Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Duque de Bragança]

Are there still protests against Stuttgart XXI by the way? 

Of course. Probably quite some overlap. The 200 odd people that still do this recently celebrated their 500th weekly demonstration.

Overlap?
As in, Stuttgart XXI includes 5G towers to activate Bill Gates' microchip vaccines for the benefit of the NWO and/or Illuminati (not the Steve Jackson table top game? Who knows?) ? 

[Zanza]

Overlap in terms of participants. Just an assumption, but I feel that it is not far from Wutbürger to Querdenker.

[Duque de Bragança]

Verstanden.

[Syt]

Zanza, I presume you didn't participate in the protest in Stuttgart yesterday?

I was 700 km away from the crazies.

To not stand by this outrage, I expressed my anger at the city administration that allowed this shit to happen  by clicking on the angry emoji on Facebook though. 

[alfred russel]

Yeah, I give up.

I mean, sure, there could be some magical "other factor" that COULD exist that makes the repeal of mandates somehow cause people to actually wear masks. I suppose it's possible.

I think Occam will claim that absent some compelling data, the simple conclusion would be that removing a law trying to enforce an action, the result will be less of that action, not more of it.

If in order to accept that AR if full of shit, you demand that someone prove that magic space aliens are not forcing people to wear masks, but only when mask wearing is NOT mandated, then that really isn't an interesting debate to me anymore - have at it DG and AR. You guys can defend Texas and De Santis and all the other fucking nuts all you like.

Taking it out of the facebook thread out of consideration to Syt.

Do you think that masks are the only factor relevant to covid spread?

Also, there is a massive difference between defending Texas and De Santis and pointing out a predicted outcome isn't occurring.

[DGuller]

What makes a debate interesting to me is looking at statistics honestly, and not engaging in data dredging.  It's perfectly fine to have prior expectations.  My prior expectation is that relaxing the Covid mandates will aid the spread of Covid.  My prior expectation is that a bullet in the brain reduces one's life expectancy.

It's also okay to have different levels of belief in prior expectations.  I think a reasonable person would be a priori very uncertain as to the exact effect of Covid rules on the spread of the disease, especially about the magnitude of the effect, so we really need a lot of data to augment our prior beliefs before we can be certain about anything.  There is so much that we still don't understand (like for example why are NYC and NJ taking a big turn for the worse now, when we didn't do anything stupid?)  I think reasonable people would be fine have very strong prior beliefs about the effect of bullet in the brain on one's life expectancy, so there is less need to augment it with statistical data.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in statistics to point to a definitive effect of what Texas did three weeks ago.  Cases haven't been going up yet, and if you're looking at either absolute death numbers or changes in death numbers to evaluate a change from three weeks ago, you're frankly not even interested in having an honest debate.  Fact of the matter is, the keyword here is "three weeks".  If you're going to try very hard to find a statistical effect after three weeks, you're going to discredit the honest statisticians like me when we do find an effect, when it actually appears.  It takes more than three weeks for Covid stupidity to show up in statistics.  It took two months last time the south of US had a death wish, and that was when they did go from a legitimate lockdown to opening up.

Okay, so you may correctly conclude that statistics will neither help nor hurt you there, so why not use logic in the mean time?  That's where our paradoxical effect discussion came up.  I think it's well-established that unenforced rules can be worse than nothing, because they give some a sense of security without actually providing it.  Too many unenforced rules also make all the rules irrelevant.  If you set the speed limit on US highways to 10 MPH, you're going to have a less safe highway than with a 75 MPH speed limit, simply because people will correctly assume that no one will be anchoring their decisions on what speed to drive at to the legal speed limit, and they'll all make their own decisions, with a vastly greater spread of speeds as a result.  This is why it's not reasonable to assume that any regulation will either have a partially positive effect or at worst exactly zero effect.  Plenty of regulations exist that are worse than useless, and it's not just stupid regulations, but also smart regulations that no one cares to enforce. 

If you really want to bash Texas, the fact that repealing regulations doesn't have an effect should be really damning on its own.  The fact that local sheriffs take it upon themselves to enact "police nullification" policies that handcuffs the government from having an effective response to a pandemic is what is unconscionable and murderous.  The quiet tragedy to me is that all those essential workers working in a rural Texas store have to stand there and watch 10 out of 10 customers ignore "you need to wear a mask to enter" sign, and just take it (and hopefully only that, and not any of Covid), because they need to put food on the table.

[Sheilbh]

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in statistics to point to a definitive effect of what Texas did three weeks ago.  Cases haven't been going up yet, and if you're looking at either absolute death numbers or changes in death numbers to evaluate a change from three weeks ago, you're frankly not even interested in having an honest debate.  Fact of the matter is, the keyword here is "three weeks".  If you're going to try very hard to find a statistical effect after three weeks, you're going to discredit the honest statisticians like me when we do find an effect, when it actually appears.  It takes more than three weeks for Covid stupidity to show up in statistics.  It took two months last time the south of US had a death wish, and that was when they did go from a legitimate lockdown to opening up.

Three weeks is enough to show up in cases, no?

I think it's a bit of a shame that the US is probably about a month or so away from getting 60+% of the adult population vaccinated and showing immunity. Just holding on for one more month would probably save lives but it's probably not a catastrophe given how many of the most vulnerable the US will have vaccinnated.

[DGuller]

Three weeks is enough to show up in cases, no?

Only if you assume that everyone immediately and fully reacts to the change in regulations, and has Covid parties on day 1 of the new regime.

[alfred russel]

It takes more than three weeks for Covid stupidity to show up in statistics.  It took two months last time the south of US had a death wish, and that was when they did go from a legitimate lockdown to opening up.

I don't think you can conclude "covid stupidity" if it takes that long.

If the mechanism is as simple as "government restrictions were keeping people from doing things that spread covid, and that makes them effective", disease spread would be almost immediately measurable in increased cases. The rapid spread early on shows how contagious this is without any countermeasures (inclusive of those privately initiated).

A few states went almost fully open right away. As you note, the spike in cases came much later. But everywhere has had a spike at this point. The case for causation becomes rather weak.

[alfred russel]

To me, this is the essence of all the arguments from a value judgment perspective.

Georgia's deaths per million is 1,809. The US average is 1,739.  Georgia was the first state to almost fully open up: you could do almost everything by May 1 last year.

-What would Georgia's deaths have been if it hadn't fully opened up?
-If there is an incremental number of deaths that has been incurred, was it worth it?

In my opinion, while it is very easy to debate #1, the answer to #2 is emphatically "yes". The answer can not be a very large number in terms of the entire population, and so many of you guys seem to have led much more dreary existences the past year. Even if the Georgia number would be halved by staying more restrictive, that is still less than 1/10 of 1% of the population. I would gladly trade that death risk for things like open restaurants, gyms, schools, etc.

The most important debate of the suite of health measures to implement that balances reducing covid with quality of life, but it is much harder to discuss because it becomes so complex.

[DGuller]

It takes more than three weeks for Covid stupidity to show up in statistics.  It took two months last time the south of US had a death wish, and that was when they did go from a legitimate lockdown to opening up.

I don't think you can conclude "covid stupidity" if it takes that long.

If the mechanism is as simple as "government restrictions were keeping people from doing things that spread covid, and that makes them effective", disease spread would be almost immediately measurable in increased cases. The rapid spread early on shows how contagious this is without any countermeasures (inclusive of those privately initiated).

A few states went almost fully open right away. As you note, the spike in cases came much later. But everywhere has had a spike at this point. The case for causation becomes rather weak.

Real life is not an arithmetic puzzle.  Isolating the effect of one particular factor in the presence of many other factors as well as lags takes a lot of judgment (which is different from bullshit and different from arbitrariness).  Businesses don't all react immediately, and neither do people.

[alfred russel]

Real life is not an arithmetic puzzle.  Isolating the effect of one particular factor in the presence of many other factors as well as lags takes a lot of judgment (which is different from bullshit and different from arbitrariness).  Businesses don't all react immediately, and neither do people.

I agree, but I'm not sure how you can then identify that. Other than a cross state statistical comparison showing that cases begin to significantly increase some period after the lifting of all restrictions.

Interestingly, if such a study existed, it would be really good evidence that Texas was doing the right thing: as in a couple months they should have given most people the opportunity to be vaccinated.

[Sheilbh]

Only if you assume that everyone immediately and fully reacts to the change in regulations, and has Covid parties on day 1 of the new regime.

Surely but that's only if you think the big driver is people behaving badly - which I think is wrong. Workplaces, schools, universities etc re-opening will have more of an impact than a minority of people taking the piss even if there's a desire to shame them.

A few states went almost fully open right away. As you note, the spike in cases came much later. But everywhere has had a spike at this point. The case for causation becomes rather weak.

I could be wrong on this but didn't US epidemiologists predict that the UK variant/B117 would become dominant in the course of March? That feels like it would cause a spike - see the UK in December or Europe now. Hopefully the vaccinations will keep its impact in deaths and hospitalisations a lot lower.

In my opinion, while it is very easy to debate #1, the answer to #2 is emphatically "yes". The answer can not be a very large number in terms of the entire population, and so many of you guys seem to have led much more dreary existences the past year. Even if the Georgia number would be halved by staying more restrictive, that is still less than 1/10 of 1% of the population. I would gladly trade that death risk for things like open restaurants, gyms, schools, etc.

I can't comment on Georgia. But isn't the point that the risk and the benefit isn't equal. I will get lots more enjoyment from things being open and would personally accept the risk of covid - given my age etc. But the mortality risk is overwhelmingly on the elderly.

It's a bit like one of my issues with vaccine passes at the minute. Young people have really been fucked for the last year and behaved in an incredible way - like the rest of the country (and I imagine the US and European countries). At the minute young people are not eligible for vaccines in the UK. To me it is wrong to have things re-open based on vaccine passes until everyone, especially the young who are least at risk but big, social transmitters, has had the option of having a vaccine. And once everyone has we can just open everything anyway.

The most important debate of the suite of health measures to implement that balances reducing covid with quality of life, but it is much harder to discuss because it becomes so complex.

100%. And I think there is a trend of people online talking like they want restrictions to carry on forever (which is feeding the conspiracy theorists). Policy shouldn't be about eliminating epidemiological risk of potential variants that may or may not exist even after everyone's been vaccinated. We will broadly go back to normal life in the next few months - with a few differences maybe masks indoors, hand sanitising, regular testing/vaccine boosters - rather than a continuation of the sort of restrictions we've seen in the last year or vaccine passes.

I think pandemics end when they reach a level of mortality we are willing to accept - and if deaths fall in the way they have in Israel and the UK (vaccinations plus lockdowns) then the restrictions will either need to be largely got rid of with a few minor interventions left, or they will collapse.

[Grey Fox]

American governments don't manage at large healthcare systems

[DGuller]

I agree, but I'm not sure how you can then identify that. Other than a cross state statistical comparison showing that cases begin to significantly increase some period after the lifting of all restrictions.

Have more detailed data.  It's pretty hard to take the data from NYT and do something meaningful with it.  However, health authorities typically have more color to the data, they know not just the trends, but they have an idea of where it's coming from.  For example, what we can tell is that cases went up or positivity rates went up, but what health authorities also know is for example that the increase in the cases is mostly from people who had large family gatherings.