Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

14% below the threshold at which they're considered excess, i.e. no excess deaths in the most recent time period. It may or may not mean they're below normal, as this chart isn't designed to track that.

---

Isn't normal by definition no excess deaths?

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

we are below the predictive curve aka negative excess deaths for the time period. If O remember correctly, 2020 originally predicted about 2.94 million deaths

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

we are below the predictive curve aka negative excess deaths for the time period. If O remember correctly, 2020 originally predicted about 2.94 million deaths

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but we're obviously way above the line for the year to date. There would have to be an incredible deficit in the next few months in order for that to change.

---

Gruvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

we are below the predictive curve aka negative excess deaths for the time period. If O remember correctly, 2020 originally predicted about 2.94 million deaths

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but we're obviously way above the line for the year to date. There would have to be an incredible deficit in the next few months in order for that to change.

---

the predictive model curves upward in the winter. We were over predictive normal in spring and summer but we will probably drop below as we roll into winter. I dont expect a full balance of all the excess deaths but i do expect us to run under the predictive line. The total predictive death for all causes was 2.94 million. Covid was not part of that calculation. If we get to 3.0 million deaths at the end of the year then the true excess would be about 60k for example...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

we are below the predictive curve aka negative excess deaths for the time period. If O remember correctly, 2020 originally predicted about 2.94 million deaths

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but we're obviously way above the line for the year to date. There would have to be an incredible deficit in the next few months in order for that to change.

---

the predictive model curves upward in the winter. We were over predictive normal in spring and summer but we will probably drop below as we roll into winter. I dont expect a full balance of all the excess deaths but i do expect us to run under the predictive line. The total predictive death for all causes was 2.94 million. Covid was not part of that calculation. If we get to 3.0 million deaths at the end of the year then the true excess would be about 60k for example...

---

Why would we run below the line in winter?

---

Gruvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

I could not tell from the article whether they were saying excess deaths for the most recent time period were down 14% of a normal time period (ie we were having "negative excess deaths") or were down 14% from what the CDC had predicted (ie still having excess deaths, just not as many).

---

we are below the predictive curve aka negative excess deaths for the time period. If O remember correctly, 2020 originally predicted about 2.94 million deaths

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but we're obviously way above the line for the year to date. There would have to be an incredible deficit in the next few months in order for that to change.

---

the predictive model curves upward in the winter. We were over predictive normal in spring and summer but we will probably drop below as we roll into winter. I dont expect a full balance of all the excess deaths but i do expect us to run under the predictive line. The total predictive death for all causes was 2.94 million. Covid was not part of that calculation. If we get to 3.0 million deaths at the end of the year then the true excess would be about 60k for example...

---

Why would we run below the line in winter?

---

the predictive line moves up by nature and there are researchers saying we clocked some of our winter deaths already during the covid pandemic. Basically, people that would have died over this winter died early...

---

Quote:

---

Johnson announced fines of up to 10,000 pounds ($12,900) on Saturday for people in England who break new rules requiring them to self-isolate if they have been in contact with someone infected with COVID-19.

---

Quote:

---

Texas will allow restaurants, stores, and other businesses to expand their capacity starting next week, Governor Greg Abbott announced Thursday following a decline in new coronavirus cases, but it remains one of the nation's hardest-hit states.

---

quash said:

---

Open the ****ing bars Abbott. Citizens are on notice of the consequences.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I'm concerned that we don't know if the numbers coming from China are accurate. China does seem to be taking pretty dramatic measures in attempt to stop the spread. That is reassuring and also kind of scary. If their numbers are accurate, the mortality rate doesn't seem too high. I have heard some people say corona virus tends to dissipate in the spring. So we can hope for that.

---

The Chinese lie about everything.

Chinese businessmen are notorious for not fulfilling their obligations after saying they will to your face.

Integrity and honesty is not part of their culture like English common law is, so it wouldn't surprise me if they are downplaying this thing.

---

J.R. said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

I'm concerned that we don't know if the numbers coming from China are accurate. China does seem to be taking pretty dramatic measures in attempt to stop the spread. That is reassuring and also kind of scary. If their numbers are accurate, the mortality rate doesn't seem too high. I have heard some people say corona virus tends to dissipate in the spring. So we can hope for that.

---

The Chinese lie about everything.

Chinese businessmen are notorious for not fulfilling their obligations after saying they will to your face.

Integrity and honesty is not part of their culture like English common law is, so it wouldn't surprise me if they are downplaying this thing.

---

come on Doc. Mr. Trumps said Xi and China were being transparent!!! Multiple times.

---

Quote:

---

In examining some 442 US universities, Galloway estimates that more than 20 percent could fail because of the lockdowns, and that another 30 percent will struggle to remain open. That's 50 percent of US colleges and universities at very serious (or mortal) risk.

---

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know that wasn't the interventionism.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know that wasn't the interventionism.

---

That's the problem with your take on the analogy. You're conflating the origin of a war with the manner of its prosecution.

We didn't go looking for this, but we should be in it to win it.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know that wasn't the interventionism.

---

That's the problem with your take on the analogy. You're conflating the origin of a war with the manner of its prosecution.

We didn't go looking for this, but we should be in it to win it.

---

You brought up the war analogy - not me. It's not on all fours - no analogies are. But the interventionism (here, lockdowns of all people, including healthy young people and shutting down businesses) creating more damage than it does positives holds, as it does in many large scale government interventions.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know that wasn't the interventionism.

---

That's the problem with your take on the analogy. You're conflating the origin of a war with the manner of its prosecution.

We didn't go looking for this, but we should be in it to win it.

---

You brought up the war analogy - not me. It's not on all fours - no analogies are. But the interventionism (here, lockdowns of all people, including healthy young people and shutting down businesses) creating more damage than it does positives holds, as it does in many large scale government interventions.

---

That's debatable, but it's better than the statism argument. Certainly some wars do more harm than good. That doesn't mean the expenditure of public funds or the loss of freedom through conscription and rationing are inherently statist. The same holds true for quarantines and other methods of fighting a pandemic. Both are national security situations requiring unusual, and temporary, measures. The basic disagreement is whether such a situation now exists.

Which again goes back to the science.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny, how some here use the phrase "the science" with the reverence one usually sees in FLDS cults.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/18/science.abd6165?utm_campaign=fr_sci_2020-09-21&et_rid=687438071&et_cid=3488864

COVID-19 in children and young people

Children have a low risk of COVID-19 and are disproportionately harmed by precautions

Quote:

---

The role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear; however, existing evidence points to educational settings playing only a limited role in transmission when mitigation measures are in place, in marked contrast to other respiratory viruses. In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools. There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children's wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.

---

---

This falls under the category of "no ****, Sherlock."

This pandemic mitigation strategy of wholesale lockdowns will be looked back upon as not only unnecessary economic seppuku and a shocking violation of basic civil rights but also an utterly selfish maneuver of upper middle class and upper class middle aged and folks against the young and the working class.

---

The working class will remember it that way because that's what they chose to make it. Instead of accepting reasonable public health measures and demanding the economic assistance they deserved, they wallowed in self-pitying fantasies and made believe we could all libertarian our way out of this if the evil scientists would just go away. And when a worse pandemic comes along we'll be less prepared as a result.

---

How are your rain dancers doing? Making you feel better at least?

---

It's no surprise if scientists and shamans command roughly equal respect here.

---

Anything cloaked as science is the new social religion, and on many fronts they are of the same value as shaman, except they can do more damage than a rain dance when we hand them the reins to an entire society.

I'm particularly amused by your notion that handing out big welfare checks is an offset to taking away peoples' freedom and livelihoods. Congrats on swallowing statism hook line and sinker.

---

It's no more statist than funding a war. The difference is that wars play better on TV than respiratory illnesses, so it's a lot easier to convince people they exist.

---

I of course did not say that the respiratory illness doesn't exist. But, similar to some of our recent wars, our overreaching state interventionism caused more problems than it solved. Good analogy. This could be the beginning of a treatise on iatrogenics.

---

It's hard to call it interventionism when the enemy hits your home shores.

---

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know that wasn't the interventionism.

---

That's the problem with your take on the analogy. You're conflating the origin of a war with the manner of its prosecution.

We didn't go looking for this, but we should be in it to win it.

---

You brought up the war analogy - not me. It's not on all fours - no analogies are. But the interventionism (here, lockdowns of all people, including healthy young people and shutting down businesses) creating more damage than it does positives holds, as it does in many large scale government interventions.

---

That's debatable, but it's better than the statism argument. Certainly some wars do more harm than good. That doesn't mean the expenditure of public funds or the loss of freedom through conscription and rationing are inherently statist. The same holds true for quarantines and other methods of fighting a pandemic. Both are national security situations requiring unusual, and temporary, measures. The basic disagreement is whether such a situation now exists.

Which again goes back to the science.

---

You've bitten off on both an inherent trust in heavy state action (supported by #science which requires about as much faith as watching your old local shaman throw down his rain dance) and the justification that all the damage wrought by the state action is sufficiently balmed by some welfare. None of this has been more than a fear-driven hail mary. But the chattering classes were all about it because they were largely shielded from the costs, which fell heavily on working classes and the young. That does remind you of war, doesn't it?

---