Sanity test

[myata]

Here's Covid cases in Sweden. Note the absence of sky is falling panic mode for pretty much whole of this year, while the cases swing either way. There were no lockdowns, in our meaning of the word. Vaccination rate is moderate, nothing to boast about.

What if this is an evolutionary test for us, the humanity and this time it involves just one subject: basic sanity. If Sweden manages to keep its course then perhaps in some years or decades the continuous exposure of the healthy population would make coexistence with the virus endemic, essentially another strain of common cold that is also of the type corona, one more type to existing three.

And on the other end of the spectrum we would have entire populations fully dependent on the next batch of boosters. What would it do to the natural immunity, ability to resist new and changing infectious agents over long term?

It is a fact now that q-vaccination prevents neither infections nor transmission. Yet these facts, plain obvious reason do nothing to diminish calls for mandatory vaccinations in perpetuity (or how and why not?). Why mandatory, if it does not prevent infection and transmission? What is the logic? Where is sanity? Jack wants to be safe from complications, he takes preventative treatment for his condition but cannot relax till all of the Jills do the same. Why? What sense does it make? And where?

Elected democratic politicians, whatever grain of salt you want to add here in a serious crisis has been a true disaster. They have no clue what is going on; no intellect to understand the problem and choose a rational strategy to address it; they have no courage to insist on the right solution against pressure of screaming, jumping and waving hands, panic and fear. And they need to be seen as doing something important, quick and easy to show in the screen in about five minutes of a confident talk, folks! whatever it is, the more visible the better. Why would you want an expertly run top notch public system that does its duty in the times of crisis so that you don't even see it? What good would it do in our democratic-populistics politics? Who would you assign credits to for continuous and generous taking care of the poor and scared populace raking outrageous salaries and benefits in the process?

If this is indeed a sanity test, what score should we get? Forget the climate inflation and other challenges - how can we make it to a sane place, where sane people live and do things, including facing challenges rationally and intelligently? What if it would make much or all of the difference, in this age?

[Michael Hardner]

Elected democratic politicians, whatever grain of salt you want to add here in a serious crisis has been a true disaster. 

 

Not sure if you're saying that Sweden's approach was better than canada's?

 

their death rate was almost double ours (I think)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

[myata]

Maybe you missed the whole point? It's not about measuring success by a single abstract number (yes there are many factors that can be taken into account). It's about being sane, talking, listening and explaining to sane people in a sane language sane and reasonable ideas and projects. So, does it still look like Canada?

Off the news: in the first wave of the pandemic retirement residences in BC had 16 times lower fatality rate than in Ontario. When asked if she consulted her peers in that province chief Ontario something answered: "I did not know". It seems to be the first phrase a politician or top public manager learns on arrival, here, let's rehearse it to perfection: "I - did - not - know", great job! Does it still look and sound sane?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. It's not about measuring success by a single abstract number (yes there are many factors that can be taken into account). It's about being sane, talking, listening and explaining to sane people in a sane language sane and reasonable ideas and projects.

2. So, does it still look like Canada?

3. Does it still look and sound sane?

1. A rate, or count is not an abstract number, it to a a MEASURE or METRIC.  It means something.

2. 3. You haven't given enough information/analysis about Sweden, at all.

[OftenWrong]

Best example of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" I have ever seen. If one does not grok why, there is no helping one.

Overnight shutdown of humanity. Whoever figured this shit out is a supergenius. Probably the supercomputer Deep Blue.

Or, Deeper than Deep Blue...

[myata]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A rate, or count is not an abstract number

A rate is not an explanation. For an ideal possibility of an explanation to exist, there has to be basic sanity first. No explanation then means no sanity, what is wrong in this logic?

Is it sane to kill everybody to achieve perfectly zero level of infection? Is it sane to shut everybody up "for as long as necessary" to have no flu in the country? You can probably figure out and so on.

[myata]

Three years back what would you say to the idea to close services and business for three months in the fall and winter to reduce the number of serious flu complications (feel free to check the rate)? What about prohibiting all over the counter medications because someone may use them to overdose? The list of insane is endless, it only takes one step down the path.

Edited December 2, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

1. A rate is not an explanation.
2. For an ideal possibility of an explanation to exist, there has to be basic sanity first. No explanation then means no sanity, what is wrong in this logic?
3. Is it sane to kill everybody to achieve perfectly zero level of infection?
4. Is it sane to shut everybody up "for as long as necessary" to have no flu in the country? You can probably figure out and so on.

1. I concur.
2. But you haven't laid out a clear reason why Sweden is sane.  Because they did nothing ?  Ok.  Well, I have submitted evidence 1.0 that the approach doesn't appear to have improved on our approach, even if it appeared calmer.  If my number doesn't explain anything, what do you have to counter it ?  I'm honestly open to whatever you may say here.
3. I'm going to answer... hmmmm.... "no"
4. Everybody stayed in and didn't to to movies, restaurants, concerts for two years.  30,000 lives were saved.  An entire small town of people. Let's say those numbers are accurate, what do you think of that trade off ?

[myata]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But you haven't laid out a clear reason why Sweden is sane. 

Maybe not. And Sweden is not perfect by any objective measure, as it had high loss in the retirement residences. It did one sane thing though: unless extreme restrictions on the society are warranted by truly extreme situation, that can be shown, explained and proven, and only for as long as it can be proven, the society has to continue its normal life. The objective was not reduce The Number at any cost (see p. 3) but to keep the society functioning normally at all times or most of the time while effectively controlling the disease. Not or, you have to do both. Or had to, before the lines shifted and disease control became control over the society.

4. First: no, you don't know that. Talking heads can be telling that but they said many things and which of them have come true? Until you have a way to explain and prove your point in a sane intelligent language and discussion, nothing is obvious and all and any restriction on others has to be proven to be reasonable and justified in the current situation. Secondly, why didn't that idea occur to you three years back? Did you check the number of serious complications from flu, common cold and such? Would they warrant these measures too, every year, year on year and for decades in perpetuity?