Utopia Talk / Politics / This is what Hrothgar & Seb wanted

Rugian Member	Sun Nov 27 08:28:44 "China has spent nearly three years living with some of the strictest COVID curbs in the world...Many of Urumqi's 4 million residents have been under some of the country's longest lockdowns, barred from leaving their homes for as long as 100 days." http://www...reads-across-china-2022-11-27/ Three years into Covid, and China is still locking down people for months at a time. Almost like lockdowns don't actually stop easily transmissible diseases at all. Thank God that would-be authoritarians like Hrothgar and Seb aren't in charge of Western countries. We'd subjected to this same shit even to today if those guys had their way.
Rugian Member	Sun Nov 27 08:30:59 Member when Seb used to insist that we could defeat Covid entirely if we only subjected ourselves to a twelve-week lockdown? Pepperidge Farms members. Member when Hrothgar, with all the courage and bravery of a weeping woman, insisted that the US should adopt Chinese-style lockdown measures to stop a virus with a 1% mortality rate (mostly among the elderly? Pepperidge Farms members. Scum, people like you. Scum.
Paramount Member	Sun Nov 27 09:41:21 I heard there was a fire in an apartment bulding in China. The housing block was in a lockdown and people were not allowed to leave, or could not. The fire brigade tried to put out the fire. They tried to spray water on the fire, but the water could not reach the fire because the fire brigade could not get close enough due to the area being in a lockdown. 10 people are supposed to have died. But we don’t know how many lives the lockdowns may have saved. If there were no lockdowns at all maybe millions would have died. Still though, the fire trucks should have been allowed to ram the gates and put out the fire and save people. If the firefighters are wearing face masks they should be safe from covid and would also not infect the people in the apartments.
obaminated Member	Sun Nov 27 10:10:10 I wonder how many of these protesting Chinese will disappear.
habebe Member	Sun Nov 27 10:44:59 Rugian, ALOT of ppl still don't seem to realize just what share of deaths are from old sickly people. Just last week WTB was under the impression 330k minor children were killed in the US from covid!!! Even up until today the number is around 1200 and let's face it most of those kids probably would have died from the first sniffle anyway regardless of Covid.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 27 13:32:59 Rugian: The important part is you need to do lockdowns synchronously. You and folks like you decided we were doing to make COVID endemic.
Rugian Member	Sun Nov 27 13:35:29 Seb - You were never, ever, ever, going to achieve 100% Chinaflu eradication on a planet of 8 billion people. Enough with that lie. And it is a *lie.* Every time you claim otherwise, you are spreading blatant disinformation.
obaminated Member	Sun Nov 27 13:36:47 No seb. Lockdowns accomplished nothing but businesses to shut down, people to lose their jobs and their homes.
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 13:42:40 "Almost like lockdowns don't actually stop easily transmissible diseases at all." Almost like they've refused to import western vaccines.
Rugian Member	Sun Nov 27 13:45:29 Because Western vaccines have done so much to stop the spread of Covid right? Wait...
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 13:53:59 btw lol @ China's numbers. http://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 13:58:56 "Enough with that lie. And it is a *lie.*" "Quarantines are a lie. Quarantines don't work." -- Rugian
Seb Member	Sun Nov 27 14:00:20 Rugian: We've wiped out other diseases. You made the choice for it to be endemic, so we will never know. For a quarter of economic growth.
Pillz Member	Sun Nov 27 14:35:35 Lockdown advocates are the dumbest fucking people.
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 14:49:39 Rugian also doesn't believe in bio-hazard suits or safety protocols for the handling of infectious diseases. Imagine thinking that you can seal up billions of tiny viruses.
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 14:53:59 "Lockdown advocates are the dumbest fucking people." Assholes who don't care about other people are the most worthless fucking people.
Rugian Member	Sun Nov 27 15:00:36 Seb Correction, we've wiped out *one* other disease (smallpox) - and that required a process that spanned over decades. What you are talking about is more analogous to eradicating the common cold. Realistically speaking, that's not possible...and if it was, we would only have to remain under lockdown for years, if not decades, at a time. I'm not willing to do that. Are you?
murder Member	Sun Nov 27 15:08:18 The common cold isn't one thing.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 27 15:15:46 Common seb you know this was not going to be eradicated. The response from the cdc community was utterly pathetic. By the time the morons figured out how to test for it was everywhere spreading like wildfire, including shitholes like africa where it was just going to set up a permanent reservoir no matter what the civilized world did. Given our pathetic antiviral tech level and this things virulence yet less deadly state, it was destined to be endemic from the moment china let it spread past 5 people. This should have been relatively obvious to you 2.5 years ago.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 27 15:45:08 The chance of mutating into something truly hideous is a function of total global load. Medical interventions help. Mortality was kept lower than it would have been if health care had been completely overwhelmed. Shutdowns bought time for vaccines to be produced and distributed. Also, a dress rehersal for the real thing. We have had a century without truly dangerous epidemics in the west. Who knows what the next one will bring? We now have tons of experience in deploying 19th century epidemic defence.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 27 17:02:03 Rugian: It is now like getting rid of the common cold. That is because you prioritised a quarter of growth over an organised quarantine for a few months. Sam: Yeah, because of people like Rugian. Instead of clamping down, getting the vaccines (which have some ability to reduce spread) and getting the global load down to a manageable level, countries like the US decided to let it become endemic. "By the time the morons figured out how to test for it" All the more reason for earlier, tighter lockdowns. Also, the reason the US has such shitty testing policies is your moronic republican politicians. The rest of the world was doling out free tests and build huge PCR capacity. The US "nah, fuck it". jergul: Unfortunately the only thing Americans have been inoculated against is public health campaigns. A truly lethal pandemic will rip through them because it will be greeted by the sivel eyed loons as "Gubberment wanna put chips in my head like las time"
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 27 22:16:10 "The rest of the world was doling out free tests and build huge PCR capacity." Lol a year late. "The US "nah, fuck it"." Thats cute, coming from the country that originally spread covid to the US. "Instead of clamping down, getting the vaccines" Clamp down for a year. Good call seb. Even better, how do you intend to "clamp down" the stone age continent of africa? Nuke em?
Seb Member	Mon Nov 28 04:04:42 Sam: "Lol a year late." Within 3 months. US never even got around to giving people free LFTs in any volume. "Thats cute, coming from the country that originally spread covid to the US." No evidence of that whatsoever. "Clamp down for a year. Good call seb." Nope. Clamp down for an initial four week period early, followed by local clampdowns every time you get an outbreak. "Even better, how do you intend to "clamp down" the stone age continent of africa? Nuke em?" African cities are not stone age - less developed parts of Africa have lower population densities where transmission risk is lower.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 28 09:16:27 Everything you just said is both wrong from a scientific point of view and contrary to recent history. For example: "Clamp down for an initial four week period early, followed by local clampdowns every time you get an outbreak." By the time you had the tech for this it was endemic. You couldnt even test for it until it was global. 4 weeks isnt enough to stamp out transmission in city apartments with shared air. Furthermore this exact method was tried and failed. Look its ok to admit you were wrong. Collectively our response to covid was dumb, but your suggested response was dumbest of all.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 28 11:01:05 Sam: That's not what endemic means. You are describing pandemic. "Furthermore this exact method was tried and failed." Where it was tried, it worked. Where it wasn't tried, it created a reservoir that means it is now endemic.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 28 12:20:55 Pandemic+this things mutation rate and antibody duration + half the world being undeveloped= endemic. Utterly unavoidable. Your bureaucratic wrangling worked no-where. How can you possibly look at chinas covid-zero police while the rest of the world is free, and think this was possibly a good idea.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 28 13:11:48 Sam: China's zero COVID policy is due to a failure to procure effective vaccines and the unfortunate decision by much of the rest of the world to let the disease become endemic. The ship has sailed. But that's a different thing from pointing out it was eminently possible to try and prevent the disease building up a sufficient reservoir that mutation rates meant it can front run the vaccine. Allowing it to get endemic was a policy choice.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 28 15:29:36 The irony is early in the pandemic the nations/states that chose stricter policies have in the long run suffered more than the lax policy ones who were largely seen as foolish. School children are now years behind mentally.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 28 15:52:29 "Allowing it to get endemic was a policy choice." Wrong. You were trying to clean up after a tsunami with a toothpick. You had 0.0000 chance. Every such attempt at covid zero was doomed once china let it escape.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 28 15:57:04 I should say the only policy choice that had the slightest chance of working would have been china being more agressive and sharing more info originally. But since the wests doctors were utterly confused for the first few months, its not realistic to think china could have controlled it any better. It was likely spreading by the millions before they knew what is was too. Really the CDC profession as a whole failed pretty badly. But your bureaucratic misinformation made the response much worse.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 28 16:46:16 The Demon Monkey Randi Weingarten is now pushing more lockdown for what she calls a "Tri-demic". Im not totally opposed to school closings over disease. Recently my niece's school had 4 day weekend because more than half the school teachers included were sick so they also took that time to sterilize the school. FYI SC is having a REALLY bad flu season. Like 100x normal amount of cases.
murder Member	Mon Nov 28 19:46:37 "School children are now years behind mentally." Oh brother!
Seb Member	Tue Nov 29 16:33:21 Sam: Most of Europe's public health officials were calling for lockdowns pretty much from the moment it started to spike. It was politicians that considered lockdowns and quarantines unthinkable. Until they weren't. And then they needed to be twice as long because exponential roll off is slower than exponential growth as any fule kno. Stop protecting your banana republic Trumpian dysfunction on the developed world.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 29 16:38:37 https://www.google.com/search?q=Germany+corronavirus+case+numbers&oq=Germany+corronavirus+case+numbers&aqs=chrome..69i57.10071j0j7&client=ms-android-h3g-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 That October wave in Germany was due to the first variant. Which probably wouldn't have happened if most of the developed world had adopted their policies: not enough of a reservoir.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 30 14:46:00 "Most of Europe's public health officials were calling for lockdowns pretty much from the moment it started to spike." Way too late. By the time you thought it was spreading a million euros had it... each destined to spread it to their households or shared air apartment buildings lockdown or not. Plus it was then destinee to be endemic in africa, india, russia, and every other shithole, requiring you to close your borders forever if you wanted covid zero. A fools suggestion... especially after the gift of hindsight. Given the failure of modern science minor lockdowns were appropriate where hospitals were close to being ovewhelmed and everyone 30 and younger should have just gone about there business. Mask mandates were a great idea though. That reduces exposure without effort. The rednecks opposing masks were as dumb as the sebs trying to lockdown everyone forever.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 30 16:33:01 Sam: This is bonkers given that national lockdowns DID kill the first peak and the second peak where they were implemented. By the middle of the year you had PCR tests and sewage sampling that was good enough for local / regional lockdown to tackle outbreaks. And by the end of 2020 you had mass lat-flow tests that were good enough for an even more refined approach. A consistent approach across the west and other OECD countries would have been able to keep incidence very low indeed; and avoided variants.
Pillz Member	Wed Nov 30 17:34:51 The first wave wasn't affected in any way, shape, or form by lockdowns. Because the first lockdowns outside of China were literally nothing. The first wave was so small because surprise surprise, it takes time for a virus to spread - and it continues to do so to this day. Notice how each wave got progressively worse, despite vaccine adoption and severely more aggressive lockdowns.... Not a single fucking country, city, province, state, or territory saw diminishing spread or correspondingly smaller waves despite these measures. You have no evidence whatsoever that lockdowns worked, whether it be in China or Europe or North America. And as we all know now as well, vaccines did fuck all to curb transmission. Youre a stupid mother fucker, but how do almost 3 years of real world data manage to evade your comprehension? It's cold and flu season, you should probably protect your family by committing murder/suicide. Wouldn't want them to be exposed to a fucking cold you dumb cuckold faggot
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 30 18:39:21 "This is bonkers given that national lockdowns DID kill the first peak and the second peak" Whether you reduce a peak or not has literally 0 impact on the virus becoming endemic or not. "By the middle of the year you had PCR tests and sewage sampling that was good enough for local / regional lockdown to tackle outbreaks." Ok. Endemic at that point. "A consistent approach across the west and other OECD countries would have been able to keep incidence very low indeed; and avoided variants." Not a chance. Half the worlds population lives in shitholes where no control was possible.
Hrothgar Member	Wed Nov 30 19:17:56 Rugian - and anyone else anti "preventive measures to try to stop a new novel virus" is just being hardheaded at this point. Viruses can, and have been, stopped with early lockdown type measures. It doesn't take a genius to recognize the difference between trying to eliminate a virus early on - as has been done in the past with quick action in the first few months (SARS for example) - vs once it's become pandemic/endemic. I will say the focus of timeframe on how to handle outbreaks in the future is much better in focus now with our bumbling trial and error. At least with respiratory type viruses. Try to eliminate the virus for a couple of months, if that doesn't work, then open up with disease spread prevention measures in place (masks, hand disinfectant stations, avoid indoor crowds, etc...) It's true, China is proving that forever lockdowns while the rest of the world is endemic is not the correct choice in how to handle a pandemic post elimination chance period. Also should be more awareness at policy level of time frames depending on what type of path the new virus uses to spread. Monkeypox virus for example shouldn't be treated the same way as covid. Fluid contact vs airborn. Governments need to plan for the various infection vectors and how, when, where a virus will spread. Not attempt a "one size fits all" approach. Without the early on, especially first year, preventative measure we had another million or two Americans (not to mention millions more around the world) would have died as we pretended like nothing was wrong "just a cold" from day one. And that's not even counting the suffering/death of those needing other medical help while hospitals were crushed with the "just a cold" fools.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 30 21:42:21 Theres a happy middle ground between the "just a cold" rednecks and the "forever lockdowns" china sebs.
nhill Member	Wed Nov 30 22:56:49 Yea it's called wear an N95 mask and social distance if there's a highly contagious respiratory virus with a mortality rate over 1%. You would have to adjust the percentage based on how contagious it is to come up with a practical number. I'm sure there's a term for that, but who cares.
nhill Member	Wed Nov 30 22:58:29 Hand sanitization is the stupid and irresponsible. You should never use alcohol based sanitizers.
nhill Member	Wed Nov 30 22:58:39 is for the*
nhill Member	Wed Nov 30 22:59:34 Correction, you should never use antibiotic or antiviral hand sanitizers unless you're a selfish idiot. Always wash with regular soap.
nhill Member	Wed Nov 30 23:00:41 Unless you want to develop more resistant bacteria and viruses, hence why you're a selfish bastard each time you use a hand sanitizer or antibacterial soap.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 01 00:49:29 Sam: Without lockdowns, the peaks don't stay peaks. They greatly increase the general incidence in the general population. N95 and social distancing reduce R, but do not get it below the point where it won't just exponentially grow if you leave an outbreak to be. And the larger the reservoir the higher the rate at which variants emerge. "Forever lockdown" is a bullshit term the ratlickers invented. You only need lockdowns for short periods to kill outbreaks. Instead you create this stupid idea of "oh, but my lockdowns are local and response to an outbreak and that are good lockdowns, as opposed to your lockdowns which I'm saying are eternal solitary confinement". No, we are talking about the same thing. Lockdowns demonstrably did work to keep outbreaks in check where they were implemented properly.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 05:25:58 Epidemic control is supposed to be at the municiple and or county level. National guidelines and national funding for the costs of local measures, with the municiple/county doctor having the final say. Epidemic control was a fine science by the end of the 19th century. Particularly in maritime nations.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 05:27:46 I am speaking from a unitary state perspective. It works when epedemics are not politisied and everyone is interested in keeping R below 1.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 05:30:28 Eradication is not really a goal except as an ideal. Most become endemic in a form that is acceptable if controlled sufficiently.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 01 05:53:14 jergul: When you are dealing with a novel disease I think eradication is or ought to be a goal. It's a different situation than an epidemic outbreak of a disease that already has a natural reservoir and circulation. That is much harder (and where we are now with COVID).
Seb Member	Thu Dec 01 05:57:45 And yes, ideally you would do this at far more granular levels but in the first wave we had no tests, incomplete understanding of incubation periods and R numbers, method of transmission etc. So national lock downs for 4-6 weeks (rather than 8-12) done c. 2-4 weeks earlier than the eventual ones would have made it easier to localise outbreaks and so much easier to switch to a local model. And if we had been more synchronised in policy globally, we would have done a much better job of avoiding waves of infection moving around geographically.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 06:19:59 Seb Local decisions do a lot to avoid politising outbreaks. Its one of the things they figured out in the 19th century. It still has the same format. Do whatever it takes to bring r below 1. Global policy is more about making sure tools are available where they are needed locally. The main lesson learned is that some measures should be in place always. At least on a voluntary basis. Clean hands, no overcrowding in public. Seasonal use of masks. Stay at home if sick. Proper heating, insulation and ventilation everywhere.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 06:25:44 We would have done a lot better if overcrowded, hot and sweaty people were not sneezing and coughing on each other in the Alps before travelling home to the multitude of their final destinations.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 06:26:18 I forgot "drunk". They were also drunk.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 01 08:51:03 jergul: "We would have done a lot better if overcrowded, hot and sweaty people were not sneezing and coughing on each other in the Alps before travelling home to the multitude of their final destinations." This is what I mean about coordinated policy though. Regionally, you always have people who will be the Mayor in Jaws because the incentives fall that way, unless there is compensation. And then you start doing things like banning travel to and from red zones etc. I don't think it is reasonable to assume pandemic response for a novel virus sweeping the globe will be managed purely locally. It is a different challenge to a local outbreak of a disease in broad circulation precisely because the objective isn't just "get it under control locally", there is an objective "prevent it becoming globally established". Local decisions may be less polarising - but plenty of scope for beggar thy neighbour and just working at cross purposes. This can also be polarising.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 11:10:21 Seb I am unconvinced. global cooperation -> National recommendations and financial support -> Local actions and mandates. It is not a political decision at local level in Norway at least. The municiple doctor calls the shots just like he/she does with most local health issues not involving animals. The powers are pretty wide and include cancelling freedom of navigation and forced quaratines. 19th century stuff. They knew how to do it back then due to practice, fail and errors.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 11:15:41 "You only need lockdowns for short periods to kill outbreaks." Wrong. Because it is endemic, which you could not prevent, you need to lock down again and again and again. When you should just open up forever once your population has gotten its vaxes.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 11:21:06 I do like how sebs arguments are fading away from "we should have prevented endemic". Admitting you were weong on that one?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 11:23:31 Also i should add the correct behavior clearly is age dependent. A 20-30 year old should have just gone out and got it on day 1, while avoiding older relatives until immune. That would have given us a decent immune worker base from the start. But thats hindsight.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 11:30:52 Sammy The problem is that the smallest unit meaningful for disease prevention "household". Natural vaccination schemes like exposing, then isolating infected young workers or students or pupils cannot work because they cannot isolate from the households they live in. Even with 20/20 hindsight.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 12:11:21 20-30 year olds usually dont live in households with older people.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 01 13:43:11 52% do according to a PEW study.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 13:53:42 Thats nonsense
Seb Member	Thu Dec 01 14:26:18 Sam: You seem to want to pretend I'm arguing we should be using lockdowns now. I'm not going to bother persuading you I'm not because I've said that clearly and the fact you are trying to pretend this shows me that you accept what I'm actually arguing is irrefutable and you need to resort to straw man arguments instead.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 01 14:56:14 At least you have some sense. When do you think the lockdowns should have ended completely? Ive got 2 weeks after the vax had appointments start going unused.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 02 05:01:30 Sam: I think that is the wrong question. The question is "when should we have given up on trying to contain and eradicate the virus". As with any public health issue, quarantine remains an option if/when you need it to prevent the health system being overwhelmed. Which new variants may do even if the vaccine provides good protection against death. The answer to the question "when should we have given up on trying to contain and eradicate the virus" - I think the point is we never actually tried. It can only be done globally; and the utter failure to coordinate activity internationally (and in part specifically due to political opposition to the idea in the US, where a large constituency decided to somehow contrive to see it as a binary choice between freedom vs allowing a dangerous new virus to become endemic) is deeply worrying given the next pandemic might be more lethal. I continue to believe the strategy I outlined initially could have worked: Be quick to lockdown: do it when the growth rate is high, not when the absolute threshold is high. Keeping absolute numbers low is critical to: 1. Minimise the risk of the disease becoming permanently established 2. Reduce the rate of new variants emerging 3. Keep test and trace viable Doing this in a coordinated fashion to common standards offers the opportunity to either nationalise or if you are really ambitious, regionalise or internationalise the economic costs through some kind of international "war bond" type approach. I would much rather have given a chunk of cash to China to be open and transparent and clamp down fast - than fuck around for weeks.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 09:03:10 The answer is *never* at a local level. Every community should do what it takes to get r below 1 as soon as possible. There is a good chance that many potential epidemics would dies out locally before spreading. At a national level, the question is when to realize eradication is impossible due to the pure number of local communities struggling to get R below 1. They will all succeed at times, but the average will likely remain above 1 until natural or vaccine based immunity becomes sufficiently high as the disease becomes endemic.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 09:07:34 There are lots of things to practice on. Japan is good at not killing its elderly with the flu due to better hygiene and seasonal mask use. We can change our fundamental way of living to have a higher epidemic defence baseline. You know, in the same way we decided shitting in the street was not all good.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 02 09:24:33 Jergul: In the situation of an outbreak of a novel virus, the point is you might want simultaneous quarantines in order to prevent one region acting as a reservoir for reinfecting others even when the level of circulation in that region might not appear to justify a quarantine (because it's still in incubation or because public health surveillance mechanisms have poor leading indicators etc.). The cost benefit is different.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 10:20:55 Seb Precautionary quarantines locally are entirely possible off the back of national recommendations. You are describing a scenario where r is unknown. You realize I am describing what was done here, right? Norway was one of two countries were life expectancy increased during covid (excess deaths to covide were more than countered by less deaths to other causes. Flu in particular).
Seb Member	Fri Dec 02 10:50:06 Is Norway a good universal model? I don't buy "if we localise all decision making, the optimal strategy will emerge". Largely because it didn't - and what we saw was countries delaying lockdown decisions and opening up prematurely over concerns about economic competition, and a general failure to stamp out reservoirs and instead use lockdowns as a means to try and keep the number of hospitalisations within the parameters of healthcares ability to respond. Some places did better at that than others. Systemwide, no region or indeed the world did very well at all. Faced with the emergence of a novel virus with the right combination of transmissibility and incubation, we merely managed the process of it becoming globally endemic. We should aim in future to prevent that happening. Not, as Sam advocates, accept it as inevitable.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 11:57:20 Norway shows that methods finalized in the 19th century were future proof. You are describing a problem with State and national regulators struggling with a cookie cutter one size fits all solution to at times pretty large entities. National guidelines + local mandates = success. Just like that was the winning recipe in the 19th century. Corona is hardly a novel virus incidentally. But eradication is best done locally. Chances are that a virus very similar to covid was contained locally within the last decade for example. "Overall, the study findings showed that cross-reactive anti-SARS-CoV-2 N immunity was prevalent in Africa before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pre-existing immunity does not impact SARS-CoV-2 fitness in mice, indicating that other immunological defense mechanisms may be involved in humans. In Africa, seroprevalence studies against the SARS-CoV-2 N protein may overestimate the circulation of SARS-CoV-2."
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 12:00:47 4500 people died of covid in Norway. Or about the same as the number of people that die from the flu each year. Norway did very well indeed.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 02 12:39:15 "It can only be done globally" Right. And it cant be done in half the globe... so it wasnt going to be erradicated.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 02 13:31:28 "4500 people died of covid in Norway. Or about the same as the number of people that die from the flu each year." norway with about 5 million people should have about 150 yearly flu deaths.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 14:37:21 Measured as excess mortality for 65+ in weeks with flu outbreaks. Flu is a notioriously underdiagnosed cause of death.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 02 14:38:16 The reported number is around 1k give or take.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 02 16:29:54 "Flu is a notioriously underdiagnosed cause of death." Sure, but not to the tune of 4500. That would be 10% of your yearly deaths. From the flu? Excessive.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: