Coronavirus thread

[Madiel]

It may be the case that people suspicious of government attempts to coerce the population "for the public good" feel more comfortable with one political party than another. In any experiment it also makes good scientific sense to have a control group.

That last remark is so cynical and revolting I hardly know where to begin.

But let me just point out the confusion between science and politics demonstrated by squishing the two together like that.

As for the public good, that coercion saved lives. Just as it did in 1919, but people still don't seem to grasp the data on that, and people also seem to discount the economic damage of death.

[Karl Henning]

people also seem to discount the economic damage of death.

Yes, even though hundreds of thousands of Americans died because the 45th president's idea of addressing a public health crisis was to play golf with Lindsay Graham.

[Madiel]

I wasn't thinking just about the US.

[Que]

I apologize for blowing up at Todd and also dragging this thread into US politics.  A poster should think twice, but a moderator should never... I've done the literal opposite.

I've been down that rabbit hole many times before... 

[Karl Henning]

I wasn't thinking just about the US.

Of course.

[steve ridgway]

That last remark is so cynical and revolting I hardly know where to begin.

But let me just point out the confusion between science and politics demonstrated by squishing the two together like that.

As for the public good, that coercion saved lives. Just as it did in 1919, but people still don't seem to grasp the data on that, and people also seem to discount the economic damage of death.

I was trying to talk more generally rather than argue about the toxic subjects of coronavirus and vaccines. As with the American Flu of 1919 it will take many years for historians to piece together the full story of the pandemic. And I wasn't suggesting forcing people into control groups either, a proportion will self select based on their own judgment if not forced into participant groups.

[Madiel]

And I wasn't suggesting forcing people into control groups either, a proportion will self select based on their own judgment if not forced into participant groups.

This language still depends on the notion that an "experiment" was involved. That's the primary problem before the bit you're now trying to explain.

As for your claim to be trying to talk more generally... this is the coronavirus thread. We are clearly talking about a particular virus and a particular disease. I'm frankly at a loss to see how your remarks could be construed to be "general" unless you'd like to outline some other examples of governments supposedly coercing people for the public good that were on your mind. Perhaps you had in mind... road rules? Laws requiring school attendance? Paying taxes?

But it's when you get to "experiments" that I really wonder what on earth you might have been talking about besides attempts to control a lethal disease in the last few years.

[steve ridgway]

This language still depends on the notion that an "experiment" was involved. That's the primary problem before the bit you're now trying to explain.

As for your claim to be trying to talk more generally... this is the coronavirus thread. We are clearly talking about a particular virus and a particular disease. I'm frankly at a loss to see how your remarks could be construed to be "general" unless you'd like to outline some other examples of governments supposedly coercing people for the public good that were on your mind. Perhaps you had in mind... road rules? Laws requiring school attendance? Paying taxes?

But it's when you get to "experiments" that I really wonder what on earth you might have been talking about besides attempts to control a lethal disease in the last few years.

I was merely trying to answer your original question "why the hell Covid is treated as a political issue rather than as a scientific and medical one" in the most general way (not thinking specifically of American political parties), and to point out the response was not simply managed by a committee of pure scientists based on strict experimental methodology.

[Todd]

... and to point out the response was not simply managed by a committee of pure scientists based on strict experimental methodology.

The farthest thing from it.  Politicians bungled the only partially informed suggestions of bureaucrats and scientists, with some nudges from corporations.  Policy responses ranged from mediocre to horrible, with authoritarianism the global constant.  Which some people like. 

[AnotherSpin]

The farthest thing from it.  Politicians bungled the only partially informed suggestions of bureaucrats and scientists, with some nudges from corporations.  Policy responses ranged from mediocre to horrible, with authoritarianism the global constant.  Which some people like. 

The history of the so-called pandemic demonstrates conclusively that it is not some people who like authoritarianism, but almost everyone.

[DavidW]

The history of the so-called pandemic demonstrates conclusively that it is not some people who like authoritarianism, but almost everyone.

I mean we already knew that from the Chinese Communist Party, North Korea and Russia.  Post 9/11 I've also seen some quick concessions to big government in the name of security here in the US.

[Spotted Horses]

The farthest thing from it.  Politicians bungled the only partially informed suggestions of bureaucrats and scientists, with some nudges from corporations.  Policy responses ranged from mediocre to horrible, with authoritarianism the global constant.  Which some people like. 

Let's not forget that, in the U.S. at least, the authoritarianism was temporary, was in response to an almost unprecedented crisis (in the city where I lived rows or refrigerated semi-trucks were parked outside the public hospital to hold the morgue overflow), were temporary, and were implemented by people who were up for election and could be voted out of office. And they prevented deaths.

[Todd]

Post 9/11 I've also seen some quick concessions to big government in the name of security here in the US.

Permanent, structural concessions to big government in the name of national security started no later than with the National Security Act of 1947.  One can go back further and see the Espionage Act and Sedition Act from the Wilson years as concessions to national security, and both laws are still used today.  And the establishment of the CPI, the legacy of which one sees every day.

Let's not forget that, in the U.S. at least, the authoritarianism was temporary, was in response to an almost unprecedented crisis (in the city where I lived rows or refrigerated semi-trucks were parked outside the public hospital to hold the morgue overflow), were temporary, and were implemented by people who were up for election and could be voted out of office. And they prevented deaths.

As I wrote, some people like authoritarianism.

[ritter]

And other people don't like the sight of stacks of corpses.

Most of us are nicely vaccinated now, but back in the day people were dying in significant numbers (in elderly homes here in Spain, in hospitals in New York, etc). That's easily forgotten...

[Todd]

And other people don't like the sight of stacks of corpses.

I'm pretty sure no one except serial killers likes to see stacks of corpses, though that may differ by culture, who knows. 

One can look at stats all day long and see the overwhelming evidence that Covid predominantly killed elderly people with comorbidities, and younger people with comorbidities.  And basically zero children, which makes school closure policies entirely unwarranted.  (Fortunately, my youngest wrapped up high school at the start of the pandemic, so no harm for me personally.  Indeed, I ended up wealthier by the time the end was announced by the Pres!)  Given the reported and incontrovertible facts, which were known at the time, as it happens, more targeted, less authoritarian policy options were available.  Sweden offered a less draconian response, and one can look at posts on this very forum, and of course in the corporate press broadly, to see baseless, unscientific, often emotional criticisms of the response of that country.  But as the defensive posts here demonstrate, one mustn't question the responses or criticize governments or sexy bureaucrats.  And one certainly ought not to question the wisdom of liability protection for multinational pharmaceutical corporations. 

[Spotted Horses]

One can look at stats all day long and see the overwhelming evidence that Covid predominantly killed elderly people with comorbidities, and younger people with comorbidities.  And basically zero children, which makes school closure policies entirely unwarranted. 

The justification for closing the schools was never that children were vulnerable. It was that epidemiological studies had shown that schools were a major pathway for the disease to spread through a community. That seems quite plausible to me, I never got sick until I had kids in school. Even in hindsight it is impossible to tell how the progress of the disease would have been different and how many more lives would have been lost without school closings. How to balance loss of life and the impact on education is a difficult value judgement based on highly uncertain data, not a purely scientific decision.

[ritter]

...Indeed, I ended up wealthier by the time the end was announced by the Pres!... 

Then we should hope for a nice, good war close to home, shouldn't we? That's when savvy investors and businessmen really get wealthier...

[Madiel]

Ah yes, statistics. A word that can be brought up while ignoring any statistics that don't suit one's argument.

For instance, one can suggest that the disease killed people whose time had come anyway while not mentioning that life expectancy in the USA decreased by 3 years. A statistic that means on average, across the entire population, people were dying quite a bit before their "time".

I'm also tempted to create one of those drinking games based on mentions of Sweden... which can ignore any data on what ACTUALLY happened in Sweden, or any of the cultural factors that influenced the country. (Somewhat reminds me of how Canberra achieved one of the highest vaccination rates in the world without ever mandating anyone get vaccinated, because... Canberra)

[Karl Henning]

The justification for closing the schools was never that children were vulnerable. It was that epidemiological studies had shown that schools were a major pathway for the disease to spread through a community. That seems quite plausible to me,

This, in spades. 

[Madiel]

There were legitimate arguments both ways on schools and whether they were pathways. Children in schools mix with each other but they are not, during school hours, mixing with the wider population.

What often happens in everyday life is that kids bring back something from excursions into the world such as school holiday periods. So a big issue with the pandemic was whether it was feasible to keep schools running but effectively isolated from other activities thanks to non-school restrictions.

I think expert views on this changed over time and depending on conditions. Certainly early on I remember that scientists here were advising against school closures, despite the average parent saying "but we always get diseases from the kids".