Covid-19

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,640
Location
Durham, NC
I agree in principle but I certainly don't think a national health care response to a pandemic should be based on it, as it is very challenging to fully identify all the members of vulnerable populations in a society. What reinfection cases would also indicate is the 'herd immunity' strategy promoted by the Declaration may no longer be a plausible approach to addressing the virus.

It's not super hard to identify at-risk populations now; we do it for RSV, flu, immunocompromised. It's not trying to invent something new.

Less related is the fact that the Declaration incorrectly asserts that governments prefer to do extended full lockdowns as a primary measure to curb the virus until a vaccine is created.

Lockdowns are what the governments want to do (with masks and SD); or at least, what they are doing/did. At least it's what is going on in NC from our governor, whose multi-phased plans are economically crippling and non-sensical.
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,305
We've known for decades how to clamp "consumption-based reversible health issues", but NO administration has seriously wanted to take it on.

For myself and anyone else not knowledgable about this:

Are these methods other than straight abolition you're referencing? If so, what methods?
 

Juggrnaut

Unverified
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
73
While I agree we should try and save as many lives as possible as far as health goes, and continue trying to prolong life as much as possible; the world is already beyond 7 billion people and can’t continue to sustain itself. How do you combat a humanitarian effort that is essentially destroying the earth at the same time? The most populated places are the biggest shit holes, and it’s spilling over into well established places, as is the case in countries like Sweden and our own country.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,640
Location
Durham, NC
For myself and anyone else not knowledgable about this:

Are these methods other than straight abolition you're referencing? If so, what methods?

Regarding opioids, historically they are easy to prescribe, easy to dispense. That has S-L-O-W-L-Y been changing; a lot of docs in NC can't prescribe narcotics any longer, and if they do, it's limited to a one- or two-time script. Understanding the pathophysiology of addiction is leading to different management techniques. This will mitigate the issue from that end. Pain clinics are becoming more popular.

Mitigating second- and third-generation adverse health behaviors in high-risk populations like smoking in the black population and drinking in the Hispanic population are where investments need to be made. There have been small studies with good result with diet control and smoking cessation amongst low-income black populations.

These things take time, like two or three generations. But people want the magic bullet, and they want it now. What we DO know is abolition does not work, at all. The over 'lives saved' will be enormous and savings to health care will be in the billions.
 

Locksteady

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
477
It's not super hard to identify at-risk populations now; we do it for RSV, flu, immunocompromised. It's not trying to invent something new.
The herd immunity strategy in this regard seems flawed because while we can identify in general at-risk sectors of society, it is rare that we can identify all the vulnerable members of society - especially with the discovery of 'long COVID-19' - and even more challenging to isolate them. Additionally, this is magnified by the risk of COVID-19 reinfections in less vulnerable populations who feel they are finally 'safe' to go around more vulnerable members of society after having already contracted it once.

It also doesn't help that we already can't get many members of a 300+million population to consistently wear a mask or practice social distancing to prevent spreading it to vulnerable populations even when they are required to by law.

At best this approach to protecting the vulnerable could be practiced as part of a set of other strategies for combating the virus - such as wearing masks, practicing social distancing, and properly going into quarantine or isolation after exposure or contraction.
Lockdowns are what the governments want to do (with masks and SD); or at least, what they are doing/did. At least it's what is going on in NC from our governor, whose multi-phased plans are economically crippling and non-sensical.
Sure. My point was that they are falsely suggesting that governments want to retain lockdown measures until a vaccine is produced, which is not the case.
 
Last edited:

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,551
Location
Maricopa Basin
Obesity leads to multiple comorbidities. Obesity is also preventable.

Saying the WHO has been right all along is hilarious as many have provided numerous evidence in this thread showing that they've changed their stance. They also continued the lies and obfuscation of the Chinese government.

What I don't understand is how Fauci said the right things in March stating that masks don't work (they don't) but now has had his heel turned and wears a mask everywhere.

It's all politics. The only model that "worked" was Sweden. Their curve looks almost like everyone elses and they did nothing on a mandatory basis.
 

Locksteady

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
477
Saying the WHO has been right all along is hilarious as many have provided numerous evidence in this thread showing that they've changed their stance.
Reiterating a claim you have repeatedly failed to source doesn't improve its veracity.
It's all politics. The only model that "worked" was Sweden. Their curve looks almost like everyone elses and they did nothing on a mandatory basis.
Do you think it is possible that there are differences in demographic, lifestyle, health care policy, household, health, and behavioral factors that can contribute to why Sweden was well-positioned to benefit from that strategy, as opposed to the United States?
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,640
Location
Durham, NC
RE: WHO reversals:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243347886.html

WHO Reverses Itself on Claim that Asymptomatic Transmission of COVID-19 Is ‘Rare’

WHO reverses, says COVID-19 can be airborne indoors

I have an open bias against WHO. While I know people who work for them/have worked for them, like any organization, it's rarely the guys on the ground that are of issue, but rather an inept/incompetent/politics-driven leadership. That said, I try to check my bias because in light of new evidence, it's OK to change one's mind. The problem, or question, is, are they changing course based on new evidence or political winds?
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,551
Location
Maricopa Basin
Reiterating a claim you have repeatedly failed to source doesn't improve its veracity.

Do you think it is possible that there are differences in demographic, lifestyle, health care policy, household, health, and behavioral factors that can contribute to why Sweden was well-positioned to benefit from that strategy, as opposed to the United States?

I've previously cited sources through multiple months on this "claim". Everything "new" the who comes out with a backpedal. This is a FACT. If you want to say it's not, fine. I even posted a link the other day and you were like: It doesn't say anything. Fine, you can have your opinion and I can have mine.

I read the data that just even comes out of the CDC itself that gets buried, which I posted in here not two days ago, showing that cloth masks do nothing. I've posted data in here that shows Lockdowns are leading to high levels of suicide ideations and ODs.
 

Locksteady

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
477
RE: WHO reversals:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243347886.html

WHO Reverses Itself on Claim that Asymptomatic Transmission of COVID-19 Is ‘Rare’

WHO reverses, says COVID-19 can be airborne indoors

I have an open bias against WHO. While I know people who work for them/have worked for them, like any organization, it's rarely the guys on the ground that are of issue, but rather an inept/incompetent/politics-driven leadership. That said, I try to check my bias because in light of new evidence, it's OK to change one's mind. The problem, or question, is, are they changing course based on new evidence or political winds?
These are good links, but perhaps out of context to my lockdown dangers point that I understood Thunderhorse was replying to (and which I was referring to when I said he repeatedly failed to provide links for his claim that WHO reversed course on the purpose and usage of lockdown):
You know the seasons are changing when a lot of people in the medical and public health community are coming out and saying "you know, maybe all of this wasn't such a great idea...."
That isn't a fair characterization of, at least, what WHO officials have been stating this entire time.
Saying the WHO has been right all along is hilarious as many have provided numerous evidence in this thread showing that they've changed their stance.
Reiterating a claim you have repeatedly failed to source doesn't improve its veracity.
To Thunderhorse:
I even posted a link the other day and you were like: It doesn't say anything.
You posted another news network's edition of the same story that you had just admitted didn't demonstrate anything.

Were we supposed to glean a different conclusion from the same story?
I read the data that just even comes out of the CDC itself that gets buried, which I posted in here not two days ago, showing that cloth masks do nothing.
The researchers in that study concluded several things.

This was not one of them.
 
Last edited:

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,453
That's not a model though, which is what we were talking about.
You're right, it's not a model and that was kind of the point I was trying to make. There is no model in place, yet the infection levels there are low. They're not sure as to why. This speaks to the many unknowns of the virus...or at least things being attributed to the virus. If nothing else, models have proven they aren't the end all beat all. There is no evidence to definitively support one approach over another.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,551
Location
Maricopa Basin
Which still isn't what I was talking about. I was addressing the quote the Sweden is the only model that's worked which is untrue. You're inferring more than what I'm saying.

There is a significant difference between NZ and the majority of the world and how much travel you had direct from Wuhan. We had significant travel direct from Wuhan as did Europe. Once you have a large exposure you're fucked as far as being able to stop it. So the point is to just let it run. Close the border, don't close the border, the POTUS will get criticized by the opposition. We even have various models in the US with counties in the same state having completely different policies on masks and lockdowns and their infection curves are almost identical. So, kill the economy? Drive up Opiod use? Drive up Domestic violence? Drive up Suicides?

In Arizona during this period, we've had a 140% increase in homicides from domestic violence. Phoenix police: Domestic violence deaths more than double in 2020 so far

This article is from August and the data I got on Homicides from DV showing that was today, let me see if I can find publicly accessible data. Also, in addition to that calls for response to DV is down significantly, not because it's not happening btw.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,415
Location
Not Afghanistan
Top