedly there were people who were asymptomatic who both clinicians and people who were self-administering test missed, through the validity of the test,

But a disease that could be benign for one, but a mortal danger for someone else, absolutely justified a lot of moral outrage about certain... "non-conformist".

*Edit: I do remember having trouble finding ISP alcohol, gloves, and face masks of course. But lots of the medical field had trouble sourcing things, such as ventilators anyways

So, yeah, for a lot of people on this forum that might as well read " T U R N B A C K". It* would would make an interesting thread though, if you had global cooperation, what should have nations done in 2019?

1) Establish strict borders with strict quarantine rules, to ensure that once a wave has passed, it cannot pass again.

2) Where possible, use the immune to treat and deal with the sick, as they are the few people that cannot get infected and cannot infect other people.

3) Mandatory vitamin D supplements and other supplements.

4) Free TV, Netflix, etc. People were already glued to the couch before the lockdown, and would have loved to have 2 months off work, where they could watch their favourite programmes and eat as much pizza as they liked. All they had to do, to get people to be happy about the lockdown, was sell it as 2 months free holiday.

5) Lots of happy messages and happy thoughts, because the placebo effect counts for 25% to 50% of healing, which is HUGE.

6) Put those who are infected and at a low risk for death from COVID, on monitoring equipment, so if they have a turn for the worse, healthcare systems will immediately be made aware and they can act before they become serious. Singapore did this and had very low death rates.

6) Shopping with probably a very easy way of spreading COVID. All shopping is done by delivery. Taiwan did this. Very easy way of vastly reducing chances of infection. The delivery person doesn't even have to come inside and risk infection anyway, as they can just ring the mobile to let the customer know that their delivery is there, put it on the doorstep and walk well away.

7) Variolation: In the 1970s, when there was a disease like measles going around, mothers would make sure their kids got it, so they could watch the kids while they were sick and make sure that if they had a turn for the worse, they could take them to hospital immediately, and then they'd get better and be immune. That way, there was far less chance of death or permanent harm.

Probably more could have been done.

I have begun to see the picture some people are painting about the government trying to infantilize it's population.

I would say that we can probably agree that leadership failed to do it's core function in that moment COVID became an obvious issue.

We have had an abundance of media panics about other illnesses, such as Swine influenza (swine-flu) or Zika, but these were are fringe and not easily transferable. The only people who were panic striken were the people who were watching the news.. COVID lived up to the hype on the other hand.