COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,285 comments
  • 646,599 views
‘There have been as many plagues in history as there have been wars,’ wrote Albert Camus in The Plague, ‘yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.’ So it was this time. The arrival of a new coronavirus blindsided governments of most advanced nations as they reached for a tool that few had ever really considered before: lockdown. It all happened too fast for a proper discussion about the implications. The biggest question — the extent to which lockdown will claim lives as well as save them — is one you can ask at a global level.

We know the national costs. In the United States, there is joblessness on a scale not seen since the Great Depression, with more than 33 million unemployed. The Bank of England forecasts the UK economy will fall by 14 per cent this year — the steepest decline since 1706. Similar trends can be found across the industrial world. The global economy is veering toward an economic depression not seen for generations.

Yet this argument, to many, seems crass. How consequential is an economic loss in balance when lives at risk from Covid-19 are at stake? Understandably, few find such calculations compelling — and tend to side with those who advocate for prolonged lockdowns lasting for months or more. If this were about lives vs money, it would be easy to understand. But look deeper, and this is about lives vs lives — on a scale that has not, so far, been very much discussed. Lockdown will, on a global level, hit the poorest hardest.

We have the health impacts in the rich world. To keep hospitals available for the Covid-19 patients who never showed up, patients delayed non-urgent but essential healthcare, including vaccinations, cancer screening, and even chemotherapy. The death toll from this will manifest over the coming years as old infectious diseases find new life and cancer mortality rises. In the UK, cancer deaths have been predicted to rise by about 18,000 due to the disruption in treatment.

Harder to predict will be the lives claimed by the new epidemic of unemployment. We saw in the effect of the 2007/08 crash huge numbers of people who died from opioid overdose and depression. The dearth of opportunities and increased feeling of lack of purpose in life will hasten these deaths of despair. But the harm to people in poorer countries from the lockdowns in rich countries will be many times worse. We’ve seen, in the past 25 years, a collapse in global poverty due to world capitalism. We’re about to see this thrust into reverse.

The United Nations forecasts that even if the world economy rebounds in the second half of the year, the economic downturn would increase the numbers in extreme poverty up by anything from 84 million to 132 million. The recession would reverse years of progress in the fight against child mortality in the developing world. The UN’s World Food Programme predicts that by the end of the year, the numbers facing acute hunger will double to 265 million. These are staggering figures. If this were to be the result of a natural disaster, it would be worldwide news. Now, it’s just seen as a footnote in the side-effects of lockdown.

Take the number of infants and small children dying in developing countries: five million in 2017 (when the last count was taken). A tragic figure, but it would have been 10.6 million had it not been for the improvements made in the past two decades. Progress made each year against diseases and malnutrition means that 300,000 fewer children will die compared with the previous year. When these numbers are compounded, the progress made in a given year saves an additional three million young lives each decade. When that stops, as it now has, the cost can be counted in lives. If lockdown is to cost us two years’ growth, as some have argued, it would end up taking nearly six million young lives in the coming decade.

Combine this with a return to levels of childhood mortality of just five years ago, and this would lead to a loss of more than 20 million young lives over the next ten years. These projections are horrifying — but given the UN’s calculations for the case that the world economy will recover this year, they are also terrifyingly realistic if the downturn lasts longer. The World Bank has calculated which countries will be hit hardest, and how many more are about to end up in poverty. In Congo, two million. In Nigeria, five million. In India, 12 million.

Policies that depress the global economy — no matter how well-intentioned — put millions of the world’s most vulnerable young people at risk. The decision to lift our lockdowns thus involves weighing lives to lives rather than lives to money.

Lockdowns, of course, are not all that prevents the global economy from thriving now. People the world over have also changed their behaviour out of fear of the virus, with less trade and — therefore — less wealth spread. But mandatory lockdowns worsen the economic downturn. That they are not the only source of economic pain is not a reason to ignore their impact.

As any health economist will tell you, age is also a factor. Those in our countries most at risk from the virus are predominantly elderly (in Britain, most of those who have died have been aged over 80) whereas the people most at risk from a global economic depression will include many children. Ending lockdown does not mean abandoning the elderly. Low-cost interventions are available: protecting nursing homes from epidemic spread would pose little or no economic harm and much benefit.

Unfortunately, the public debate to date has left little room for our political leaders to consider how our response to the virus impacts lives elsewhere. Each government assesses its success or failure by its own number of coronavirus-related deaths. The scoreboard charts that we see, judging countries on Covid-19 deaths alone, tend not to factor in those killed by the reaction to the virus — at home or abroad.

We are moral people. We have grown good at thinking about the effects of our decisions on the lives of the world’s poorest, from climate change to trade policy. The shock of a pandemic can narrow the focus, at least at first. But now we’re over the shock, we can perhaps look at the predicted surge in world poverty, and deaths, and consider these as a factor when deciding the future of lockdown. A lot of lives are on the line.

Professor Bhattacharya teaches at Stanford Medical School and Professor Packalen at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.

Written byJayanta Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lives-vs-lives-the-global-cost-of-lockdown

Nuff said.
 
x3ra
‘There have been as many plagues in history as there have been wars,’ wrote Albert Camus in The Plague, ‘yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.’ So it was this time. The arrival of a new coronavirus blindsided governments of most advanced nations as they reached for a tool that few had ever really considered before: lockdown. It all happened too fast for a proper discussion about the implications. The biggest question — the extent to which lockdown will claim lives as well as save them — is one you can ask at a global level.

We know the national costs. In the United States, there is joblessness on a scale not seen since the Great Depression, with more than 33 million unemployed. The Bank of England forecasts the UK economy will fall by 14 per cent this year — the steepest decline since 1706. Similar trends can be found across the industrial world. The global economy is veering toward an economic depression not seen for generations.

Yet this argument, to many, seems crass. How consequential is an economic loss in balance when lives at risk from Covid-19 are at stake? Understandably, few find such calculations compelling — and tend to side with those who advocate for prolonged lockdowns lasting for months or more. If this were about lives vs money, it would be easy to understand. But look deeper, and this is about lives vs lives — on a scale that has not, so far, been very much discussed. Lockdown will, on a global level, hit the poorest hardest.

We have the health impacts in the rich world. To keep hospitals available for the Covid-19 patients who never showed up, patients delayed non-urgent but essential healthcare, including vaccinations, cancer screening, and even chemotherapy. The death toll from this will manifest over the coming years as old infectious diseases find new life and cancer mortality rises. In the UK, cancer deaths have been predicted to rise by about 18,000 due to the disruption in treatment.

Harder to predict will be the lives claimed by the new epidemic of unemployment. We saw in the effect of the 2007/08 crash huge numbers of people who died from opioid overdose and depression. The dearth of opportunities and increased feeling of lack of purpose in life will hasten these deaths of despair. But the harm to people in poorer countries from the lockdowns in rich countries will be many times worse. We’ve seen, in the past 25 years, a collapse in global poverty due to world capitalism. We’re about to see this thrust into reverse.

The United Nations forecasts that even if the world economy rebounds in the second half of the year, the economic downturn would increase the numbers in extreme poverty up by anything from 84 million to 132 million. The recession would reverse years of progress in the fight against child mortality in the developing world. The UN’s World Food Programme predicts that by the end of the year, the numbers facing acute hunger will double to 265 million. These are staggering figures. If this were to be the result of a natural disaster, it would be worldwide news. Now, it’s just seen as a footnote in the side-effects of lockdown.

Take the number of infants and small children dying in developing countries: five million in 2017 (when the last count was taken). A tragic figure, but it would have been 10.6 million had it not been for the improvements made in the past two decades. Progress made each year against diseases and malnutrition means that 300,000 fewer children will die compared with the previous year. When these numbers are compounded, the progress made in a given year saves an additional three million young lives each decade. When that stops, as it now has, the cost can be counted in lives. If lockdown is to cost us two years’ growth, as some have argued, it would end up taking nearly six million young lives in the coming decade.

Combine this with a return to levels of childhood mortality of just five years ago, and this would lead to a loss of more than 20 million young lives over the next ten years. These projections are horrifying — but given the UN’s calculations for the case that the world economy will recover this year, they are also terrifyingly realistic if the downturn lasts longer. The World Bank has calculated which countries will be hit hardest, and how many more are about to end up in poverty. In Congo, two million. In Nigeria, five million. In India, 12 million.

Policies that depress the global economy — no matter how well-intentioned — put millions of the world’s most vulnerable young people at risk. The decision to lift our lockdowns thus involves weighing lives to lives rather than lives to money.

Lockdowns, of course, are not all that prevents the global economy from thriving now. People the world over have also changed their behaviour out of fear of the virus, with less trade and — therefore — less wealth spread. But mandatory lockdowns worsen the economic downturn. That they are not the only source of economic pain is not a reason to ignore their impact.

As any health economist will tell you, age is also a factor. Those in our countries most at risk from the virus are predominantly elderly (in Britain, most of those who have died have been aged over 80) whereas the people most at risk from a global economic depression will include many children. Ending lockdown does not mean abandoning the elderly. Low-cost interventions are available: protecting nursing homes from epidemic spread would pose little or no economic harm and much benefit.

Unfortunately, the public debate to date has left little room for our political leaders to consider how our response to the virus impacts lives elsewhere. Each government assesses its success or failure by its own number of coronavirus-related deaths. The scoreboard charts that we see, judging countries on Covid-19 deaths alone, tend not to factor in those killed by the reaction to the virus — at home or abroad.

We are moral people. We have grown good at thinking about the effects of our decisions on the lives of the world’s poorest, from climate change to trade policy. The shock of a pandemic can narrow the focus, at least at first. But now we’re over the shock, we can perhaps look at the predicted surge in world poverty, and deaths, and consider these as a factor when deciding the future of lockdown. A lot of lives are on the line.

Professor Bhattacharya teaches at Stanford Medical School and Professor Packalen at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.

Written byJayanta Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lives-vs-lives-the-global-cost-of-lockdown

Nuff said.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. But there's a fun spin on it, which is that it kinda advocates that we can't lock down in the US because poor people around the world are entitled to our economic output. Where'd that come from?

And is our government policy now supposed to account for poor people in Africa when it considers how to best keep local hospitals from being overrun?

When it's convenient, we have a duty to the world's poor. When it's not convenient, we don't.

...and again, are we letting people off the hook for people who are recklessly spreading the virus? Because imposing criminal penalties for spreading the virus seems warranted. And just wait till you see how angry that conservative who didn't want to wear a mask gets when he gets put in jail for spreading COVID! And again, that behavior can result in a greater voluntary economic downturn.
 
x3ra
Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Not quite. You've also questioned the efficacy of wearing face masks. Ending the lockdown while curtailing the use of personal protective equipment sounds like it would do more harm than good, as I'm sure even the most contrarian Spectator journalist would agree.


I can’t wait to see what'll happen if a vaccine is developed and you turn out to be anti-that as well on the grounds that it's "not what Darwin would've wanted".
 
Last edited:
x3ra
Masks are uncomfortable and have they been proved to work?
Click to expand...

I am SO tired of people complaining about wearing masks.

I work in a soils lab. There is soil dust everywhere. The room I work is is not insulated, it's hot as balls. My mask gets dirty and sweaty. But i still wear it (I even keep my nose covered)

I'm so tired of people crying about wearing a mask for 20 minutes while they are in an air conditioned store.

Of course masks work. Why would the government be pushing such a silly thing if they didn't work?

Purely go inconvenience you? The government is working in cooperation with hundreds of other governments to destroy the world economy, make you uncomfortable? What does anyone gain from that?

Just put your damn mask on
 
*browses last page or so*

Something something malicious ignorance something something.

Aaaaanyway, I found this gem and was going to put it elsewhere, but thought this the more appropriate thread.



Karen: "We have a right in America not to wear a...mask. Have you not watched the news?"

What Karen doesn't seem to grasp--oddly, given her obvious interest in rights--is that a business has the right to refuse service because she's not wearing a mask.

Touring Mars
We had a lab meeting yesterday where we were given a run-down of new protocols to observe and agree to as the labs reopen.

Somewhat surprisingly, masks are not to be worn in the building. I think they've got this wrong, personally... but their argument is that demanding people to wear masks will only encourage people to ignore social distancing. They also argue that we shouldn't be in a situation where masks are required anyway i.e. offices remain closed, and labs will have strict maximum occupancies to enforce social distancing. They do, however, say that 'you will not be reprimanded for wearing a mask if you choose to do so'. Well that's great!
Click to expand...
yH.gif


Touring Mars
Also, good to see Vanilla Ice doing his bit to encourage people to stay home by playing an outdoor gig in Texas.
Click to expand...
Oof.
 
TexRex


Karen: "We have a right in America not to wear a...mask. Have you not watched the news?"

What Karen doesn't seem to grasp--oddly, given her obvious interest in rights--is that a business has the right to refuse service because she's not wearing a mask.
Click to expand...

Be diligent out there. After today's executive order, Texas could be seeing a wave of Super Karens.
 
Joey D
On the subject of masks, I was in Wyoming today, which is one of the most Republican states in the Union. Every single person who was in a building was wearing a mask. I was kind of shocked since masks have been so politicized, but seeing a bunch of rodeo dudes walking around in cowboy hats with a pistol on their hip while wearing a mask
Click to expand...

You must mean "Lone Rangers"? :cool:
 
x3ra
We saw in the effect of the 2007/08 crash huge numbers of people who died from opioid overdose and depression.
Click to expand...

I am not really convinced that the ongoing plague of opioid misuse in the US is really tied to the recession.
We didn't see a similar rise in opioids overdose in the rest of the world. But in US a ruthless medical company pushed Oxicontin as not being addictive.
I see a clearer connection between that and the overdoses than to the regression.
 
RacingGrandpa
I am not really convinced that the ongoing plague of opioid misuse in the US is really tied to the recession.
We didn't see a similar rise in opioids overdose in the rest of the world. But in US a ruthless medical company pushed Oxicontin as not being addictive.
I see a clearer connection between that and the overdoses than to the regression.
Click to expand...

You're right, the opioid epidemic isn't tied to the recession. It's tied to the overprescribing of them. For a time, it was super easy to get them if you went to the doctor and said "I hurt". That's all changed now, but I remember getting Vicodin in huge quantities every time I hurt myself. I'd take like 1 or 2 and then throw the rest away because I just didn't need them.
 
I'm not sure what to think about our strategy, we had lockdown with adverse economic effect and numbers of infected went down. One would guess that we should remain conservative with social distancing, travel restrictions and face masks in public places until vaccine is available... but no, it looks like we are boldly heading to second wave, because since July there are no mandatory face mask so nobody have it.
But I guess it will take month or two until we have face masks manadatory again.
 
Danoff
I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. But there's a fun spin on it, which is that it kinda advocates that we can't lock down in the US because poor people around the world are entitled to our economic output. Where'd that come from?

And is our government policy now supposed to account for poor people in Africa when it considers how to best keep local hospitals from being overrun?

When it's convenient, we have a duty to the world's poor. When it's not convenient, we don't.

...and again, are we letting people off the hook for people who are recklessly spreading the virus? Because imposing criminal penalties for spreading the virus seems warranted. And just wait till you see how angry that conservative who didn't want to wear a mask gets when he gets put in jail for spreading COVID! And again, that behavior can result in a greater voluntary economic downturn.
Click to expand...

So I have to wear a mask for 'other people' but it's okay to have a lock-down and screw 'other people'. That's screwy! Not to mention BlackLivesMatter but only in my own country !!!!



McLaren
Source that more than 100,000 people have died from lockdown, please.

Edit*

Wait, so you don't even know the answer to your own argument?
Click to expand...

I was hoping you had considered the lock-down negatives and that you already had all the answers, or does the lock-down have no negatives, as far as you are concerned?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/
The research looks at the consequences of disruption in 118 low and middle income countries, based on three scenarios. Even in the most optimistic case, where access to health services dropped by 15 per cent and child wasting rose by 10 per cent, an additional 253,500 children and 12,200 mothers died.

But a worst-case scenario, where services are reduced by 45 per cent and the proportion of children who are wasting grows by 50 per cent, could result in 1.16 million additional child fatalities and 57,000 maternal deaths in just six months.
Click to expand...
 
x3ra
So I have to wear a mask for 'other people' but it's okay to have a lock-down and screw 'other people'. That's screwy! Not to mention BlackLivesMatter but only in my own country !!!!
Click to expand...

The point of wearing the mask is to avoid having to lock down again by slowing the spread!
 
x3ra
So I have to wear a mask for 'other people' but it's okay to have a lock-down and screw 'other people'. That's screwy! Not to mention BlackLivesMatter but only in my own country !!!!
Click to expand...

wut?

I don't remember endorsing lockdowns as "ok". I also don't remember saying that you have to wear a mask for "other people". I remember saying that if you don't wear a mask "for other people" you are a jerk. I remember saying that if you don't wear a mask and you spread COVID (to other people) that you may have committed a crime, and if you committed a crime you should be held accountable for that crime. And I remember saying something about how the impact of that might be more severe than lockdowns.
 
Danoff
wut?

I don't remember endorsing lockdowns as "ok". I also don't remember saying that you have to wear a mask for "other people". I remember saying that if you don't wear a mask "for other people" you are a jerk. I remember saying that if you don't wear a mask and you spread COVID (to other people) that you may have committed a crime, and if you committed a crime you should be held accountable for that crime. And I remember saying something about how the impact of that might be more severe than lockdowns.
Click to expand...

Do these crimes apply to flu? Should it only be the deaths caused by individuals that are punished? What about the deaths through lock-down? Should the governments be punished or even those who are "lock-down pushers" as supporting the governmental position, would your attitude change if this were the case?
 
@TenEightyOne
x3ra
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/
The research looks at the consequences of disruption in 118 low and middle income countries, based on three scenarios. Even in the most optimistic case, where access to health services dropped by 15 per cent and child wasting rose by 10 per cent, an additional 253,500 children and 12,200 mothers died.

But a worst-case scenario, where services are reduced by 45 per cent and the proportion of children who are wasting grows by 50 per cent, could result in 1.16 million additional child fatalities and 57,000 maternal deaths in just six months.
Click to expand...
 
x3ra
@TenEightyOne
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're looking underdeveloped countries with already-reduced access to timely, appropriate healthcare, that suffer astronomical death rates from malaria, dysentery, malnutrition and so on, and then applying the difficulties in locking such places down with lockdown in the context of discusssion about developed Western countries? Do you think that's a valid comparison?
 
x3ra
I was hoping you had considered the lock-down negatives and that you already had all the answers, or does the lock-down have no negatives, as far as you are concerned?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/
Click to expand...
1. You're the one making the claim more people are dying from lockdowns than the virus. You somehow then ask someone else if they know the number of deaths from that.

2. You quote an article from May that does not actually back up your claim. Your article is posting a prediction, not a toll. Throughout that article, I see a bunch of "could happen". Hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but we saw the same thing months back when there were reports of high death tolls expected from the virus, and today, those initial numbers still get quoted by agenda-driven groups.
 
x3ra
Do these crimes apply to flu? Should it only be the deaths caused by individuals that are punished? What about the deaths through lock-down? Should the governments be punished or even those who are "lock-down pushers" as supporting the governmental position, would your attitude change if this were the case?
Click to expand...

Yes, negligently infecting someone with a disease is not specific to COVID. If government officials knowingly and recklessly cause deaths of innocent people, that may also be a crime.
 
TheGeologist
Of course masks work. Why would the government be pushing such a silly thing if they didn't work?
Click to expand...

The government could have many reasons for it, including “hoping it might work”.

It’s better to look at what the science says, and although the evidence is not conclusive there seems to at least be some correlation between face masks and reduced spreading of the virus:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
 
Businesses:
I'm not making a cake for your gay wedding.

Trumpers: You have that right!

Businesses: Also, we are requiring you to wear a face mask during the pandemic.

Trumpers: *pulling a gun* How dare you! You don't that the right to say what goes on within the confines of your property. It's my body, it should be my choice!

Everyone else: it's not your choice, you could literally infect others who could die from this

Trumpers: unintelligible screeching.
 
TheGeologist
Businesses:
I'm not making a cake for your gay wedding.

Trumpers: You have that right!

Businesses: Also, we are requiring you to wear a face mask during the pandemic.

Trumpers: *pulling a gun* How dare you! You don't that the right to say what goes on within the confines of your property. It's my body, it should be my choice!

Everyone else: it's not your choice, you could literally infect others who could die from this

Trumpers: unintelligible screeching.
Click to expand...
I have a number of friends who dislike Trump and think that the mask mandate is stupid...

Even my dad 68 hates them and stopped wearing one after he got light headed walking through the Wal-Mart. He's doing pefectly fine.
He feels he's putting HIS health at risk wearing one. He said and I quote "It's hot and makes it harder to breathe."
I brought this up here just for it to be dismissed but I'll go with what I and my father have experienced...
Not bunch of people(I have a better word...)who find any way to involve Trump and take cheap shots at his supporters.
Im honestly tired of seeing it EVERYWHERE I turn on SM.
And as far as the bakery comparison, I have the right to take my business elsewhere...
 
Last edited:
ryzno
He feels he's putting HIS health at risk wearing one. He said and I quote "It's hot and makes it harder to breathe."
Click to expand...

What a big baby. Honestly, @ryzno, my dentist is a tiny little lady person and she wears a mask in a hot room all day without struggling. It takes a little adjustment but it's eminently do-able and survivable.

ryzno
I have a number of friends who dislike Trump and think that the mask mandate is stupid...
Click to expand...

There's irony.
 

Similar threads

Famine
  • Locked
PSN outage/restoration - latest news from PS Blog
Replies
0
Views
10K
Famine
Famine
amar212
Pre-release GT5:Prologue Thread Firmware 2.17 mandatory for GT5:P? (and Pictures)
106 107 108
Replies
3K
Views
387K
Beerz
Beerz
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back