Keep in mind that my estimate was for a person who contracts COVID tomorrow in a state where the health care system is not overwhelmed. The fatality rate was and is much higher for people who contract COVID in a state where health care resources are stretched. And it certainly was higher in the very early stages of the pandemic, when hospitals had less information about the best ways to treat patients in severe distress.

The fatality rate to date in the U.S. surely is higher than the chances of dying for my hypothetical person.

Evolving.

The only fair answer for the IFR for Covid is 'evolving'.

Pre any understanding of the best ways to treat it and the equipment to do so (steroids, remdesivir, ventilators), obviously the IFR would be much higher.

Then we went into a World Wide lockdown stage, which the 'It's just the Flu', Bro's always want to ignore. And that data is now filtering into the calculation of the IFR. But you cannot reasonably try to lock in any IFR during a worldwide lockdown that is not sustainable, when things will return to a new normal, and the virus will be allowed to run again.

(Of course factors like a vaccine or new therapeutics may also emerge driving IFR down)

Your post in the UK thread was a massive solar flare of hot takes and absolute factual falsehoods. Reading widely on a subject is not the same as having a gargantuan selection bias and only receiving information that confirms such.

Im not trolling or being insulting, but you seem to be objectively close to actually being clinically insane on this issue given your opinion is so absolutely divorced from reality.

All completely fair.

The **** you were posting in there is exactly the attitude and the arguments behind why the US is ****ed right now. Opening up with minimal restrictions when the virus was at low levels but not eradicated is how we got to where we are. To think that your proposal would work in the UK is absolutely living in denial of what has happened across the pond from you. Smudger was posting the same bullshit about hospitals: they didn't get overwhelmed, therefore they can't get overwhelmed. Guess what? They got overwhelmed.

Two entirely different situations. I don't know enough about the situation in the US to compare and contrast, but that's not helpful in the context of what is happening in the UK - here there is extremely clear data that Covid had peaked before we locked down, and there is also extremely clear data that the health service had capacity at all times. I'm not sure how you can put those two together and come to a conclusion that the NHS is going to crash, unless you're talking about all the additional cancer, pulmonary etc patients that we'll see in the following years after we went to a Covid first, second and everything up to 94th on the priority list policy

Again, the US situation may be different but that has little relevance in the context of a British politics thread

It's not going to crash if you stay on the current course, no. Your proposal to change course and open up with minimal social distancing restrictions is insane, and that most definitely can lead to overwhelming the NHS. That is exactly what happened here. Exactly.

Forgive me, I might be missing something here, but are you saying that the rate of infection peaked before the measures to contain the rate of infection were implemented, and using that as evidence that the measures were unnecessary?

There are arguments that States like Texas and Florida and Arizona have peaked and even declined a bit to a new flat level. But 'peaked' and even 'decline' does not mean it is at a sustainable level for the healthcare system to accommodate the daily influxes.

You need to get rates of new infections down, and thus the correlating hospitalizations, to a point where you are discharging people at a rate faster then the you are admitting them.

The UK was at no where near those levels, as it peaked before lockdown, just as these US states are not. Thus why additional mitigation efforts were necessitated.

We locked down on March 23rd, new cases on that day = 877.

News cases on April 10th = 7860.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

You are bouncing off walls here.

There is no need to repeat the arguments here (which would defeat the purpose of the moderation in the first place). Comments should go towards the moderation and whether this kind of censorship is tolerable.

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't see the deleted posts, so it would be difficult to discuss unless the moderated poster gives us some indication to their content.

Not saying anything more after this, as this is a moderation thread, and probably not saying any more on Covid full stop, as there seems to be a clear desire for 2+2 to only promote one side of any story on this, but to answer these two:

I don't know where "here" is (Canada I want to say?), so I can't comment on how well your health service is/was prepared to cope with something like Covid, or the general state of play in terms of the population. All I know is that given the current situation in the UK in terms of:

- previous rates of virus growth
- previous levels of NHS usage
- increased knowledge of the severity of Covid at all levels indicating that it is nowhere near as dangerous as first feared back in January/February, primarily due to not having any clue as to quite how many are asymptomatic
- the levels of protection that are already in the general public from the bodies' own general defences and cross-protection from other coronaviruses, which were previously known either not to exist, or the extent of said protection was substantially underestimated
- the percentage of people that have already come into contact with the virus;

That in the UK at least, there is every reason to believe that society could reopen as a whole with just minimal restrictions, i.e. wash your hands, proper Covid security for hospitals/nursing settings (although given half of care homes have already had outbreaks, this is partially shutting the door after the horse has bolted), if you're finding working at home useful, encourage companies to keep allowing people to do it for some or part of the time, if you really need to shield, give support to allow people to do that more effectively. There'd be an upward trend in cases, but proportionally less hospitalisation increases, and nowhere near the level of an upward trend to anything like the level where there's a risk of NHS overload. Coupled with an immediate cut to the 24/7 government/media fear output, we can limit the unprecedented non-Covid health crisis, which is already happening and will already dwarf the number of deaths from Covid - the continued policy of looking at Covid in a vacuum with no regard for anything else is incredibly dangerous.

The government's own data and minutes from the government's own committees both indicate that R had gone below 1 in mid March, a good week before Boris shut the country, I'm just repeating that.

Thanks for clarifying. Would you be able to provide a citation for this, as well as the claim that the peak was reached before lockdown? I am in the UK FWIW, so my interest in this is not purely academic.

I'm in the United States. Your takes are absolutely insane.

If quoting figures from the centre for disease control and World health organisation is ban worthy then there isn't much left that is allowed to be cited.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/f...26/5269331002/

This coincides with the Ioannidis study by the way.

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...are-influenza/

The argument is done. But let's just nail this with a bit of critical thinking. These figures are out of date. Since then deaths have steadily declined to a negligible figure (bearing in mind we are talking about the UK) while cases continue to be published as being on an upward trend with the claim to be out of control in some areas hence a reversal of loosening restrictions. Hmm, wonder what the effect will be on the IFR as deaths go down and infections go up.

That is all. To answer the question, of course the moderation was disproportionate but I am used to it.

Even if the true IFR is exactly equal to the flu, which in reality is only possible if you compare the worst flus with the lowest estimates of covid-19 IFRs, covid-19 is still vastly more dangerous, because there's a flu vaccine. People who are vaccinated and immune to the flu don't factor into the flu's fatality rate, as they never count as infected. Meanwhile, far more people are susceptible to covid-19 precisely because there is no vaccine. Furthermore, while the flu hasn't been shown to have longterm health effects once you've recovered, we see in significant numbers of covid-19 patients substantial lingering abnormalities in their hearts and lungs, even in patients who recovered at home and needed no hospitalization, indicating it is still far worse to get covid-19 than the flu, even if you don't get a bad case and don't die.

I'm a-ok with sending the COVIDiots posters back to whatever Qanon hangout they came from.

On your nickel, Trolly?

Its worth pointing out that 6/4 is the UK analogue of a hard core Trump bro, e.g. a hard core Brexiter, and thus its no surprise his opinions on C19 are an exact analogue also.

Oh right, good to know. 6/4 are probably the odds against him coming up with the citations I requested, then.

If I may presume, I think your side of the argument is that the harm caused by anti-covid measures aren't being given due attention. You and I wont agree on the conclusion about where the balance of action should be but I'd agree that some have been way too slow to realise just how bad it's going to be - as I've remarked, until fairly recently 'idiots' were wondering if there would be a recession! This is going to be devastating for many and that definitely includes to health outcomes.

For us, the UK thread is probably the best place to discuss this although it's obviously widespread (which is also part of the problem for the UK economy)

His side of the argument is that C19 would go away on its own.

I'm getting warnings for stating that owning counterfeit money is a crime and that george floyd was intoxicated at his time of arrest as proven by his toxicology report?

it's not surprising that it's the same leftist mod that does this every time

even deleting exchanges where he looks like a dunce

You guys keep making heroes out of the worst people then are shocked when people don't agree with your views

If you want to cry about the modding this is the thread for it. You received a warning for making a couple of inflammatory, and imo pretty racist, posts in a row.

No one deleted your prior instance of griping, TD moved those posts and responses here.

Thanks