CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

Politics, not science.

The politics of fear, humans are so so bad at understanding risk, but for millions of years that has probably served our ancestors well so it persists in evolution! Our "common sense" is hyper tuned for a false positive on risk!

[PaulP]

https://theconversation.com/what-are-the...ins-161667

https://theconversation.com/a-history-of...ine-161889

[LP]

I've got to wonder what are a real long term effects of this pandemic, for me beyond the tragedy of lives lost, I can see a shift in power and economics.

There is significant irony in the fact that during the pandemic that has economically destroyed so many lives, the wealthier have gotten even wealthier! That doesn't bode well for a peaceful society.

If I had the cash I'd be demonstrating my philanthropy now more than ever, or else I might well be strung up in the next few years when the real economic pain starts to hit the masses globally.

Historically, the states solution to this problem is war.

Somehow, I don't see Scotty from Marketing as our Winston! :o

[Thryleon]

The politics of fear, humans are so so bad at understanding risk, but for millions of years that has probably served our ancestors well so it persists in evolution! Our "common sense" is hyper tuned for a false positive on risk!

Our lockdowns are the perfect example of misunderstanding risk.

The numbers game we look at is very one sided approach without equating it to risk.  From this recent lockdown we have 2 vaccinated people who are asymptomatic admitted from a aged care setting.  All the others are either mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic too with 0 hospital admission from the spread requiring care.

We just had 2 weeks of lockdown to stop the spread.

A basic risk analysis analysing the data of positive vs exposure sites vs outcome shows the lockdowns might be a bridge too far and there might be better ways to manage the pandemic without turning life off.

Those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

[LP]

Our lockdowns are the perfect example of misunderstanding risk.

Those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

Interesting, is the perception of risk to freedom and civil liberty proportional and rational?

If we had more people willing to be vaccinated, wear masks and follow simple restrictive measures would we need the lockdowns at all?

Instead we have civil disobedience, protests and victimisation of innocent traders. Protests that by the way do not just target Sars-CoV-2 vaccine, but all vaccines!

It reflects pretty poorly on our society, we do not live under Mussolini, yet the reactions to his sort of dictatorship seems to survive to this day.

Interesting, in the UK the Health Authorities suggested Lockdowns should be greatly limited, not because they didn't want to control the pandemic but because the UK's experience from war years is that civil compliance breaks down after a few weeks of restriction at best, and when that happens complacency sets in and the problem becomes bigger.

[Thryleon]

Interesting, is the perception of risk to freedom and civil liberty proportional and rational?

If we had more people willing to be vaccinated, wear masks and follow simple restrictive measures would we need the lockdowns at all?

Instead we have civil disobedience, protests and victimisation of innocent traders. Protests that by the way do not just target Sars-CoV-2 vaccine, but all vaccines!

It reflects pretty poorly on our society, we do not live under Mussolini, yet the reactions to his sort of dictatorship seems to survive to this day.

Interesting, in the UK the Health Authorities suggested Lockdowns should be greatly limited, not because they didn't want to control the pandemic but because the UK's experience from war years is that civil compliance breaks down after a few weeks of restriction at best, and when that happens complacency sets in and the problem becomes bigger.

LP, this latest lockdown had everyone home for 2 weeks, the virus made its way into an aged care setting, and infected two people whom had been vaccinated, and were taken to hospital to seperate them from the rest of their community.

All the while we had 600 plus exposure sites, for less than 100 cases of community transmission in a month resulting in 0 hospital admissions to treat ill people.

Basic risk assessment tells me, that the perceived risk and actual risk doesn't quite measure up.



Risk analysis is all about the data.  The data shows that the risk profile of this disease is actually very low.  We have that data after 1.5 years of living through months of lockdowns, and rather extreme protection measures (last year, I could forgive this, but this year, it looks a bit bonkers).

Why do I have to wear a mask to walk my dog with minimal community transmission?

[Mav]

As an epidemiologist said a long time ago, a stitch in time saves 9.

[LP]

Why do I have to wear a mask to walk my dog with minimal community transmission?

Because of the civil disobedience!

Personally, I think your argument is built on a disregard or neglect for the effects of lockdown, it seems to be asserting that the low cases numbers are a sign that lockdown is not needed and not an effect of lockdown. To me this is a confusion of cause and effect, the order of events matter.

[member=105]Thryleon[/member]‍ I'm not trying to start a war on this subject, or in the other thread for that matter, but ultimately I see these issues as a matter of trust in authority or expertise. I understand your scepticism on the data and vaccines, and I think you are correct to ask the questions, for that matter science is built on asking questions. But I'm not sure it's right to pick and choose which authorities or which bits of data to trust, regardless of the subject matter. It's very important to be consistent, perhaps even more important for making progress to be consistent than correct. It's consistency that delivers traceability and repeatability, and then eventually after even more questions a truth.

[Mav]

If we decide to go from an elimination strategy to managing Covid in the community, wearing masks, social distancing and restricting gatherings become more important, not less. Obviously, vaccinating to a level to ensure herd immunity would be preferable.

[LP]

If we decide to go from an elimination strategy to managing Covid in the community, wearing masks, social distancing and restricting gatherings become more important, not less. Obviously, vaccinating to a level to ensure herd immunity would be preferable.

Yes, it's interesting, masks and distancing have been a social norm in some of our northern neighbours for quite a while now, but I'm a bit concerned it hasn't really helped a place like Singapore where the public is ultra compliant. Which to me is a sign that even Singapore has to a degree underestimated the risk in a hope that economic damage is minimised.

I've heard a few specialists argue that as much as masks might physically reduce transmission, it's the change in behaviour that they bring which is even more important.