OT: Covid-19 (Part 57) Grand Re-Re-Re-Opening Edition

[Lafleurs Guy]

.
The data has shown that lockdowns have been borderline useless and may have caused more harm than good. I think it’s almost for certain it has. There’s very little evidence to show passports have had any meaningful effect.

This is demonstrably false. One example was from this past summer when the prairies opened up only to shut down again after having huge spikes.

We have seen repeatedly that regions with more protective measures have fared significantly better than those that haven't. One clear example is the 3x+ death rate that the States have over Canada.

No doubt they will be less effective going forward. However, vaccines still protect people at a rate of around 65% and prevent hospitalizations by up to 90% with a third dose. The question will really be how many people take that dose and will govts make the 3rd shot a condition of the passport going forward. If they don't, then it might be a different story as there's not much protection against Omicron with having had only two shots.

 

[SOLR]

This is demonstrably false. One example was from this past summer when the prairies opened up only to shut down again after having huge spikes.

We have seen repeatedly that regions with more protective measures have fared significantly better than those that haven't. One clear example is the 3x+ death rate that the States have over Canada.

No doubt they will be less effective going forward. However, vaccines still protect people at a rate of around 65% and prevent hospitalizations by up to 90% with a third dose. The question will really be how many people take that dose and will govts make the 3rd shot a condition of the passport going forward. If they don't, then it might be a different story as there's not much protection against Omicron with having had only two shots.

There is a big problem with this, you would have to account for the health of the patients - since deaths happen in a small minority of cases, having just 20% more unhealthy individuals (without even going into the uninsured issues in the US) could produce vastly different deaths numbers.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

There is a big problem with this, you would have to account for the health of the patients - since deaths happen in a small minority of cases, having just 20% more unhealthy individuals (without even going into the uninsured issues in the US) could produce vastly different deaths numbers.

can you elaborate on this a bit more? not sure what you're saying here.

 

[SOLR]

can you elaborate on this a bit more? not sure what you're saying here.

At a high level:

Population A : Death rate X: : based on their pre-infection metabolic signals/age
Population B: Death rate Y : based on their pre-infection metabolic signals/age

Any significant difference (as a presume exists between US and Canada) in terms of metabolic health would produce vastly different death rate outcomes.

Secondly, the US has a large group of uninsured, illegals etc. that Canada does not have, this group tends to seek medical attention less (or too late). Again this could severely change the US numbers.

Looking at Italy (average age 47)/France (average age 42) for example, Italy lost a lot of people early on, it's also Europe's oldest population (no surprise then). This created a 25% difference in death rate. (France also have more healthcare means)

Looking at Hungary/Bulgaria - it's obvious that healthcare dollars are making a significant difference in death outcomes.
Europe: coronavirus deaths per 100,000 by country | Statista

Of course, there is also the momentum of vaccination to factor in (yet another thing to control vs. mandates)

I'm not saying that mandates were ineffective, but I'm tired of the awful arguments. Until we know the population, vaccination rates, population density and healthcare resources differences, we can't isolate the mandate variable.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

At a high level:

Population A : Death rate X: : based on their pre-infection metabolic signals/age
Population B: Death rate Y : based on their pre-infection metabolic signals/age

Any significant difference (as a presume exists between US and Canada) in terms of metabolic health would be product vastly different death rate outcomes.

You are making one big assumption here, so I think it's on you to show that a significant difference in health between these populations if it exists, could explain the difference in COVID deaths rates.

For fun I looked up the numbers for heart disease and diabetes.

US x heart disease = 6.7% of population
CA x heart disease = 6.9%

US x diabetes = 10.2%
CA x diabetes = 8.8%

Here are my sources by the way (not sure if you trust public health organizations data but )

• Heart Disease Facts | cdc.gov
• Heart Disease in Canada - Canada.ca
• https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf
• At-a-glance - Twenty years of diabetes surveillance using the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System.

To me, I don't see why slight differences like these could explain a massive (3x!) difference in death rate between the two countries which are otherwise quite similar. I'll admit I'm not an expert, but isn't it just simpler to assume these restrictions... worked?

IMO what you guys should do is just own the fact that restrictions were most likely very effective in limiting damage from COVID. Your argument should instead be: the tradeoff to personal liberty wasn't worth it. Just own it!

 

[SOLR]

You are making one big assumption here, so I think it's on you to show that a significant difference in health between these populations if it exists, could explain the difference in COVID deaths rates.

For fun I looked up the numbers for heart disease and diabetes.

US x heart disease = 6.7% of population
CA x heart disease = 6.9%

US x diabetes = 10.2%
CA x diabetes = 8.8%

Here are my sources by the way (not sure if you trust public health organizations data but )

• Heart Disease Facts | cdc.gov
• Heart Disease in Canada - Canada.ca
• https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf
• At-a-glance - Twenty years of diabetes surveillance using the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System.

To me, I don't see why slight differences like these could explain a massive (3x!) difference in death rate between the two countries which are otherwise quite similar. I'll admit I'm not an expert, but isn't it just simpler to assume these restrictions... worked?

IMO what you guys should do is just own the fact that restrictions were most likely very effective in limiting damage from COVID. Your argument should instead be: the tradeoff to personal liberty wasn't worth it. Just own it!

I explained some of the others factors (not even a complete list) that needs to be controlled, you just decided to ignore them?

Vaccination rate (lower in the US)
Population density (higher in the US)
Health care coverage (lower in the US)
(the trend is clear is always worse in the US)

Heart disease is a tricky one because it's not all behaviour, lots of genetics (valve issues, size issues, electric issues). Here's a thorny one for you, what about the pre-diabetics rates? (hint they are unknown - but the difference in diabetes rates is telling, if you also presume that its also less well diagnosed in the US (because of the healthcare cost/uninsured issues)

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

I explained some of the others factors (not even a complete list) that needs to be controlled, you just decided to ignore them?

Vaccination rate (lower in the US)
Population density (higher in the US)
Health care coverage (lower in the US)
(the trend is clear is always worse in the US)

Heart disease is a tricky one because it's not all behaviour, lots of genetics (valve issues, size issues, electric issues). Here's a thorny one for you, what about the pre-diabetics rates? (hint they are unknown - but the difference in diabetes rates is telling, if you also presume that its also less well diagnosed in the US (because of the healthcare cost/uninsured issues)

sure, sure. those could be factors. you just seem to be doing a lot of mental backflips (without direct evidence I might add) when there's a much simpler explanation right in front of us.

i'm telling you man, just own it!!

 

[SOLR]

sure, sure. those could be factors. you just seem to be doing a lot of mental backflips (without direct evidence I might add) when there's a much simpler explanation right in front of us.

i'm telling you man, just own it!!

Lol.. ok, so if I understand correctly you are more or less accusing me of doing "mental backflips" for wanting to have serious science done on the mandates (by isolating the others variables). The fact that I have a few hypothesis, is just that an hypothesis, this is part of doing the scientific work.

Might be an informative watch given your post:


The US has 3x the death rate, I think we need to know why. I think mandates did play a role (US also had significant mandates), but did not play a 3x role, there is the curious case of Sweden to study here. One of the lowest death rates in Europe, no mandates (there are many majors others factors).

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

I think mandates did play a role (US also had significant mandates)

neat! so we're in agreement.

...but did not play a 3x role

oh! i see. can you show me how you arrived to this conclusion, using the scientific method? since you brought it up. you seem to be an expert, so i'll defer to you.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Lol.. ok, so if I understand correctly you are more or less accusing me of doing "mental backflips" for wanting to have serious science done on the mandates

by the way, i'm not an expert. i'm not a scientist who studies diseases. i trust in the scientific consensus because I don't have so much of an ego as to think i know better than thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to science and medicine.

if i'm accusing you of anything, it's being an arrogant fool who thinks he knows better than very large groups of people with tons of training and experience. take that as you will!

 

[SOLR]

by the way, i'm not an expert. i'm not a scientist who studies diseases. i trust in the scientific consensus because I don't have so much of an ego as to think i know better than thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to science and medicine.

if i'm accusing you of anything, it's being an arrogant fool who thinks he knows better than very large groups of people with tons of training and experience. take that as you will!

Because you know me? I studied in Biochemistry (you know, pure science), then went into business/marketing/SEO. Nobody is a fool for making a hypothesis, or arrogant. This is ridiculous to the extreme.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Because you know me? I studied in Biochemistry (you know, pure science), then went into business/marketing/SEO. Nobody is a fool for making a hypothesis, or arrogant. This is ridiculous to the extreme.

i don't need to know you to know you're disagreeing with policies set by large groups of experts and government agencies, without presenting any concrete evidence, just unsubstantiated hypotheses. can you please show your work about the 3x thing above?

 

[SOLR]

oh! i see. can you show me how you arrived to this conclusion, using the scientific method? since you brought it up. you seem to be an expert, so i'll defer to you.

So of all the variables, mandates are the causal variable that produced a 3x difference? Come on now, just a simple study of the problem makes this statement self-evidently wrong. If that was the case Sweden would be a disaster zone. I don't pretend to know what is what, but I'd like to know what is what because it's for sure not mandates = 3x more deaths.

 

[SOLR]

i don't need to know you to know you're disagreeing with policies set by large groups of experts and government agencies, without presenting any concrete evidence, just unsubstantiated hypotheses. can you please show your work about the 3x thing above?

No I'm not, you don't even understand your own position. Not even the government agencies have ever said mandates would reduce deaths by 3x.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

So of all the variables, mandates are the causal variable that produced a 3x difference? Come on now, just a simple study of the problem makes this statement self-evidently wrong. If that was the case Sweden would be a disaster zone. I don't pretend to know what is what, but I'd like to know what is what because it's for sure not mandates = 3x more deaths.

since you brought up Sweden. i found this study.

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

comparison with Norway, because the two are "are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care". turns out "The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden". so about a ~9x rate of death there.

what kind of red herring confounding variable are you gonna throw at this one? preferred brands of vodka? avg hours spent cross country skiing in November?

just own itttttt. it's not about decreasing death, it never was. it's about tolerating a higher rate of death than is socially acceptable (as long as it's not me!).

 

[BehindTheTimes]

No I'm not, you don't even understand your own position. Not even the government agencies have ever said mandates who reduce deaths by 3x.

Most studies show less than 3% without factoring in the other side of the equation of what harm was caused.

 

[SOLR]

since you brought up Sweden. i found this study.

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

comparison with Norway, because the two are "are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care". turns out "The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden". so about a ~9x rate of death there.

what kind of red herring confounding variable are you gonna throw at this one? preferred brands of vodka? avg hours spent cross country skiing in November?

just own itttttt. it's not about decreasing death, it never was. it's about tolerating a higher rate of death than is socially acceptable (as long as it's not me!).

What do you want me to own, I don't even understand what I should "own"?

Haha, I should own that I'm curious? (!!!)

 

[SOLR]

i don't need to know you to know you're disagreeing with policies set by large groups of experts and government agencies, without presenting any concrete evidence, just unsubstantiated hypotheses. can you please show your work about the 3x thing above?

Trying to understand the effect of something =/ being against something. Stop throwing stones without good reasons.

 

[SOLR]

Most studies show less than 3% without factoring in the other side of the equation of what harm was caused.

I think we have to be prudent with that overall %3 (if it's correct) - I think the relevant level analysis is hyperlocal. Ie. New York State is mandated to protect Manhattan/Brooklyn. Then you have the obvious problem that it will be very hard to enforce hyperlocal restrictions (costly in enforcement), so it's more lucid to mandate big territories.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

What do you want me to own, I don't even understand what I should "own"?

Haha, I should own that I'm curious? (!!!)

i thought i was clear earlier. stop trying to argue that restrictive measures don't lower COVID deaths (they do). argue instead that you think the tradeoffs of restrictions are unacceptable. own it! own the argument that you are OK with larger numbers of people dying in exchange for more personal freedom.

Trying to understand the effect of something =/ being against something. Stop throwing stones without good reasons.

mmm ok sure can we go back to why you think the restrictive measures aren't the primary explanation for the 3x deaths difference between US and Canada? using the scientific method please (since you brought it up).

 

[SOLR]

i thought i was clear earlier. stop trying to argue that restrictive measures don't lower COVID deaths (they do). argue instead that you think the tradeoffs of restrictions are unacceptable. own it! own the argument that you are OK with larger numbers of people dying in exchange for more personal freedom.

mmm ok sure can we go back to why you think the restrictive measures aren't the primary explanation for the 3x deaths difference between US and Canada? using the scientific method please (since you brought it up).

You are making stuff up.
And you are asking me to use the "scientific method" on a forum? You don't really understand this stuff do you?

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

You are making stuff up.
And you are asking me to use the "scientific method" on a forum? You don't really understand this stuff do you?

you're the one who made the claim that increased restrictions "did not play a 3x role" in the reduction in deaths between US and Canada. go ahead and show your work! i'm inviting you.

also feel free to address that Sweden-Norway study any time.

 

[PhysicX]

I'm glad I don't run with a crowd that all thinks and acts the same way. I get that some of you see this as a watershed moment, but IMO a relatively useless vaccine (people with the Polio vaccine don't get Polio) doesn't seem like a good reason to eliminate long time friendships. But, my relationships are much deeper then if a buddy takes a vaccine or not, we never really talk about the pandemic and I don't get into personal health decision with my buds. Going fishing with 3 of them next week, I'll take an unvaccinated friend that can hook steelhead and shotgun beer over a vaxed ninny wondering when the government will allow him to do 20 mins of circuit training again.

Context: my family is triple vaxxed and we all have contracted Covid. In 2 years don't know anyone that suffered serious health consequences of Covid, including my team of 40 in the US and hundreds of co workers around that team. I know this pandemic is real, but enough already.

A crowd that all thinks and acts the same way... Genius!
I just run with a crowd that believes in, and listens to what science has to offer. And the one or two exceptions finally got vaxxed after friendly debates and because they couldn't hang out with the few groups anymore in summer.

 

[SOLR]

you're the one who made the claim that increased restrictions "did not play a 3x role" in the reduction in deaths between US and Canada. go ahead and show your work! i'm inviting you.

also feel free to address that Sweden-Norway study any time.

You are not inviting anyone, you are issuing a crazy mission for someone who works 60hrs+ a week in public health with a significant research budget (not my job). Luckily dispelling this is easy on first principles:

3x is a non-sensical number because the US did NOT have 3x less mandates/lockdown. Thus logically, if the difference in mandates is not 3x, then something (many other variables) else is going on. The biggest reason seems to be the vaccination difference, the US is 65% vaccinated (the red states much less) - and Canada is around 80% (the prairies much less). Vaccination rates differences are a big factor, and you can prove it at the state level (don't have the time to do it).

 

[PhysicX]

you're the one who made the claim that increased restrictions "did not play a 3x role" in the reduction in deaths between US and Canada. go ahead and show your work! i'm inviting you.

also feel free to address that Sweden-Norway study any time.

SOLR is right. There are many variables to take into account in order to understand why there is a 3x+ death rate in the US in comparison to Canada. It's not as easy as just saying it's the restrictions and lockdowns.

In fact, you would need a very thorough study to figure that shit out. I'm not sure how you'd go about it while trying to encompass every possible factor. But the restriction factor, in my opinion, definitely is a key element in trying to explain the disparity in rates.