all 4 comments

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Id like to add:

The UK recently had a study that showed about 13% of London had antibodies (end of july) and 17% had it in mid May.

What isn't being talked about is that antiboodies don.t last long. About a quarter of Covid positive patients have no measurable antibody response, and even the hospitalised nealy all lost them by twelve weeks.

So the 13% currently showing antibodies is only those in about the past 8-10 weels. Anyone infected prior to mid may (the outbreak peak was early april to late may) isn't showing up in these antibody tests.

The bulk of the deaths happened before late may. This has important implications for mortality and how close Londn, and the rest of the UK, is to herd immunity.

It suggests IFR is between 0.2% and 0.1%, and immunity in London around 50%. The R for Covid is estimated to be around 2.7, which means herd immunity at around 65%.

London is probably very close to herd immunity.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People simply don't know you can be immune to something without antibodies, your bodies have a few different ways of fighting viruses. It's lack of education, such is purposeful at this point when we hear nothing but covid 24/7.

[–]ISaidWhatISaid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you have a million dollars, do you spend it all to save one life, or do you spend it where it will statistically have the most impact and help the most people? Do you spend it all on a life that is ending soon or a life that has a long way to go? The former is what we've been doing with COVID.

Depressingly, that's exactly what the data shows as well: Facts are increasingly useless.

I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing this occur in many other instances, including parenting and healthcare, where people are only able to process "oh my god people are dying", and entirely unable to do any sort of objective, higher level, logical cost-benefit analysis that is based on facts and statistics. Instead, they simply react emotionally and drastically

TL;DR: old & sick people deserve to die - signed, young & healthy people. Stop concern-trolling when what you're really advocating is literal eugenics.

Also, what Sweden is actually doing (watch the whole Livestream if you have the time, which you probably do if you had the time to draft up such a megapost):

Always follow the money when it comes to these kinds of geopolitical policy decisions (whether to stay open or lock up is a geopolitical decision, not just an economic one), but then again, according to you "facts are increasingly useless".

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"deserve" is such a loaded and misleading word. Old & sick people will always die before young & healthy people, even given infinite resources.

"literal eugenics" would include the ability for one group to thrive and reproduce over another. The old & sick have already had their children and if the median age of 81 years is correct, have lived a full and long life relative to most anyone on the planet, ever.

Yes, "facts" are in fact "increasingly useless" if you believe that you can buy an 80 year old the same amount of additional life as a 40 year old.

Listening to that livestream now. Interesting. She is the foreign affairs minister though, not the health minister. So of course she's talking about geopolitics with Russia relative to this.