I plan to write my own thoughts on this topic soon, but I’d be interested to read yours. Usual rules apply.
294 thoughts on “Living with Covid: Open thread”
Comments are closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Thanks for the 2 parter Ikon. Definitions are extremely important. And for continuing “to focus my arguments for my own interest and possibly for others on this blog.”
Perhaps a 3rd part on JQ’s;
“Burden of proof”
APRIL 10, 2017
…
“To be fair, this use of the burden of proof, while more blatant than usual, is very common. One any policy issue, most of us would like to compare an idealised model of our preferred solution with the worst case scenario (or, at best, the messy and unsatisfactory reality) for the alternatives. But it’s important to avoid this temptation as much as possible.”…
https://johnquiggin.com/2017/04/10/burden-of-proof/
“Scientists struggle to probe COVID’s origins amid sparse data from China
“Origin investigations typically take years, but some researchers say China is delaying the process for political reasons as international tensions rise.
…
“Until these happen, she warns that gaps in knowledge will allow damaging and scientifically unsupported theories to flourish. “If we don’t get the information we need,” Van Kerkhove says, “then there’s a space to fill, and people will fill that space with assumptions.”
…
“On 22 January 2020, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 33 of 585 swabs taken from around the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and that these samples were concentrated in two aisles of stalls where wild animals were sold. “It is highly suspected that the current epidemic is related to the trade of wild animals,” the report said.
“Investigators also collected samples from stray cats, mice and slabs of frozen and refrigerated seafood and meat, all of which tested negative for the virus. They continued to collect specimens for the next couple of months, but none seem to have been from wildlife sold at the Huanan market, or from farms that reared wildlife to be sold there for food, medicine or fur.
…
” A few months after the [WHO] report’s release, conservation biologists in China published a paper in Scientific Reports(5) documenting more than 47,000 animals — including 31 protected species — that had been sold at the Huanan market and others in Wuhan as recently as November 2019. The report noted that almost all of the animals were sold alive in cages, that butchering was usually done at the market, and that many of the traded species are known to host a range of infectious diseases. “I’m very disappointed that the [WHO] group didn’t have access to that kind of information,” Van Kerkhove says.”
…
[Although sales of terrestrial animals banned it is hard to enforce]… “According to a Chinese Academy of Engineering report, the legal wildlife industry in China was worth more than US$78 billion in 2016.”
…” in Cell in February surveyed game animals across China for viral infections, and found 21 viruses that could be dangerous to humans — although none was SARS-CoV-26.”
…
[also Laos, bats]
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00732-0
Ikon, a philosophical view of “Argument from Belief Attribution”.
Et all, I’m just the messenger. It resonates here.
“The Puzzle of Akratic Belief
…
“I distinguish four ways of arguing for this view:
– intuitive arguments from plausible examples;
– defensive arguments that respond to arguments against the possibility;
– systematic arguments that appeal to more general considerations about belief; and
– diagnostic arguments that explain why akratic belief might seem puzzling and even impossible. I think these are stronger together, and I offer an argument that combines all four.
“Its crux is an Argument from Belief Attribution, which looks to typical marks of belief such as
– sensitivity to evidence,
– recall in relevant circumstances,
– felt conviction,
– reporting or assertion, and
– use in further reasoning.
“An anorexic in treatment might insist that he is fat, while acknowledging that he should not believe it, given the overwhelming evidence of his malnutrition. In some cases, I argue, both component beliefs in an akratic state manifest these marks to an extent we can recognize as belief, while nevertheless conflicting with and partly undermining each other.
…
http://imperfectcognitions.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-puzzle-of-akratic-belief.html
Meanwhile, as of yesterday, USA passed the one million mark for people dying of Covid.
John Street “Meanwhile, as of yesterday, USA passed the one million mark for people dying of Covid.”.
The Lions write history, the dead don’t speak. Unfortunately.
Would you please offer suggestions as to why the exceptional USA has such a total of deaths re Covid?
Trumpism? Fake news? Libertarians? The Constitution? Capital? Lack of Education?
Land of the free, home of rhe brave I think sums it up.
You and others may have a more nuanced response.
Matt @crudeoilpeak tweeted today:
The included graph shows NSW booster (3rd dose) uptake is now lethargic, while NSW infection rates are on the rise with the BA.2 variant.
He is right – 95% is fantastic, just look at the rest of the world )-:. For example Germany. My Covid tracking app, which has pretty much lost its primmary porpose even among the minority who use it, has a neat statistic function: 2 Doses: 75,9%, boster 58,4%, first dose 76,5%, 7 day average vaccinations: 52000- no zero missing and inludes 4th shots., 7 day average infections 318000 (arround 50% test positivity…). . Absolutly no one is getting any of the million Novavax doses ordered for those who alegedly were only concerend about that new mrna technology.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?tab=table&zoomToSelection=true&time=latest®ion=Europe&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases&Metric=People+fully+vaccinated&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=IND~USA~GBR~CAN~DEU~FRA
As ridiculous as it sounds, Australia remains one of the most functional coutnries in the world, regarding Covid just like many other things. Note how Russia and the Ukraine are outliners in the other direction regarding covid vaccinations, not an accident.
ATAGI has recommended a COVID-19 2nd booster (4th dose) vaccination for eligible people who have received their 1st booster (3rd dose) more than 4 months ago, starting next month (Apr 2022). These eligible groups include:
* Adults aged 65 years and older
* Residents of aged care or disability care facilities
* People aged 16 years and older with severe immunocompromise (as defined in the ATAGI statement on the use of a 3rd primary dose of COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who are severely immunocompromised)
* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 50 years and older.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-recommendations-on-a-winter-booster-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine
I will quickly recap my arguments fro 24 March and then proceed to the remaining issues I have in mind.
I pointed out that it was necessary to define key terms:
(1) Control: The reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required to maintain the reduction. Example: diarrhoeal diseases.
(2) Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.
(3) Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.
(4) Eradication – Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox. (May still exist BSL 4 or “4 plus” laboratory facilities.)
(5) Extinction – The specific infectious agent no longer exists in nature or in the laboratory. Example: none.
I pointed out the difference between the functional difference between full aspirations (or final goals) and interim steps or subsidiary goals. I poiinted out that achieving early goals can change the grounds of what is happening ths making higher or more difficult goals more feasible. I pointed out that we had to understand the difference between scientific/technical difficulty and sociopolitical and economic difficultly.
Next points, and I will try to be more succinct.
D – The Emergent and Evolutionary Nature of the Crisis.
The COVID-19 crisis has taken a very different course under poor control than it would have taken under good control. Good control I would characterize as eradication attempts, at the least, early on. If China had contained or eradicated COVID-19 outbreaks early and/or if the WHO and globe had implemented global travel restrictions until containment and eradication in China, then the great bulk of mutations to dangerous variants which we have seen would never have happened. The great bulk of morbidity and deaths we would never have seen. COVID-19 would never have gotten worse than the wild Wuhan strain. That strain was eminently containable. Failure of early containment multiplied our problems many times over.
This matters because we are still making the same mistake. Failure to contain Wuhan lead to the whole containment failure chain: Wuhan lead to Alpha lead to Beta lead to Gamma (not so important) lead to Delta lead to Omicron BA.1, lead to Omicron B.2, lead to DeltraCron recombinant which is on watch at this sage. We essentially have no idea what is going to pop up next and how bad it is going to be. Our problems increase exponentially both in terms of sheer infections and in terms of the ramifying complexities and problems of subsequent mutations.
E. Practical Problems, Practical Measures.
The data of the pandemic to date show that countries which strongly controlled and/or quasi-eliminated COVID-19 for up to 18 months to two years (Australia was one) had lower excess deaths increases (Australia even had an excess deaths decrease) PLUS their economies performed better comparatively to heavy infection countries. Less deaths and a better economy! I am not sure why and how the “let it spread” advocates can ignore this data. Do they have other criteria for success or are they simply ignorant of the data?
The concepts that “let it spread” advocates fail to understand are;
(a) Exponential spread of something very bad must be halted very early. Failure to contain early and hard exposes us to much greater human and economic costs in the longer run. Conversely, early action at cost Y results in long-term savings many multiples of Y. This is proven by the empirical data mentioned in the paragraph above. I have posted links to this data several times before on J,Q.’s blog and people can search for it online. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself on this.
The control levels listed above are a spectrum or continuum. Extinction of the pathogen is the ultimate goal. Eradication one step below is an excellent and highly useful goal. These are or ought to be our aspirational goals even if we are uncertain whether they are possible. To give up at the lower part of the first control level (which we in Australia have done by ditching even effective TTIM, never implementing true Quarantine, opening before full vaccination reached 95% at least and now failing to push boosters, is frankly completely defeatist. We do not know what would become possible if we pushed level 1 to the hilt and then started working on level 2 etc. As I pointed out above, all data support the conclusion that each successful achievement of a level will save more lives AND further improve the economy.
Against, these clear and empirical data supported goal we get hand-waving from “let it rip” advocates that TTIQM reduces their “freedoms”. Whereas living freedoms, utility and amenity are all reduced to zero or some very low level for the persons suffering death and morbidity. What are these freedoms that are so precious that they count more than other vulnerable lives? They do exist but they are not more valuable or precious than human lives. Many are just freedoms to self-indulge though others are worthwhile freedoms to have personal, social and work lives: valuable certainly but NOT more valuable than human lives.
TTI (Test, Trace and Isolate) only work when total infections (necessitating tests) do not exceed the capacity of the TTI system. Once the system becomes overwhelmed the necessary data to fight the pandemic is no longer available. Masking is of value and is a relatively minor imposition. Everybody is required to put on either pants, kilt, sulu, sarong, dress or other loin/body covering before going out in public or to wear togs, board shorts or swimming costumes at the beach. People are usually required to wear footwear for entering premises and covering footwear for certain places from restaurants to dentists to hospitals. Compare these to the requirement to wear a mask. It’s easier to wear a mask than pull on your daks. What are people complaining about? It illustrates the precious, complaining, prima donna nature of those who complain about simple requirements and the most minor of inconveniences to protect lives.
Isolations and Lock-Downs are the real hot-button issues. And they are not minor impositions that is true. Isolation is individually or residence applied. Lock-downs are area control, time control measures applied to suburbs, localities and even cities. Lock-downs reflect the seriousness with which dangerous pandemic diseases should be treated and COVID-19 is one of those diseases particularly as it evolves to immune escape and vaccine escape and can potentially randomly mutate to much more lethal variants.
Early and hard lock-downs partake of the same exponential-growth-crushing nature as all hard and early measures. Lock-downs only become long abd wide because of early failures in TTIQM and hard, ear;y lock-downs. The failure to implement proper border controls and quarantines. The failures to fund and do TTIQM properly and with proper carrots and sticks (incentives, compensations, refulations, policing and fines and punishments when necessary) were behinf all the long, wide, onerous lock-downs. The uncontrolled, undisciplined desire to get out of the pandemic early was the exact cause of the longer onerous lock-downs, just as surely as the early unwillingness to get a small tooth cavity filled is the precursor of the greater physical and financial pain of a later root canal, post and crown.
Finally, the problem of animal disease reservoirs. Well, we know at least two pre-existed for COVID-19: the Wuhan virus precursor in bats and the next virus variant in (they think) palm civets, pangolins or a third Asian species whose name escapes me at the moment, which zoonotically infected the first human. These events happen because of humans encroaching on wild habitat and eating wildlife they simply should not be eating for this very reason of disease spread.
Further spread to other animal reservoirs like minks, deer, maybe felines, maybe canines and so on has happened precisely because we permitted mass spread of COVID-19. This again partakes of the issue that lack of early control multiplies our problems and dangers. The spread to animal reservoirs intensifies the need to institute higher levels of control on COVID-19 and bring it back under control. This spread will also intensify the need for animal cruelty as in the mass slaughter of minks, hamsters etc. so far and who knows maybe finally extending to other animals wild and comesti c species. This is another reason to intensify control levels seeking the optimum levels of 4 or 5 if possible. The reservoirs, real and potential are not a reason to give up. They are a reason to intensify our efforts to prevents further future harms.
The existence of COVID-19 in animal reservoirs (say mice which are now a possibility) is not a reason to give up. Infections back are rare but potentially very dangerous. Most humans are infected by humans after all, by a factor likely in the millions. All of these concerns intensify the need for;
(a) COVID-19 control in humans and domestic animals;
(b) Banning the eating of wild and bush-meats from wet markets and diseased animal populations;
(c) The keeping of humans and corona virus suceptible wild animals well apart by national park and wilderness rules, hunting laws and even appropriate animal rescue laws and measures.
Conclusion,
COVID-19 is evolving to vaccine escape. Our vaccine development, testing, transport and application chains are not keeping up with viral evolution. The virus is winning against vaccine technology. Mutation and gene manipulation / recombination are the virus’s strong suit. To fight only with vaccines and even medications is to fight its long suit. The virus does not have to safety test its variants, it just churns them out. We have to safety test our vaccines. The virus has more potential mutation vessel (8 billion humans) then we have laboratory vessels for growing test and vaccine variants. The virus has the intitative. It mutates and then we bealtedly respond. We will always be behind the game while vaccines “leak” (permit breakthrough infections).
The only way to get on the front foot again and wrest the initiative from the virus is to reintroduce full measures and push as high up the control levels as we can go with an aspiration for eradication at least. In Australia’s case, we have a unique opportunity to show the way (due to being an advanced nation, an island continent and having low population densities comparatively.)
To fight COVID-19 with only leaky vaccines, at this stage, when it is out of control and further escaping the vaccines is like walking into a super-bushfire with a spray-bottle for misting indoor plants. Keep this up and we are doomed. Already we seem caught in a runaway pandemic situation. Viral evolution is defeating current vaccines. Total global infections are increasing wave after wave. Multiple reinfections by new variants are becoming common. The trend to reduced deaths looks temporary as immune escape, vaccine escape increase. The vaccine treadmill is starting to look endless and likely finally useless without another vaccine breakthrough. Catastrophic runaway pandemicity of COVID019 now looms as a real possibility and (another) existential danger for humanity.
hix, “while NSW infection rates are on the rise with the BA.2 variant.”
My kids school has 20% of teachers away sick. I can’t get a breakdown yet verbal “not all Covid, there’s a lot of sickness around”!
Shared mixed bulging classes with option to watch a movie. Councillors, pedagogy, supports, executive all under pressure. Time and learning slipping.
And ‘teaching to the test’ -NAPLAN- going on. Grrrr… I spoke to a deputy head who elided the observation that teaching to the test is not teaching the curriculum.
#1 problem is long term Funding decline in Australian public education system.
Covid is an excellent stress test.
*
Ikon, as you are going to great lengths to elucidate your thoughts, please at final of post, place links to each, or my thumb and brain might break.
I want to make two quick points, and then ask a simple question.
Point one: this is your entire response, in its complete entirety, to the repeatedly pointed-out glaring hole in the strategy you demand we must implement now now now or else, the hole that proves it is a nightmarish, autocratic and ultimately pointless disaster that will turn the rest of our lives into a dictatorship worse than Stalin to mitigate the cost of a disease that is ultimately not one of our chief health risks. This is it:
[there is a need for] need for “COVID-19 control in humans and domestic animals”
In approximately 4 million words, you’ve found the place for about 7 to address arguably the primary, central issue of your argument, and they’re vague.
Point two: you also did not address – even with one word! – the enormous number of WILD animals that have COVID-19 and therefore serve as a reservoir.
The question: what is your proposed mechanism to achieve “COVID-19 control in … domestic animals” and also in wild animals?
I have an idea of the one you might be thinking of, but I’d love to know yours first before criticising you for holding it.
Lt.Fred,
I covered it all.
COVID_19 control for Australia.
1. Compulsory vaccination of 95% plus of eligible Australians. Currently age 5 and over I believe.
2. Implement proper TTIQM procedures. All international travelers both ways must be fully vaccinated and test negative before travel. All incoming travellers to Australia must quarantine for 3 weeks in purpose built quarantine stations or adeqaut susbtuturte until proper quarantine stations built.
3. Hard and early localized lock-downs as per TT results when and as necessary.
Continue to Elimination of disease in Australia. Maintain international border and quarantine measures as long as necessary.
COVID_19 controls related to animals:
(a) Ban the eating of wild and bush-meats from wet markets and diseased animal populations. Not really an issue in Australia but put it on the books.
(b) Spot test all mammalian wild or feral animal species ever hunted or harvested for human or pet food. Proscribe these from butchering and consumption if COVID-19 found in wild population. Require burning or burial of carcasses from culls, if any culls occur.
(c) Keep humans and wild animals well apart by national park and wilderness rules, hunting laws and even appropriate animal rescue laws and measures, if required.
(d) Slaughter and destroy domestic herd and flock animals at sites / farms where COVID-19 outbreaks are found.
(e) Destroy any zoo and pet animals found to be carrying COVID_19.
This is all standard stuff and done for other diseases dangerous to stock, pets and humans.
BUT I won’t answer any more of your questions until you directly answer this one to my satisfaction.
Australia’s excess deaths were negative during our COVID-19 controls. We saved people not only from COVID-19 but from other diseases and possibly from some accidents and misadventures as well. Australia’s economy did better under full COVID-19 controls than did the economies of other countries which failed / refused to control COVID-19. Why do you ignore or discount these easily verifiable facts?
KT2’s post about education in NSW shows we are in a bigger mess than ever, now we have abandoned all COVID-19 controls except vaccination. Even masks would help a lot. Proper ventilation of school rooms to prevent virus circulation would greatly help too and proper TTI. The costs of “let it rip” are higher in lives, in economic costs, in sick leave and in ramifying disruptions through the whole of the society compared to EARLY, HARD, LOCAL targeted lock-downs.
In the old days we understood the wisdom of “a stitch in time saves nine”. Now we say, “let it rip!” Both clothes and societies end up in tatters with policies like that.
Lt Fred, I’ll use your own words, to please, as you say, “before criticising you” … as I also … “have an idea of the one you might be thinking of, but I’d love to know yours first” .. answer these simple questions below.
It seems fair enough, by you own words, to ask the same from you as you ask of Ikonoclast and others. I’ll do my best NOT to criticisise you, and attempt a dialogue. You may infer otherwise.
1) respond with your impression with a ONE WORD summary (leeway – 7 words [oops-13] as you said to Ikon “about 7 to address arguably the primary, central issue of your argument – fair) as you demand of Ikonoclast, to this actual scientific and human / animal interaction study data: > “KT2 says: March 24, 2022 at 5:21 pm
“Scientists struggle to probe COVID’s origins amid sparse data from China”
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/07/living-with-covid-open-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-251566
And 2)
Provide your statistical analysis, or better still, a real scientific study for once, please, of potential of animal to human infection factors or other to back your statement “(because everybody knows it’s impossible)”. The Internet is your friend.
Your words Lt F won’t cut it at this stage. I’ve posted gee – 7 studies. You Lt Fred? If you have an actual rebuttal, I’d love to hear it, rather than picking out one word, and ascribing to me, as that is your inferences of my words. My position – probabilistic not deterministic. Evolution not your “Never. In 100 years, or 1000 years, the situation would remain the same;”.
I’ll give you a hint as to mine. As Doughty, AatraZ, SanOtise (nasal nitrous oxide spray which will be the cheap poor persons and animal prophylactic compared to AZ nasal innoculant spray ), mRNA everything, mRNA & protein based vaccines targetring spike ‘hand’ not ‘arm’ as with existing vaccines (double trial side by side run by Doughty as we speak), all able to be at stage 1 trials or emergency usage within 12 weeks of novel virus genome sequence..
…yet your brain says to us “Lt.Fred says:, March 23, 2022 at 5:47 pm
…”would never, ever, ever end. I want to be really clear about this. Never. In 100 years, or 1000 years, the situation would remain the same;”
“We now learn that eradication is no longer the objective (because everybody knows it’s impossible).”
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/07/living-with-covid-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-251535
So my point is Lt Fred, you are as extreme as Ikonoclast is, BUT deny ANY possibility, and have refused any potential, taking above into account, that “Never. In 100 years, or 1000 years, the situation would remain the same;”.
I find your 1,000 years negation, as with potential to eradicate 100% at all times and absolute, to be using
> the wrong burden of proof,
> defeatist
> ignoring history and
> consigning future humans to 20th century technology.
> ignoring even evolution
> and compute logarithmic increase and
> potential for broad communication and coordination in future.
I await a post with a scientific study backing your “Never. In 100 years, or 1000 years, the situation would remain the same;”.
Or, just say the 5, oops 6, [13] words I think you are thinking – I __ ___ ______ __ ________., and say OK, I’m banging my head….
Maybe 13 words to give you latitude Lt Fred because as YOU TOO have written ” approximately 4 million words, ” and it seems to me as you denounce Ikonoclast with … “found the place for about 7 to address arguably the primary, central issue of your argument, and they’re vague.”. Exactly.
Plenty of time. The Internet has all manner of opinion to, maybe, back your hypothesis.
The important is not urgent.
Ikonoclast is attempting at great length and effort to be open and vulnerable to his perceptions and reasoning with some science. Let’s talk about the science.
Perhaps you might try the same, yet as we gather from your “approximately 4 million words”, you do not have a basis except “Never. In 100 years, or 1000 years, the situation would remain the same;”. Oops. 13 word leeway. Make it a detailed denunciation.
Lt.Fred says: March 24, 2022 at 4:15 am
“For the 1000th time, if you believe eradication is possible explain how it is possible. I don’t need to know why. I don’t need to now that it’s really important. I don’t need to know how much you don’t like me. All I need is just one simple thing which is how global eradication of specifically covid-19 is possible. For the 1000th time.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/07/living-with-covid-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-251543
Our host Lt Fred, says of Burden of Proof, and it relates to your 1000th time statement “All I need is just one simple thing which is how global eradication of specifically covid-19 is possible. For the 1000th time.”.
And I say in regards to eradication, we cannot answer your demand at this time specifically “if you believe eradication is possible”, eradication I believe is possible within 1000 years, yet entirely unhelpful to have a watertight answer you will accept without continually demanding the same. Too simple. Too early. Too much burden if proof. Collapsing the possible. Head banging.
JQ said of the Burden of Proof:
” So, instead we get demands for the precise details in the list above. To lift the burden of proof a bit more, it’s not good enough to address them separately, they all have to be done at once in a single study. Unsurprisingly, no one has yet produced a study that meets all of these demands at once.*”
https://johnquiggin.com/2017/04/10/burden-of-proof/
Or, as Lt Fred tells us “(because everybody knows it’s impossible)”.
NEVER say never. Possibly one day “they” will.
No rush Lt Fred. Thanks for assisting by proxy my understanding.
And thanks everyone, JQ for the forum.
The answer is on page 2. And “Whether you believe the date will go well or poorly, you are right” – Henry Ford.
*
“The lucky ones
“In her book How Not to Die Alone, behavioural scientist Logan Ury touches on the power of Wiseman’s research on luck in dating. She wrote on how mindset can impact your results in the world of dating and shared that per the thinking of Henry Ford, “Whether you believe the date will go well or poorly, you are right”.
Ury explained that in Wiseman’s study, he observed groups of people who considered themselves either lucky or unlucky and asked them to count the number of photographs inside a newspaper. ‘Lucky’ people took a few seconds to complete the task while ‘unlucky’ folks took a few minutes.
“This, she explained, was because on the second page of the newspaper it read in large font, “Stop counting. There are 43 photographs in this newspaper”. Those who saw themselves as unlucky were so consumed with the task that the didn’t even see the message offering them an out.
“How to Create a Little More Luck in Your Life, According to Science
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2022/03/how-to-be-lucky-science/
“But I’m not so sure that’s how italways works. A psychological study from Richard Wiseman in 2003”:
Click to access The_Luck_Factor.pdf
*
“‘How to not die alone’: This behavioural scientist knows exactly how you’re doing dating wrong”
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-to-not-die-alone-behavioural-scitentist-logan-ury/13294004
@Ikonoclast
“Australia’s excess deaths were negative during our COVID-19 controls. We saved people not only from COVID-19 but from other diseases and possibly from some accidents and misadventures as well. Australia’s economy did better under full COVID-19 controls than did the economies of other countries which failed / refused to control COVID-19. Why do you ignore or discount these easily verifiable facts?”
This is a dishonestly-framed question of course, so good to see you’re continuing your theme of lying.
I will answer what you’re saying, though without buying into your bullshit frame of lies.
The fact that existing health and economic metrics do not quantify the ways lockdown hurts people only proves that our health and economic metrics are flawed. The reason actual human beings hate lockdowns, and regard them as at best a necessary evil (including me; the initial lockdown was necessary, and the later ones were the result of a terrible and avoidable series of deadly errors by our unaccountable health institutions) is because they are harmful.
It’s not hard to understand why people think this, either. Health authorities have spent decades telling us over and over that we need to drink less, not drive very fast, wear seatbelts, not go out late at night and so on. Nonetheless people continue to behave in ways that increase their health risks. What idiots! Why would people do this? We can see from clever graphs that not only is this a major cause of health complaint but a major hit to the economy!
People do this stuff for the same reason prisoners want to leave prison. Even really nice prisons. Being free to do stuff that you want to do is good for people. The cost of the increased risk is more than outweighed by the benefits of being able to do the risky stuff. That good is a benefit which we can’t necessarily graph, but still exists. That includes going to the pub, seeing friends and family, going outside and so on. Trivial stuff, you’d call it, like the little autocrat you are.
In other words, people treat liberty as a pretty big deal and surrendering literally 100% of liberty for any period of time an extreme measure.
Just because something is extreme does not mean it’s not necessary, of course. Many people support conscription for instance, an extreme if ever there was one. But we should only resort to extremes in the face of actual existing extreme problems that really exist in the actual real world, in fact, really.
We could probably save thousands of lives every year if the government locked down Australia every winter by preventing the spread of the flu and so on, but certainly nobody would support this. The extreme cost of lockdown is not worth the modest benefit of squashing the flu.
That is the same attitude actually existing human beings have towards COVID-19; it’s now 1/100th the risk it was in Feb 2020, it is no longer among the top 5 health risks, I’m not happy to adopt extreme measures to reduce my risk any more than we already have. End of story.
That’s not to say we cannot do anything at all, but the public health sector needs to drop the chip on its shoulder, sack the incompetents, and then level with people. Many measures – like ventilation, improved medical services, situational masking and so on – can be adopted, forever, at limited or no cost to the public. A competent public health system could be an important partner in selling these social changes, not just to politicians but the public.
However, if the public health sector insists on its HIV-era paternalistic all-or-nothing moralism of endless NPIs, the answer will simply be no.
Perhaps you’d be happy to spend the rest of your life locked up in fear of HUMAN EXTINCTION, but nobody else would. You’d be alone.
In terms of your “solution” for the animal reservoir problem, it’s a failure of course.
Step one: ban all hunting, forever.
“(a) Ban the eating of wild and bush-meats (you say only from wet markets, because you forgot about hunters: ed)”.
There are currently about 10 million people who live as hunter-gatherers in 2022 – that is, who live off the land and eat what they kill. You would need to legally ban this lifestyle and presumably lock up anyone who wouldn’t stop, and do that within five minutes of kicking off global lockdown-to-zero.
You would also need to completely ban all private hunting, forever. Everywhere in the world, forever.
And you would need to permanently adopt enormously restrictive regulation of hunting for culling purposes, which is very common, again, forever. (This hunting cannot be eliminated, so these people would always be at some risk of zoonotic spread, forever).
Both of these are major sources of employment in Australia,. You consider them “not really an issue in Australia” because you haven’t thought your plan through.
You’d also need to ban people eating meats like Kangaroo meat, which is wild animal meat. (I think there are others as well, but I’m a vegetarian so I’m not overly well-versed).
Step 2: ban venison.
“(b) Spot test all mammalian wild or feral animal species ever hunted or harvested for human or pet food (deer would show up: ed). Proscribe these from butchering and consumption if COVID-19 found in wild population. Require burning or burial of carcasses from culls, if any culls occur.”
Step 3: ban people from visiting national parks, anywhere in the world, forever.
Good luck getting this one through the Greens.
“(c) Keep humans and wild animals well apart by national park and wilderness rules, hunting laws and even appropriate animal rescue laws and measures, if required.”
Steps 4 and 5 are actually pretty reasonable, though wildly inadequate
“(d) Slaughter and destroy domestic herd and flock animals at sites / farms where COVID-19 outbreaks are found.
(e) Destroy any zoo and pet animals found to be carrying COVID_19.”
I assumed you’d recommend a Step 6: exterminate all the minks of the world, to stop them spreading COVID to humans. (Mink-COVID spread is relatively easy and mink are common in suburbs and such in various countries of the northern hemisphere). You just didn’t mention them because, again, you’ve not put the effort in to think this through. Denmark actually did this in 2020! (It was illegal)
Needless to say, this all comes after you somehow implement world peace, a world government, world police, and a world health system to the standard of the first world all deeply entrenched in the society of the Congo, North Korea, Ukraine and Burma, all within five minutes, then implement a global lockdown-to-zero without any public resistance or disobedience anywhere in the world for months – or at least no resistance your police can’t crush – all to quash the risk created by one of our lesser health risks. Would that we could this level of resources to bear to deal with mere Malaria, poverty or heart disease!
Even then you’re left with eternal extremely intense restrictions on our interaction with wild animals requiring permanent, perfect surveillance of billions of kilometers of wild areas, and a mink genocide.
We are under no obligation to take this seriously. This is a joke.
Lt.Fred,
“The fact that existing health and economic metrics do not quantify the ways lockdown hurts people only proves that our health and economic metrics are flawed.” – Lt.Fred.
No, it doesn’t PROVE that. It’s a hypothesis for which you provide no proof. You don’t provide evidence or suggestions for the search for evidence to support your case.
Researchers have looked at these issues and so far the evidence runs counter to your hypothesis. Of course, it is relative harms which have to be compared. Lock-downs and other measures reduced harms overall compared to letting COVID-19 run rampant.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/20/lockdowns-do-not-harm-health-more-than-covid-say-researchers
It is true that lock-downs and unrestricted COVID-19 spread both cause harms and that the harms fall unequally on the poor and disadvantaged. Yet, it also true by all measurable data that COVID-19 causes more harms than measures to stop COVID-19, including lock-downs. It is also true that hard, early, area limited lock-downs (when necessary) save bigger lock-downs down the track. It is also true that a litany of Government failures, Federal, NSW and later Victoria resulted in later, longer lock-downs that necessary. You patently don’t understand the failures and complexities. Federal failures included refusal to do quarantine properly and the early so-called “stroll-out” of vaccines.
In summary, you completely discount deaths and morbidity (including long covid) from COVID-19. This is along with you discounting better economic results from controlling COVID-19 with more than “leaky” vaccines. Yet you can propose no other metrics for detecting and proving objectively the other losses you claim are greater than these losses. It’s purely subjective stuff about freedom. I note you discount the freedom of old, ill, immuno-comprimised and pre-existing-conditions people to live safely and without fear, anxiety and real harm. Now, many of them, in the millions even in Australia, have to curtail their own activities in self-imposed lock-downs to save their lives and remaining health.
Your position is utter nonsense. I have nothing more to say to you.
@KT2 begins by vowing to play the ball not the man:
“I’ll do my best NOT to criticisise you, and attempt a dialogue.”
And then immediately belts the man in the shins in order to get the ball, except he misses, breaks his own shin and kicks the ball into his own goal:
“1) respond with your impression with a ONE WORD summary (leeway – 7 words [oops-13] as you said to Ikon “about 7 to address arguably the primary, central issue of your argument – fair) as you demand of Ikonoclast, to this actual scientific and human / animal interaction study data:”
Not only is this an ad-hominem attack, it’s evidence that KT2 can’t read. I was complaining that Ikon spent too FEW words on the key issue, not too many, and too many on other stuff that doesn’t matter.
Step 1:
My response to your article “Scientists struggle to probe COVID’s origins amid sparse data from China” is that it has nothing to do with anything I’m saying.
Step 2:
“Provide your statistical analysis, or better still, a real scientific study for once, please, of potential of animal to human infection factors or other to back your statement “(because everybody knows it’s impossible)”.
There is at least one animal that is a super-good spreader of COVID-19 zoonotically: mink. The little bastards can get infected by us and then infect us back; in one case more than 2/3rds of a farm workforce got it, though it’s not clear how many people got it from mink and how many people got it from other people and how many mink got it from us. At least some got it each of those three ways. In a COVID-zero environment you can imagine mink giving it to a worker, then that worker infecting all the other workers.
This is an animal that lives in human settlements. You’d need to wipe it out or it’d keep spreading the bug forever. A mink could infect a small child, who could asymptomatically start an outbreak chain, for instance.
To quote one article “nonhuman primates, cats, ferrets, hamsters, rabbits, and bats can be infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (ed: common deer get COVID-19 too)” but for whatever reason we’ve done loads of research on mink, so we have good data on them, so I’ll give you that. Denmark gunned down the country’s entire mink population (illegally) so worried were they about the risk of mink infection. They should have been more worried about Sweden in my opinion but I digress.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5901#:~:text=Toward%20the%20end%20of%20June,to%2Dhuman%20transmission%20also%20occurred
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009883
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/uncategorized/2021/two-way-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-between-humans-and-minks-on-mink-farms/
“I’ll give you a hint as to mine. As Doughty, AatraZ, SanOtise (nasal nitrous oxide spray which will be the cheap poor persons and animal prophylactic compared to AZ nasal innoculant spray ), mRNA everything, mRNA & protein based vaccines targetring spike ‘hand’ not ‘arm’ as with existing vaccines (double trial side by side run by Doughty as we speak), all able to be at stage 1 trials or emergency usage within 12 weeks of novel virus genome sequence..”
Let me make a little prediction.
These may be great. I absolutely think we should develop better treatments and better vaccines for COVID-19. If I could make it happen, I’d love to be the first person to get the new vaccine. However, my prediction is that these two COVID-19 measures will not be the first drugs in the history of medicine with a 100% success rate. People treated with this vaccines will still get it and spread it and some people treated with this spray will still die. I genuinely hope that they prove more effective than the ones we have now, but I do not believe they will reduce the risk of COVID-19 to zero. No medicine has ever done this in history (except smallpox).
If they do – great! That’s evidence in my favour, not yours. Why take extreme measures to deal with a virus which we’re going to wipe out in a year with a new medical breakthrough anyway?
You have misunderstood my criticism of @Ikonoclast, of course. A lockdown-to-zero strategy cannot possibly work, not in 1000 years. That’s because of zoonotic spread, and some other issues. We might be able to wipe out COVID by nuking the world and sterilising it; that’d probably do the trick. Or we could get hit by an asteroid. Or through better drugs maybe. But we can’t exterminate the virus by staying home. Can’t be done. We’d be stuck in a permanent lockdown forever.
@Ikonoclast
You immediately misunderstood my point, because, as an autocrat, you do not understand what the word “liberty” actually means.
I’m not talking about health costs and I’m not talking about economic costs. I’m talking about LIBERTY costs.
You have also not even shown that COVID-19 would cause more harm in a vaccinated population than a lockdown (because it wouldn’t). But that’s not my main point.
To you, being free to live your life as you’d like is just some “stuff”, “trivial” and barely worth thinking about; particularly because it cannot be quantified (yet). Why even consider this?
This is why you cannot understand why nobody cares about your position. Normal people don’t think like you. Normal people do not like being permanently locked in their houses for the rest of their lives.
There is a reason they let people with dementia leave the house, see other people, do things. It’s not because you can make it look good on a graph.
“In summary, you completely discount deaths and morbidity (including long covid) from COVID-19.”
This is a lie.
“This is along with you discounting better economic results from controlling COVID-19 with more than “leaky” vaccines.”
This is a lie.
Lt Feed, In the whole if known history, please give us an example of normal people or places where your statement has been applied:
“Normal people do not like being permanently locked in their houses for the rest of their lives.”.
Is Celina Ribeiro normal? “But it ends. On our release, on a drizzly Sunday morning, I held my daughters’ hands as we walked out of the house to get breakfast.” ^1.
Is James Thomas normal? “In other words when it comes to COVID-19 you don’t have to choose between liberty or death. A liberal would tell you that you can have both.”^2.
The answer will be NOT normal situations, by NOT normal people. Contradiction. Straw / steelmanning in one sentence? Concern troll?^3.
Permanently. For the rest of their lives.
Wow. You argue against possibilites. No possible freedom in your statement. Is it possible your normal is not some others normal?
*
Is your freedom Lt Fred, just contradictory liberalism? “”If we take liberalism to its extreme we reject any form of government. This is where we find anarchism and libertarianism. And yet more contradictions. For the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon “all property is theft.” For the libertarian Ayn Rand “a free mind and a free market are corollaries.” It is the libertarian wing of the Conservative Party which makes up the CRG. They campaign for liberty against lockdown. Yet they also were the MPs most willing to support the absolute removal of the rights of UK citizens to live, work and trade without barriers with the European Union.” ^2.
*
^1.
Is Celina Ribeiro normal? She is the Guardian Australia’s assistant editor for features, culture and lifestyle. ^1.
“The family lockdown guide: how to emotionally prepare for coronavirus quarantine”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/the-family-lockdown-guide-how-to-emotionally-prepare-for-coronavirus-quarantine
And on Tue 22 Mar 2022
“I thought I was fine parenting through Covid isolation. I wasn’t | Celina Ribeiro | The Guardian
…”It is the absence of the outdoors, even for a short walk. It is the threat of infection, the toll of the sickness the virus induces itself which weighs those seven days down so heavily.
“This is not an argument against isolation periods, so clearly vital to managing the virus. It is an acknowledgment, nearly two years to the day that children were told to stay away from school and our worlds changed forever, that even though we call it Covid-normal, it isn’t. And for some of us, all that exhaustion and not-normality, can come to a head in an innocuous seven days at home.
“But it ends. On our release, on a drizzly Sunday morning, I held my daughters’ hands as we walked out of the house to get breakfast. As I did I felt the weight of the building lift off me, brick by beam. It ends, it ends.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/22/i-thought-i-was-fine-parenting-through-covid-isolation-i-wasnt
*
^2.
Is James Thomas Normal? Is he saying “permanently locked in their houses for the rest of their lives”?
I’m a doctor and postgraduate law student. I’m currently studying Law at Nottingham Law School and work as a medic in Emergency Medicine.
I’ve previously worked as a Clinical Lecturer at the University of Nottingham Medical School in the Department of Research and Education in Emergency (DREEAM) – Hence the name ‘McDREEAMIE’!
“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death: The liberal case for lockdown
…
“If, through risky actions, an individual is exposed to COVID-19 and becomes infected we could argue that that is their decision. If that individual then passes the disease to another, more vulnerable person then that is harm. If that individual then requires a hospital admission and thus helps stretch finite resources that will have an impact on others. If hospital capacity is reached what then of the rights of another patient who’s had a heart attack or who needs emergency surgery? This would prevent the positive liberty of others from being realised.
“The UK government has faced criticism over an initial delay in lockdown and then early easing of which led to further restrictions being necessary. Of course political debate and differences of opinions are a cornerstone of a liberal democracy. Liberalism is about the right to differ. But to ignore evidence in favour of political principles at the risk of public health is not liberalism. Listening to evidence and reason and putting aside individual liberty to protect others is entirely within the liberal tradition.
“In other words when it comes to COVID-19 you don’t have to choose between liberty or death. A liberal would tell you that you can have both.”
https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2021/2/11/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death-the-liberal-case-for-lockdown
“Why trying to ‘live with COVID’ meant another lockdown
https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2020/11/30/nbspwhy-trying-to-live-with-covid-meant-anothernbsplockdown
^3.
Concern troll
“A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of viewis opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture.[62] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
@KT2
Your claim that Celina Riberio would happy spend the rest of her life locked in her house is false. Stop lying:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/22/i-thought-i-was-fine-parenting-through-covid-isolation-i-wasnt
Your claim that James Thomas would happy spend the rest of his life locked in his house is false. Stop lying:
https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2021/7/9/sajid-javids-gamble-hoping-the-covid-19-chain-stays-broken
“This article is not about arguing for perpetual lockdown.”
You claim that I don’t believe what I’m saying is a lie. Stop lying.
“Is your freedom Lt Fred, just contradictory liberalism?”
No. Stop lying.
To be clear – because it’s clear you misunderstood – I think lockdowns can be a necessary evil. Anyone who thinks they’re not harmful is kidding themselves. But I think it’s clear that the initial 2020 lockdown was necessary, and the 2021 lockdowns were also needed given the failure of our public health system to take the pandemic seriously and implement quarantine. If we hadn’t implemented lockdowns, our health system would have been overwhelmed and loads of people would have died. Bad!
But in the context of a fully-vaccinated population, that is no longer true. Some people die, yes. But not hundreds of thousands. And the health system is doing normally*. People die of flu as well but nobody would consider locking down to halt the flu. That’s obviously because people don’t want to surrender an enormous proportion of their liberty forever to halt a modest long-term threat.
And it’s also worth considering what we REFUSE to give up to make COVID-19 less deadly. Our health system has completely refused to reform itself in any way in the face of the pandemic. Maybe you should ask them how many lives are worth their bullshit prejudices and self-interest?
* Incompetently run and therefore ineffective and deadly, but this is separate to COVID-19
Lt Fred, I asked a series of questions, with suppositions you obviously ‘read past’.
I made no clain about either person, just asked you questions.
Lt Fred says: “You claim that I don’t believe what I’m saying is a lie. Stop lying.
“Is your freedom Lt Fred, just contradictory liberalism?”
Lt Fred “No. Stop lying.”
My questions seemed to talk past you.
Thanks for the second comment containing;
“”I think lockdowns can be a necessary evil”.
If you stated with such succinctness that ‘lockdowns’ are a necessary evil previously, my apologies for my amnesia. My thumb wore out.
My talk to you is now past.
I’d still love you to answer several of the questions I asked of you, including “Lt Feed, In the whole if known history, please give us an example of normal people or places where your statement has been applied:
“Normal people do not like being permanently locked in their houses for the rest of their lives.”.
But I won’t respond. Cheers.
“Intrinsic Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA2 in Children: 18X risk of ICU and 11x risk croup comp to other variants, and more severe than influenza.” – Global Biosecurity.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4063036
Interpretation at end of abstract.
“The intrinsic severity of Omicron BA.2 is not mild as evident by the fatality and severe complications of the uninfected and unvaccinated children.”
Worth noting, all children under 5 years do not have approved access to a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.
To be clear to @KTG not only did I give him two people who believe that, they were the two people he cited to suggest nobody does.
Brilliant article from Guardian and Laura Spinney:
“The ‘zero-Covid’ approach got bad press, but it worked – and it could work again.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/28/no-covid-approach-bad-press-but-worked
Backed by Lancet study of which Spinney says:
“Last June, a study in The Lancet showed that those that chose elimination over mitigation did a better job of protecting life, the economy and civil liberties – the hat-trick.”
Lancet study link in next post.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2821%2900978-8
There we go, study shows that “those that chose elimination over mitigation did a better job of protecting life, the economy and civil liberties – the hat-trick.” These are the real empirical outcomes.
The standard held up is “elimination”. Remember my post with CDC control levels defined. I will re-post here.
“(1) Control: The reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required to maintain the reduction. Example: diarrhoeal diseases.
(2) Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.
(3) Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.
(4) Eradication – Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox. (May still exist BSL 4 or “4 plus” laboratory facilities.)
(5) Extinction – The specific infectious agent no longer exists in nature or in the laboratory. Example: none.”
I would take “elimination” in this context to mean control to level 3. Note that this refers to a defined geographical area. Australia’s first goal, leveraging its island continent status, should be to progress to Level 3 control. It can be done and once achieved, as the study shows, we get the trifecta: protecting life, the economy and civil liberties. All demonstrated to a high degree of certainty by studies of the empirical facts of real world outcomes.
The article you are citing does not suggest that elimination is the best policy for today. Indeed it points out that Hong Kong’s elimination strategy has been an unmitigated failure. Do not falsely claim that articles say the opposite of what they’re saying. Stop lying.
To quote a section of a key paragraph:
“Elimination might be the preferred strategy for responding to new EMERGING infectious diseases with pandemic potential and moderate to high severity, particularly while key parameters are being estimated.”
(Apologies, I misclicked and accidentally posted a post).
The view of this scientist is that elimination is a good objective to aim for when we face the NEXT COVID-19, not that it ought to be our current objective. He shares no view on our CURRENT situation, which is DIFFIERENT to the emerging infectious disease scenario he’s talking about. And I agree with him on this! National COVID-zero was a good objective to aim for in March 2020!
NSW hospitalisations peaked at 1,268 on 21 Sep 2021, during the ‘Delta’ wave.
NSW hospitalisations peaked at 2,943 on 25 Jan 2022, during the ‘Omicron’ BA.1 wave.
NSW hospitalisations are at 1,283 today, as the ‘Omicron’ BA.2 wave rampages.
https://covidlive.com.au/report/daily-hospitalised/nsw
A growing cohort of survivors for ‘long-COVID’?
Active daily COVID cases in the Orange LGA are currently at 2,411, representing around 6.3% of (ABS Census 2016) population.
https://covidlive.com.au/nsw/orange
Pandemic extinction.
Carrick Flynn says;
“”This pandemic can’t happen again. We can make better laws around the pandemic that would mean no more pandemic. The good news is we can do that,” Flynn said. “There are specific pandemic preventions to propose, to say here’s what you do and you probably won’t have a pandemic.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/28/monday-message-board-550/comment-page-1/#comment-251682
The mRNA vaccine-only strategy is failing, slowly but surely. Without new measures or without a new generation of vaccines and treatments, the waves of the COVID-19 pandemic will progressively get worse. This leads us back to the necessity for more controls on the spread of COVID-19. Without these controls, the public and authorities are simply hoping for major advances in vaccine and treatment technology: advances which may not come or at least not come in time to prevent many more deaths and morbidity outcomes. The public and authorities are also merely hoping that each new successful mutation of COVID-19 will be “mild”: a meaningless and dishonest characterization of variants more infectious and more immune/vaccine evasive without being mild enough to offset the high infection rates Bad outcomes remain unacceptably high.
This article’s authors and the WHO call for “elimination” which it defines as follows:
“COVID-19 cannot be eradicated, but we can stop sustained community transmission. This status is known as “elimination”. In this situation outbreaks may still occur, but they do not become overwhelming. We have achieved this with measles. We have no chance of even making progress toward this goal with COVID-19 without concerted and globally coordinated action. That action needs to achieve a low rate of transmission (Reff < 1) simultaneously across the world."
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/93258-2/
Ideally, I deplore the down-grading of the objective from eradication to elimination. Realistically, only elimination is possible in the foreseeable future because of the "let it rip" policy. Early eradication was possible but this possibility was deliberately or incidentally sabotaged by the neoliberal capitalist "let it rip" business as usual policy. The explosive spread of COVID-19 and the stupendous number of mutations to extraordinarily more contagious variants has in turn made foreseeable eradication impossible in a full-blown self-fulfilling prophecy manner. By saying and acting as if something was impossible, when it was still eminently feasible, they moved it so that it approached the asymptote of the impossible. The "let it rip" and "copyright vaccines for profit" factions bear some blame for the current out of control COVID-19 disaster, globally speaking, which has seen global excess deaths of about 20 million people so far plus morbidity in the hundreds of millions. To this point, the saboteurs of global health have won and they have got what they wished for. As the old saw goes, be careful what you wish for.
The article points out the issues of (partial and temporary) immunity, infection and re-infection.
"Natural infection does lead a temporary immune response, including an immune response boost in those with pre-existing immunity due to vaccination or previous infection. This usually leads to recovery in the affected individual and eventually the end of the wave in the affected community. However, there have been four waves of COVID-19 over two years. Reinfection is known to occur and there is evidence that neither natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor vaccination leads to sustained protection against COVID-19. Hence, long-term protective herd immunity cannot be achieved by “letting it rip”. Over time the community will again become susceptible to the next wave.
There are two secondary issues here. Some infections, or vaccinations, such as measles, chickenpox, and polio, do induce long-lived immunity but others, like influenza, the common cold virus and SARS-CoV-2 do not.
With SARS-CoV-2, early evidence also suggests that the best vaccines seem to be more effective than natural infection alone at inducing an immune response and, of course, the vaccines induce that response with a hugely lower risk of adverse effects and death." – "Backed by Science: Here’s How We Can Eliminate COVID-19" Inside View 23/01/2022 – Guy Marks, Brendan Crabb & Raina MacIntyre
A search of the internet reveals how Omicron specific boosters have been delayed and how they may be no better than existing mRNA vaccine boosters in any case. In January, Omicron-specific boosters were expected by now, March or April 2022. They are now expected, maybe, by the northern hemisphere autumn, meaning Australia's spring. In any case, testing to date shows that Omicron specific boosters are no better than the existing boosters. This situation is a curate's egg with good and bad implications. Existing (Wuhan strain) boosters remain good but not great, reducing chances of hospitalization by about 80% of baseline but only being useful for about 4 months.
How long will Wuhan strain vaccination boosters remain useful against new strains? Nobody really knows. A reasonable precautionary assumption is that an escape variant will sooner or later effect comprehensive escape from the current vaccines. Another conclusion which is difficult to avoid is that mutation now is consistently outpacing mRNA vaccine progress. We are slowly losing the race to stay safe against the virus. But this process of losing the race could actually suffer exponential increase too. There is little reason to expect it to be linear (or non-existent which is a totally naive view).
The only way to turn the situation around other than make another vaccine breakthrough beyond the current "amended Wuhan spike mRNA vaccines" is to reintroduce other control measures at least until a "super vaccine" is developed, if it ever is. Quarantine and isolation should be reintroduced along with testing, tracing and masking. In addition, mass infection venues and sites need to be re-controlled to graduated degrees again.
While these options remain politically unpopular, they too will be difficult to impossible to introduce. We will have to see what becomes possible if certain events happen. I have in mind:
(a) change of Federal Govt. in Australia; and
(b) potential evolution of a variant substantially unstoppable by current vaccines; and
(c) no new vaccine breakthroughs capable of giving complete immunity.
If these possibilities eventuate, greater controls may well be demanded by the majority. Compensation for personal costs (guarantee of worker's personal income and an isolation bonus for welfare recipients would have to be considered).
We'll have to see what happens and what becomes both necessary and possible. My prediction is that this pandemic will get much worse and current vaccines will fail to be the silver bullet. Without stronger controls to get R(effective) down to consistently less than 1 other than for minor spot outbreaks, we face an exponentiating disaster or else indefinite damaging waves disaster. Adding this disaster to climate change, floods, bushfires etc. without taking effective action on any of them will overwhelm and break down our social and economic systems. The crisis IS that serious.
“Natural immunity right now is looking somewhat weak.”
“And total ivermectin fail (WSJ).”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200
h/t amediadragon
Eric Topol also points to the Guardian article about the 3 big myths of COVID-19.
3 big Omicron myths, by @chrischirp
X COVID-19 is now endemic.
X COVID-19 is evolving to be milder.
X The vaccination program is over.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/30/uk-near-record-covid-cases-three-myths-omicron-pandemic
I would add fourth and fifth connected myths.
X Current vaccine technology will end the epidemic on its own.
X Immunity escape and vaccine escape can be ignored.
The world is still trending towards complete catastrophe from COVID-19. That is not to say complete catastrophe is certain. It is to say that is still the trend line. Unless we get a game-changer (another major vaccine advance, something 10 times better than mRNA vaccines, or a radically different strategy combining multiple control measures) there is nothing to suggest the trend line will change. We are one random mutation away from a much higher lethality escape variant. It could happen at any time and we are leaving ourselves wide open to this danger.
My 4th Covid Alert from NSW High School THIS MONTH! Defence to the rescue ahahaha. My Royal Commission in the Pandemic submission now has a section for replacement educators, online but not from for profits. Double ahahaha.
Body text:
“Dear parents and carers,
“Please be aware that further members of our student body in ALL years have recently tested positive to COVID and are currently isolating.
“Additionally, several members of the teaching staff remain in isolation after testing positive for COVID, including another new case today.
“I would like to remind you to continue to monitor for COVID-19 symptoms. If unwell, stay at home and get tested.
xxxxxx High remains operational, although most students will experience changes to their regular, timetabled classes as the result of COVID-related teacher shortages.
Thank you for your support and understanding.”
“Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds
“At some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” one expert said.
*
“Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19
“…double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo.
…
CONCLUSIONS
“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.”…
March 30, 2022
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
Matt @crudeoilpeak today tweeted a graph of NSW daily COVID-19 cases by age group, from 1 Dec 2021 to today:
Younger age groups have higher percentage.
“Some unpleasant pandemic arithmetic
…
“But as a proportion of cases, things don’t look nearly so good. In the absence of vaccination b=5 % of cases have bad outcomes, but with vaccination b*=1.16/36 = 3.2 per cent, which is only marginally lowe.
“So, the idea that we don’t need to worry about high case numbers if vaccination rates are high doesn’t really stand up. We have to keep case numbers down. Taking the vaccination rate as given, that can only be done with measures like mask mandates, social distancing and vaccine passports.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2021/10/23/some-unpleasant-pandemic-arithmetic/
Another brilliant article from Raina MacIntyre “Why Australia’s daily Covid cases are on the rise again”.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2022/04/02/why-australias-daily-covid-cases-are-the-rise-again/164881800013620#mtr
I strongly recommend reading the complete article. It is not long or difficult. Some key points to my mind are as follows. (And note these key points are not a substitute for rwading the paper.)
1. Raina MacIntyre (R.M.) commences by noting she has been (essentially) self-censoring this year. “Given the lack of appetite for truth about the pandemic, I have declined all media requests. There seems to be a dogged determination to pretend everything is okay. Anyone who suggests otherwise is shot down in flames.” It is very disturbing when our best scientists are ignored, side-lined like this and become less active publicly from a sense of sheer futility.
2. R.M. covers the latest wave and the demographics of it. Heavy impacts on children now too. Omicron BA.2 is more dangerous to children.
3. R.M, proposes a practical strategy for a reduction in infections.
“To stop the relentless onslaught of cases, absenteeism at school and work, we need to reduce transmission. We could do so with a layered strategy of optimal vaccination, masks and safe indoor air, as well as investment in our testing and tracing system. It does not have to be a binary choice between unmitigated spread and total closure.”
4. R.M. argues:
“We must also take a longer-term view of population health as well. Covid-19 is not a cold or the flu. It was clear early in the pandemic that SARS-CoV-2 can cause chronic health problems. “Long Covid” describes a heterogeneous syndrome that may be caused by any or combinations of immunological, neurological, respiratory or cardiac pathology, for which there is increasing scientific evidence. Sustained abnormalities of the brain, heart, lungs and other organ systems after Covid-19 occur in a significant proportion of survivors, even in people with mild infection.”
As I say, there is more to the article than this. Well worth reading. Highly recommended.
Yes, Ikonocast, Prof Raina MacIntyre’s article is, as usual, a good one and it supports many if not all (I haven’t read all) of your posts, except quarantine (at this point in time?). RM’s point about direct economic costs due to illness and isolation and Long Covid is of course spot on.
Regarding NSW:
1. The ABC reported 331 previously unrecorded death, of which approximately 270 occurred since January 2022 (ie after the mid-December 2021 infamous policy decision by the NSW Premier) during the Omicron wave. This additional number of death was discovered after medical cross-checks.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-01/nsw-covid-19-deaths-increase-death-certificate-checks/100959398
2. The smh of today reports “Overwhelmed’: NSW ambulance hits highest crisis level multiple times in past 14 days” https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/overwhelmed-nsw-ambulance-hit-highest-crisis-level-multiple-times-in-past-14-days-20220331-p5a9uh.html
3. “Nurses warn of more strikes as union and government clash over staff ratios” (smh, 31/3/22) https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nurses-warn-of-more-strikes-as-union-and-government-clash-over-staff-ratios-20220331-p5a9s0.html
Ernestine Gross,
I form my position by reading some of the latest publicly available scientific papers on epidemiology and virology. These I can understand far better than I can understand papers on Rank Dependent Expected Utility, for example. I also read general public papers like Prof Raina MacIntyre’s which confirm for me that I am drawing the right conclusions from the technical papers. So it is really me following the science and Prof Raina MacIntyre, of course. This is just as I look to economic thinkers like Prof. J.Q. and yourself for certain confirmations re economic policies which dominate in the case of the exponential growth of serious economic contagion (and literal dangerous pathogen contagion in this case).
Prof Raina MacIntyre is clearly more realistic and patient than I am, particularly I would say with respect to human frailty and fallibility and also in relation to systemic socioeconomic factors preventing wise and effective action. She continues to attempt to stake out the broadest realistic position without compromising the fundamentals of pandemic control for a dangerous and mutating pathogen with serious tail risks. She manages this without compromising her own moral and scientific integrity. She is a rare person.
The dangers from this pandemic are still increasing. It comes back to the high rates of mutation plus the immune escape and vaccine escape achieved, by chance, by some mutations. Letting a pandemic of this kind of pathogen (dangerous RNA coronavirus) explode exponentially also lets mutations and recombinations explode exponentially. I think we have entered a new phase. Viral recombinations are now appearing more rapidly whereas whereas until about the start of this year or maybe late least year they were not so much of a detected feature for this pandemic. Recombination in some ways supercharges mutation and takes it to another level. See:
“RNA recombination enhances adaptability and is required for virus spread and virulence” –
Yinghong Xiao,1 Igor M Rouzine,1,2 Simone Bianco,3 Ashley Acevedo,1 Elizabeth Faul Goldstein,1 Mikhail Farkov,4 Leonid Brodsky,4 and Raul Andino,1
Also see:
New COVID mutant ‘XE’ found in UK, more transmissible than Omicron sub-variant: WHO
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/21286-new-covid-mutant-xe-found-in-uk-more-transmissible-than-omicron-sub-variant-who.html#.YkhvR1UVldQ.twitter
Partial Quote:
“A new COVID mutant ‘XE’ has been found in the UK, the World Health Organisation has said in its latest report and noted that it may be more transmissible than the BA.2 sublineage of COVID-19.
XE is recombinant of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages of COVID-19.
The XE recombinant (BA.1-BA.2), was first detected in the United Kingdom on January 19 and >600 sequences have been reported and confirmed since,” the WHO said.
Early-day estimates indicate a community growth rate advantage of ~10 per cent as compared to BA.2, however this finding requires further confirmation. XE belongs to the Omicron variant until significant differences in transmission and disease characteristics, including severity, may be reported,” it added.
The United Kingdom has reported 637 cases of XE and experts said it has shown a variable growth rate.
According to UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), its new analysis has examined three recombinants known as XF, XE, and XD.
Of these, XD and XF are recombinants of Delta and Omicron BA.1, while XE is a recombinant of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2,” it said in an update.”
As I said above, I think the increasing prevalence of viable and even more infectious recombinats is a sign the pandemic is shifting up another gear again. The trend is to ever worsening scientific news and health outcomes. We are still in the early phases of this pandemic. If we continue to let it spread the news will very likely get much worse yet.
I wonder what our local lockdownistas make of the utter failure of Shanghai’s lockdown-to-zero policy. The city is currently facing their biggest-ever outbreak despite complete total lockdown, which includes the murder of pets, separating parents from infants, locking people up without food for weeks and of course bans on virtually everything “until further notice”. They have over 13,000 asymptomatic cases a day. Many lockdownistas have expressed admiration for this nightmarish policy, which will achieve exactly nothing. The next outbreak will begin one day after the current lockdown ends, forcing another lockdown, which will be followed by another outbreak, another lockdown, another outbreak, another lockdown, forever. That is exactly what would happen if Australia eliminated the bug locally; it’d immediately get back in, within one day, forcing us to choose either another lockdown or to come to our senses and ignore you like we should have done in the first place.
Another country ruled by lockdown-to-zero lunatics, Hong Kong, had the highest death rate per capita in the world last month.
(Shanghai and HK have low vaccination rates – as a result of their lockdown-to-zero policy – particularly for high-risk groups).
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/shanghai-separates-covid-positive-children-parents-virus-fight-2022-04-02/
Lt.Fred (on MARCH 15, 2022 AT 3:08 PM): – “If you look at Australia’s weekly average COVID deaths, the country hit a pandemic record peak of 87 on Feb 1, and has since declined drastically. Our 7 day average is just 24 per day, and dropping daily. On Sunday, the last available stats, just 3 people died of the bug.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2022/03/07/living-with-covid-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-251364
Australian COVID deaths (on Apr 6): 33
7-day average: 72
NSW COVID deaths (Apr 7): 16
Lt.Fred: – “Vaccines are very effective and reduce people’s chance of death by COVID-19 by 100 times. It is no longer Australia’s biggest health threat, nowhere close.”
NSW booster (3rd-dose) rate of vaccinations continues to decline. Matt’s tweet yesterday (Apr 7):
Data/evidence I see indicates that only a few weeks has drastically changed the magnitude of the threat.
I know little of my own case if I do not know my opponent’s case. J.S. Mill put it best and it is worth quoting him at a little length. I find myself unable to refute some of Lt. Fred’s points easily. Note the use of the word “easily” here. Whether I can, with difficulty, refute them remains to be seen. Even if I found a refutation, which is difficult in open-ended wicked problems, would it be recognized? But let us pay attention to Mill first.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” – J.S. Mill.
Note that Mill refers to “opinions” and what is “offered as refutations” (not “refutations” per se) and says we must hear (opposing) arguments “in their most plausible and persuasive form”. A very plausible and persuasive form comes from Prof Francois Balloux. We can take him as the academic version of Lt. Fred. I am going to post his arguments here (for point by point discussion) but you should go to his thread for the embedded graphs and graphics which are very useful. Balloux’s case is not easy to deal with.
“1. Many consider the fact that we failed to eradicate SARSCoV2 as a scientific and morale failure. This may well be the case, but there’s not much point fighting over this now. The very narrow window of opportunity to eradicate SARSCoV2 closed in February 2020, if not earlier.
2. SARS-CoV-2 is a terrible candidate for eradication. ~50% of transmissions are caused by pre- or a-symptomatic hosts. Vaccines dramatically reduce morbidity/mortality, but it is exceptionally unlikely we’ll ever be able to develop a long-term infection-blocking vaccine.
3. The response to the early stages of the SARSCoV2 outbreak was a mess (I won’t go into this in this thread). As a result, SARS-CoV-2 spread globally in early 2020. From that stage on, it could be eliminated locally in some places, but not eradicated, globally.
4. Below, the situation in April 2020 (based on available genome sequences at the time), when we still had very limited sequencing capacity. (Graphic)
5. Local elimination was from the start of the pandemic an unstable equilibrium. As long as there was a pocket somewhere where the virus was circulating, be it in Afghanistan, Somalia or wherever, it would eventually reach the places that had kept it in check.
5. The emergence of more transmissible variants (Alpha, Delta, Omicron) challenged and eventually overcame local elimination successes. Though, I believe, they made no actual difference to the final outcome. Elimination strategies were unsustainable in the long term, anywhere.
7. SARSCoV2 has now established animal reservoirs, including a major one in white-tailed deer (~30M animals ranging from South America to Canada), but again this makes no real difference to an outcome that was unavoidable from early 2020 onwards. (Graphic).
8. We have good vaccines that reduce morbidity/mortality, and a few decent drugs. Immunisation levels are rising globally and mortality has been decreasing for a while, despite setbacks. It is lower now than it has been over the last two years. (Graphic)
9. The current situation is not ideal, but can only get better in the long-term, despite possible momentary setbacks, as the long-term trajectory of the pandemic will tend towards increasingly lower morbidity and mortality.
10. We can regret – as I do – how the pandemic unfolded, in particular in the early stages, but fighting for elimination / eradication of SARSCoV2 now is a complete waste of time and energy, which is unlikely to help anyone.
11. Instead, those who care about global health should focus on improving vaccine coverage globally, in particular for the most vulnerable, and more generally fight against poverty and health inequity, and for increased access to education.” – Prof Francois Balloux.
Now as I say, this is the best succinct and erudite case I have found for abandoning avowed “elimination” as a strategy. Remember the technical definition for “elimination” is regional (or region by region) elimination. An example would be if Australia had continued to pursue “elimination” nationally to the point of no appearnce or spread of transmission of local Australian cases, strong national borders controls, full quarantine (stations) and TTIQM for small outbreaks. There would be lock-downs for large outbreaks IF they occurred. Now, I won’t run ahead of the argument here. I will let people absorb Balloux’s case. I will then post a Part 2.
Balloux’s case expunges THEN.
“… but fighting for elimination / eradication of SARSCoV2 now is a complete waste of time and energy, which is unlikely to help anyone.”… IN THE FUTURE.
Black is black.
Many of Prof Francois Balloux’s points lack the caveats they need. These caveats could have been supplied in a few extra posts so we can consider these cavets non-existent to non-important in his view. I will post his numbered points again with my answers. I will try not to repeat answers and idea but some repetition can creep into rapid blogging.
1. Many consider the fact that we failed to eradicate SARSCoV2 as a scientific and morale failure. This may well be the case, but there’s not much point fighting over this now. The very narrow window of opportunity to eradicate SARSCoV2 closed in February 2020, if not earlier.
Answer 1. He says it’s a scientific and moral failure but there is “not much point in fighting over it now”. Imagine applying this rule to governance failures and public policy failures in general. Like saying there is no point in Royal Commissions into any failure, no point in seeking justice or correction of failures or prevention of similar future failures. Imagine applying this to moral and criminal matters. There is no point in fighting over them after the event which means no point in going to court, no point in compensation, no point in amending or introducing laws, no point in establishing and monitoring ethical standards. The list goes on and may include no point in punishment (which might have some arguments for it) but also no point in prevention and rehabilitation. This is the kind of argument which is apologism for failure, the status quo and power and provelege within the status quo: meaning often political, moral and criminal failure. In total argument for no justice, no democratic change, no political economy change, no corrective action in general and no holding to account.
“The very narrow window of opportunity to eradicate SARSCoV2 closed in February 2020, if not earlier.” It may have or it may not have. This is mere assertion. Why did it close early in practice? What was wrong with our global interconnected system and inflexible adherence to life and business as usual which made it so or made it seem so?
2. SARS-CoV-2 is a terrible candidate for eradication. ~50% of transmissions are caused by pre- or a-symptomatic hosts. Vaccines dramatically reduce morbidity/mortality, but it is exceptionally unlikely we’ll ever be able to develop a long-term infection-blocking vaccine.
Answer: SARS-CoV-2 is NOW a very difficult candidate even for elimination. Early failures made it so, including systemic failures of our entire political economy. Failing early made it a fait accompli that it would spread, mutate and become, conservatively, of the order of 10 times more difficult to eliminate.
3. The response to the early stages of the SARSCoV2 outbreak was a mess (I won’t go into this in this thread). As a result, SARS-CoV-2 spread globally in early 2020. From that stage on, it could be eliminated locally in some places, but not eradicated, globally.
Answer: The response to the early stages of the SARSCoV2 outbreak was a mess but he won’t go into this in (t)his thread. Why not? Does it raise uncomfortable questions about neoliberala capitalist governance and BAU?
4. Below, the situation in April 2020 (based on available genome sequences at the time), when we still had very limited sequencing capacity. (Graphic)
Answer: Yes, it spread early and fast because global travel was not shut down early, fast and completely. And most nations were not committed early to any scientifically supported controls. This was an egregious failure of horrendous proportions but those responsible want us to forget it all and accept the current debacle.
5. Local elimination was from the start of the pandemic an unstable equilibrium. As long as there was a pocket somewhere where the virus was circulating, be it in Afghanistan, Somalia or wherever, it would eventually reach the places that had kept it in check.
Answer: It would eventually reach the places that had kept it in check only if all actors failed to implement early containment policies including TTIQM and temprary lock-downs when absolutely necessary..
5. The emergence of more transmissible variants (Alpha, Delta, Omicron) challenged and eventually overcame local elimination successes. Though, I believe, they made no actual difference to the final outcome. Elimination strategies were unsustainable in the long term, anywhere.
Answer: This is mere assertion, though China is now becoming a troubling empirical test. But once again, extreme difficulty in containment now has occurred because of early containments failures inclduing many outright refusals to contain at all. It has also occurred by the rampant mutation engendered by allowing rampant spread.
7. SARSCoV2 has now established animal reservoirs, including a major one in white-tailed deer (~30M animals ranging from South America to Canada), but again this makes no real difference to an outcome that was unavoidable from early 2020 onwards. (Graphic).
Answer: Spillover from new mammalian wild animal reservoirs need not happen and generally will not happen unless people associate very closely with said wild animals. The answer is don’t handle, feed, eat or interact closely with such animals. That is very much what ecological and wilderness experts would tell you anyway.
8. We have good vaccines that reduce morbidity/mortality, and a few decent drugs. Immunisation levels are rising globally and mortality has been decreasing for a while, despite setbacks. It is lower now than it has been over the last two years. (Graphic)
Answer: The glass is half full now but it has widening cracks: immune evasion and vaccine evasion.
9. The current situation is not ideal, but can only get better in the long-term, despite possible momentary setbacks, as the long-term trajectory of the pandemic will tend towards increasingly lower morbidity and mortality.
Answer: “The current situation is not ideal,” Nominated for understatement of the year, The current situation is horrendous and getting worse.
10. We can regret – as I do – how the pandemic unfolded, in particular in the early stages, but fighting for elimination / eradication of SARSCoV2 now is a complete waste of time and energy, which is unlikely to help anyone.
Answer: This denies a number of factors. First, that the issue is spectrum and not black and white. I have argued before for going for the next level of control and seeing what becomes emergently possible after that. Fighting for higher levels of control will save many deaths and much long-Covid so it will help many people.
11. Instead, those who care about global health should focus on improving vaccine coverage globally, in particular for the most vulnerable, and more generally fight against poverty and health inequity, and for increased access to education.
Answer: I agree with improving vaccination but vaccination alone is now clearly an incrementally failing policy. Immune escape and vaccine escape proceed apace and next generation vaccines so far are not appearing at all. Also, as J.Q. pointed out if R0 > 1 consistently (or periodicaly) the pandemic continues. If R0 < 1 consistently or mostly then the pandemic waves decline to a better level of control. the goal should be getting R0 < 0 as much and as long and as widely as possible. Then we could "ride the decline" to a better situation without prejudging how much better would be possible ultimately.
Dr. Deepti Gurdasani has posted on how bad the Long Covid numbers are now in the UK. This is going to an horrendoues problem and very possibly an unsustainable problem. Medical care standards could absolutely collapse, even in the West, under this sort of strain. It is so-called "living with covid" which is going to prove unsustainable. The scientific data are mostly pointing strongly in this direction.
The authorities who have foisted this runaway epidemic on us have no endgame. They don't know how to stop it or else are unwilling to take the stern measures necessary to stop it. Saying it's impossible, acting as if it is impossible, makes it impossible eventually even if it isn't at first. The authorities are hoping for random mutation to mildness via uncontrolled spread. That's like taking multiple shots in Russian Roulette when you know at least one chamber is live.
Most of what you’ve written is either factually false, or pointlessly contending the already-conceded point that the initial response was sub-optimal. (Not due to “neoliberalism”, by the way, due to human nature).
Again you have failed to address the central issue however.
If your alternative policy is, as you seem to suggest, to put us on the endless lockdown-outbreak-lockdown carousel, you need to tell us how many decades we ought to be stuck on the same failed policy for in order to mitigate the risk of a virus with similar fatality rates to the flu among the vaccinated. (This is being generous by the way: I could ask why you believe Australia would be able to do lockdowns better than the PRC, where your policy is currently falling apart in front of our eyes).
You criticise others for lacking an “endgame” – actually they have a very clear endgame, you just don’t like it – but you have at no point presented your own.
For the 50000th time:
Is the policy 1000 years of lockdown-outbreak-lockdown? Or if not, what is your alternative?
Factually false claims include:
“Imagine applying this rule to governance failures and public policy failures in general. Like saying there is no point in Royal Commissions into any failure….”
This is just a misunderstanding of what Prof Francois Balloux is saying. He’s saying we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, and we need to find some other way of dealing with it. We can’t turn back time to December 2019.
“SARS-CoV-2 is NOW a very difficult candidate even for elimination… Failing early made it a fait accompli that it would spread, mutate and become, conservatively, of the order of 10 times more difficult to eliminate.”
This is factually false. COVID-19 was always a terrible candidate for eradication because of the nature of the bug.
“The response to the early stages of the SARSCoV2 outbreak was a mess but he won’t go into this in (t)his thread. Why not? Does it raise uncomfortable questions about neoliberala capitalist governance and BAU?”
Because it doesn’t matter for the main issue – a lesson you could well learn yourself.
“It would eventually reach the places that had kept it in check only if all actors failed to implement early containment policies including TTIQM and temprary lock-downs when absolutely necessary.”
This is not correct. The bug would reach Australia – no matter what. We may be able to lock down to zero in order to wipe it out in Australia – but it would just reach Australia again. Yes, even through quarantine. No quarantine system would be perfect. Unless then virus is wiped out globally – which is impossible – it would reach Australia again, probably within one day of an end to k
” Elimination strategies were unsustainable in the long term, anywhere.
“Answer: This is mere assertion,”
If you genuinely believe eliminations strategies are sustainable in the long term you’re deluding yourself.
“Spillover from new mammalian wild animal reservoirs need not happen and generally will not happen unless people associate very closely with said wild animals.”
This is factually false. COVID will quite easily transmit from mink and some deer to people, and they live in suburban areas. That means the bug CAN NOT be eradicated. IMPOSSIBLE. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone not to be reinfected somewhere in the world, given a long enough time scale (personally I think about a day would do the trick).
You could exterminate all of the world’s mink and so on, as Denmark did, though that’s not necessary.
“10. We can regret – as I do – how the pandemic unfolded, in particular in the early stages, but fighting for elimination / eradication of SARSCoV2 now is a complete waste of time and energy, which is unlikely to help anyone.
Answer: This denies a number of factors. First, that the issue is spectrum and not black and white. I have argued before for going for the next level of control and seeing what becomes emergently possible after that. Fighting for higher levels of control will save many deaths and much long-Covid so it will help many people.”
Wrong. Higher levels of control simply prolong the inevitable. Everyone will get the bug. It is impossible to eradicate the virus, which means everyone will get the bug.
“[Long COVID] is going to an horrendoues problem and very possibly an unsustainable problem. Medical care standards could absolutely collapse, even in the West, under this sort of strain.”
This is an embarrassing joke.
Most long-COVID symptoms are very mild and virtually everyone who suffers them recovers within at most 12 months. Many are preventable with medical treatment.