Hua Guofang

If you don't know how to judge a successful response, why then up the page did you (and @misteraven) judge Sweden's response to be right/successful? I'm not trying to be a cunt here (that's only part of it!), I just can't understand how, in any way, Sweden's outcome can be considered successful. And now I'm wondering how you thought Sweden that could be doing alright, when you don't yet know how to judge what that actually means. (now I'm just being a cunt)

You're asking me to ignore the part of their strategy that failed in order to say that their strategy didn't fail. They didn't isolate their at most risk people so you can't remove that part of the tally when judging the success of their strategy. IF they did make the decision and those people didn't die, then we'd be having a different conversation. .

How can you remove dead people from a stat of dead people? The stats aren't inflated, that's the number of people who died. Their decision to not isolate the retirement homes was part of the strategy their being judged on. Anyone going to answer me as to what measure we use to judge a successful response to the pandemic?

@misteraven IT was posted in this thread that Sweden did the right thing. My response was to wonder how that can be judged. So I looked at what their measurable stats were and out of 200 odd countries, they were #6 with the highest death per capita. So I want to know, if deaths per capita isn't a good standard of a successful strategy, what is? I note that still nobody has answered that questions yet. The response, from you at least, has been to ignore 50% of the deaths that occurred, like that is somehow a legitimate way to understand an outcome. Those people died, bro. Their deaths are a concrete outcome of the strategy Sweden had in place, so they cannot be removed from the equation. Sure, it's important to understand these lessons for the future, but we're talking about what has already happened here. We're talking about what Sweden did this time and how one of the highest deaths per capita can be seen as a successful outcome. If deaths per capita is not a good measure of a successful strategy in a pandemic, what is? And BTW,, Sweden's economy is still being hammered - they had high deaths AND their only likely going to be a couple of percentage points better in how much their GDP contracts than their neighbours, who did lock down and had many, many less deaths. https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e So, high rate of death AND the economy is still getting fucked. I am really keen to know how you measure a successful strategy if it's not rate of deaths and economic health. If high death and a hit to the economy is what a good outcome looks like, what does a bad outcome look like to you? * I don't know about Belgium or Netherlands, but I'm not arguing that they had a successful strategy or not. I'm just asking why people think Sweden's strategy worked when their deaths are high and their economy is still suffering. ** I fully acknowledge that we can't trust numbers from countries like Russia, China, DPRK, etc.

But hang on, those people DID die and Sweden DIDN'T lock the nursing homes down, that's what happened. Sweden does have one of the highest deaths per capita. You can say that they coulda done this and they coulda done that, but the point remains that they didn't. Historical counter-factuals are irrelevant. Plus, it was only half the death toll from retirement homes, not the vast majority like you have said and the People running the show did not expect anywhere near the deaths that they've had: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sweden-coronavirus-per-capita-death-rate-among-highest-2020-5?r=US&IR=T It does not disappear to near nothing like you claim. Plus, before you talk about misrepresenting anything, please read what I'd already posted above. I don't think that it's up for questioning that I'm aware of the complexity of the issue: It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of social interaction took place in Sweden (was there a lot of WFH, did people still attend religious gatherings with no distancing, how were the elderly treated, what is the average age of the populations, etc. etc.) and what kind of deaths per capita did they get and how does all this compare with countries that did lockdown, that didn't lockdown, etc. etc. I also note that you have not answered the question of how to judge what a successful response is, if deaths per capita is not it. I look forward to reading that soon.

Just to note, as well, as I've said in other posts, I think there will definitely be lessons to be learned here about responding to localised conditions (when dealing with larger countries and spread out populations) rather than having blanket lockdowns across the whole country. Also, more creative ways to allow for more economic activity to continue under trying conditions. It's actually one of the things Australia did well, was cooperation between state and federal level and localised responses. THe states are starting to bicker and carry on now, as politicians do, but the early responses were suprer-effective and I'd say that having a heavy response early on allowed us to not have high infection/death rates and allows us to open up earlier, quicker and with less chance of a debilitating second wave. Time and analysis will tell.

Agree with first point. I also did not make my argument as you've written it here - granted, you quoted me in your post but I did not claim that deaths WOULD have increased by millions. I clearly said that there is still a lot of work required to come to a conclusion on that, but suggested what the conclusion would likely be. As to second point - the US lockdown came waaaaay too late to be a useful comparison. Try comparing it to New Zealand and Australia that did lock down early. Also compare it to their neighbouring countries, Finland and Norway which did lockdown and have similar demographics. That would be a much more valid comparison. Secondly, Sweden may not have closed its border, but given that all its neighbours did the effect was the same as if its borders were closed. But I agree, that there are many variables to consider yet, which I covered in my final paragraph.

FIFY Was driving home doing 80 on an 80 road yesterday on a two lane road. Moved into the right hand lane to turn right. Dude (clearly a tradie in a V8 ute) came flying up behind me, doing at least 110 as I'm starting to slow for the corner (which is tight and I had oncoming traffic). Dude literally abused me for slowing to turn right and for not kamakazi-ing into oncoming cars. No idea what was going through his head and why he felt he was more entitled than me to use the road. Fucking hate tradies on the road.

I remember hearing about the dancing Israelis like two days after the attacks. I've not seen anything other than "there were Israelis dancing on a roof that worked for a company that was shut down quickly after 9/11", as that seems to be all there is to the story. I've seen a lot of stuff posted about it, but it's mostly rantings from anonymous folk on the internet with no actual facts but stuff that can have numerous plausible explanations. (people often think that because something is possible of being true that there is nothing else needed to believe it. They ignore that you also have to disprove other plausible explanations before you can land on what is most likely. It's our biases at work.) Regards the Israelis, I tend to think if you had people covertly working on such a large and world-changing operation for so many years, that damaged the country that ensures their own existence, that they would be unlikely to be dancing on the rooftops about it, just at the time when everyone is looking out their windows. I'm not saying it's impossible that they were linked (or that they even existed) but that I feel it's unlikely to the point of being implausible. Regards 9/11 as a whole, I'm the same as you, I can never really say that it was 100% this or that. Because how the fuck would I truly know? There have been large-scale conspiracies carried out by govts before - the Suez Canal crisis is the obvious case and I would also put elements of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in that category as well. James Clapper, the head of US geospatial intelligence at the time is on record saying that he feels that no matter what the intelligence community told the govt, the Bush admin had already made its mind up that they were going to war. (he also details how his failures assisted the govt to going to war as he was part of the team that said they'd likely located the mobile chem weapons labs that Chalabi (screwball) had convinced them existed.) So it's possible that the story around the Saudis was just a front for something else, but I've seen nothing that convinces me of that. Gut also feels that it wasn't a big conspiracy as I can't see what anyone would have achieved out of doing it.

Not speaking for people in this thread, more so for those in emergency/crisis management - when you have a threat that could be catastrophic you don't have much chance but to over-react, because the costs of under-reacting are potentially much higher than the costs of over-reacting. That's not to say that over-reacting is without serious consequences, of course. There will be a lot of work in the coming years to analyse how better to have a localised response than we did this time. Two points: this was new to everyone, so there will be a lot of mistakes made. There shouldn't have been this many mistakes made as govt all over the world had been warned to prep for a pandemic for decades and that wasn't done. We do surveys of national security priorities among the professionals pretty often and biosecurity is always in the top three priorities. There is a very clear case to be made for lcokdowns slowing the spread, though. Of course, there is a lot of work to reach a disprovable conclusion as yet, but it's pretty hard to argue that just going about your daily life as if there was no pandemic wouldn't have increased the deaths per million. Sweden is interesting as people seem to be arguing that they didn't have lockdowns and they're ok. That misrepresents two issues: they are not ok, they have a very high deaths per-capita. Secondly, the govt may not have locked down but normal life did not continue as people are trying to make out. It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of social interaction took place in Sweden (was there a lot of WFH, did people still attend religious gatherings with no distancing, how were the elderly treated, what is the average age of the populations, etc. etc.) and what kind of deaths per capita did they get and how does all this compare with countries that did lockdown, that didn't lockdown, etc. etc.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.

How do you measure success, though? Sweden has the 6th highest known deaths per capita in the world. That is a much, much higher count compared to other countries like Finland, South Korea, Norway, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia, etc., who had greater control of movement than Sweden. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeADemocracynow(2020) dvegas1? I would remove the micro-states from the link immediately above as their populations and territories are so small compared to other countries that they become statistical outliers.

Couple of markers and a pad within reach during a boring webinar.

This seems more like a self-congratulatory rant than a considered position. You've conflated expert opinion with mainstream positions and/or the official position, which is obviously erroneous. As an illustration of this, much of the time, in history, it is the experts who are going against the common sense or mainstream position. Honestly, this post is just a bunch of bias that I'm not sure how to respond to as you have a strong opinion on how the bureaucracy works without having any actual exposure to it at the levels you refer to and you want use stats based on partial data. I'm not sure your position is credible. My point is that expertise has its place. Of course, we should all, always use critical thinking and question all points. But if I'm going to make some decisions on asset safety (or whatever it is you do), I'm coming to some one like you to ask questions and get opinions. I might seek another expert for a second opinion and then make an informed and considered decision (did those guys know their shit, where they just trying to make a buck, what is their reputation like, are there any reviews, etc. etc.), but it will still be my decision. The same will be for medical, engineering, legal, etc. etc. I'm sure as fuck not going to take the word of some one whose read a couple of books and blog posts and decides that they have all the answers. Expertise is a starting point and sometimes you just gotta take some one's word for it. I sure as fuck don't want you up in the cockpit of the 747 telling the pilot what he's doing wrong because you read a book and played around on a mate's simulator. .

It's definitely a wicked problem as one solution just throws up new problems, either way you go. I don't like the idea of a church being forced to marry a gay couple (worth noting though, I've seen many priests say that nowhere in the bible does it say being a homo is a sin), as people should not be forced to act against their beliefs. However, where does it stand when Macy's or Bergstroms decides that they won't allow black people or Latinos in their shops because they feel there is a high chance that they will shoplift? What about when a chain of Texan steakhouses refuse to serve anyone with a JEwish sounding name or schools won't allow Asian looking kids enrol because they might have the rona? Again, I understand that forcing people to not discriminate raises its own problems as well, such as fatties suing strip clubs and Muslim bakeries being forced to draw pics of Mohammad. But I think those situations are so small and trivial compared to the social instability that outright racism, etc. can cause when society is allowed to be divided like that. The mask situation is a little different as it's based on behaviour rather than identity or core beliefs (such as religion, identity, etc.). Just like you can knock back a drunk from a bar or a naked person from public transport.

*Fail

Whereas I, on the other hand, are busy as fuck, and have no reason to be procrastinating

Fucking street hike??! First time I heard that lame bullshit marketing attempt.

Dead.

100 pages in and I’m reminded that 99.9% of fiction shits me.

Today, the president played 9 holes of golf. Tomorrow, the nation hits 100k next week, he’ll throw some other chum for the idiots to froth over instead of what matters. And froth they will.

*Even less qualified than you.

Just received a pre-release copy of this. I'm probably the only person in my game that hasn't read Ghost Fleet but everyone raves about it.

Forgot one

Yeah, that's what I'd been hearing as well and one of the reasons why I don't give it much time. I'll check it out.