Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

And as we know, you can catch the burgers just from sitting next to someone on a bus. 

Again you are looking at this only in terms of contagion, rather than take this seriously as the war like situation it is said to be.

Even if  lockdown and / or vaccine eliminated risk 100% of a specific virus for a person who is at avoidable risk, this leaves another 99%+ of related health problems that can lead to an early grave not dealt with, and you are still as vulnerable as before for any future strains or viruses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Peter Hun

    2511

  • Confusion of VIs

    1928

  • Grayphil

    1925

  • Arpeggio

    1686

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

They were called, and there was an inspection directorate for Konzentrationslager. That's 'concentration camps'. Relatives of mine spent time incarcerated in them. 

I don't doubt that privately, within the corridors of power of the regime, they would have been referred to truthfully as concentration camps from the outset - and later on more publicly as such.  But the propaganda to justify them was for 'protective custody' - an obviously misleading term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

The legal basis for the arrests were the previous practice of "protective custody", which meant either to restrict a person's liberty for their own protection, or "taking seditious elements into custody during emergencies",

In any case, My sympathies to you on your family history - I once had a personal conversation with an Auschwitz survivor and won't forget that!

Edited by anonguest
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Again you are looking at this only in terms of contagion, rather than take this seriously as the war like situation it is said to be.

No, I'm looking at this from a position of logic, that's all. 

16 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Even if  lockdown and / or vaccine eliminated risk 100% of a specific virus for a person who is at avoidable risk, this leaves another 99%+ of related health problems that can lead to an early grave not dealt with, and you are still as vulnerable as before for any future strains or viruses.

Like I said, logic. Try it sometime, you may surprise yourself. It would certainly surprise people here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

I don't doubt that privately, within the corridors of the power of the regime, they would have been referred to truthfully as concentration camps from the outset - and later on more publicly as such. 

Ah, that's somewhat different to your original statement, though. 

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

But the propaganda to justify them was for 'protective custody' - an obviously misleading term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

The legal basis for the arrests were the previous practice of "protective custody", which meant either to restrict a person's liberty for their own protection, or "taking seditious elements into custody during emergencies",

Yes, although by the late 1930s I'm not sure how many believed such euphemisms. 

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

In any case, My sympathies to you on your family history

Thank you. That person survived, although not with their faith intact. My first serious girlfriend's family pretty much all died in Auschwitz apart from her grandparents and parent and siblings. 

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

This does not refute the previous point. If I am run over and have asthma, have I died of asthma? 

Quote

Or look at excess deaths, Sweden had fewer deaths in 2020 than 2018.

No, it did not. I went through this with you before, I think, and you'd posted stats for the whole of 2018, but only part of 2020.

From statistica, below. 2020 highest death rate for decades. (I ran out of figures). Eyeballing, 8% above trend. Exact figures below. 

2018:,92,185 2020:97,941

Edited by NobodyInParticular
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

Ah, that's somewhat different to your original statement, though.

I'll accept it was not perhaps articulated well enough.

I was trying to draw a parallel to history, admittedly with a powerfully emotive example, where the establishment very early on used methods that were, even then to any rational decent person, disproportionate to the situation and justifications claimed by the regime  AND that deliberately misleading terms and propaganda were employed to get the public 'on board'.  Once the precedent had been set and a seat taken on the slippery slope what followed was made that much easier to come to pass.

As said, that TPTB/some policy makers are contemplating such measures clearly points to a degree of irrational hysteria in their current mindset.

Edited by anonguest
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

And as we know, you can catch the burgers just from sitting next to someone on a bus. 

11 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

No, I'm looking at this from a position of logic, that's all. 

Like I said, logic. Try it sometime, you may surprise yourself. It would certainly surprise people here. 

OK Burgers, and looking at factors that are unique to the majority of C19 deaths are not logic. Got it thanks.

6 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

https://nypost.com/2020/03/18/over-99-of-coronavirus-patients-in-italy-who-died-had-other-illnesses/

Or look at excess deaths, Sweden had fewer deaths in 2020 than 2018.

"More than 99% of coronavirus patients who died in Italy suffered from other, pre-existing health issues, according to a study by the country’s health officials."

I wonder what % of those were avoidable issues.

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

This does not refute the previous point. If I am run over and have asthma, have I died of asthma?

If you had a positive PCR test it could be reported as a COVID19 death. If you died of just Asthma after PCR even more likely.

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-man-killed-crash-listed-covid-19-death-raising-doubts-over-health-data-1518994

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

No, it did not. I went through this with you before, I think, and you'd posted stats for the whole of 2018, but only part of 2020.

From statistica, below. 2020 highest death rate for decades. (I ran out of figures). Eyeballing, 8% above trend. Exact figures below. 

2018:,92,185 2020:97,941

They've refreshed those stats since I last looked at it.

Anyhow if you adjust that for population size:

92,185 / 9,971,638 =  0.93%

97,941 / 10,099,265 = 0.97%

In 2018 deaths that would be 92,185 vs 96,724 or 4539 excess deaths

If we generously assume that all those excess deaths are covid deaths and not caused by lack of medical treatment for other conditions that would imply about ~60% of the official swedish covid death count (~10,000) is deaths that would have happened anyway. That's the worst case the number is likely much higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

My point is the statistics are deliberately being presented in a way to cause the maximum terror, to people that don't understand statistics.

Lies, Damn lies and Statistics, as the saying goes.

Edited by Arpeggio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anonguest said:

I'll accept it was not perhaps articulated well enough.

I was trying to draw a parallel to history, admittedly with a powerfully emotive example, where the establishment very early on used methods that were, even then to any rational decent person, disproportionate to the situation and justifications claimed by the regime  AND that deliberately misleading terms and propaganda were employed to get the public 'on board'.  Once the precedent had been set and a seat taken on the slippery slope what followed was made that much easier to come to pass.

As said, that TPTB/some policy makers are contemplating such measures clearly points to a degree of irrational hysteria in their current mindset.

I don't see any points of comparison with lockdown and Nazi atrocities. I find any hint of comparison pretty offensive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

I don't see any points of comparison with lockdown and Nazi atrocities. I find any hint of comparison pretty offensive. 

You're now taking the example given grossly out of context (possibly vexatiously so).  I am making no comparison with the grotesque Nazi actions or in anyway 'debasing' those actions by comparing them with the completely different situation of the pandemic.  I will try, again, to articulate the concern at hand.

The issue and concern raised is that, as history shows and human behaviour can easily permit to happen again, restrictive and punitive measures are implemented that are wholly unjustified - but in the irrational minds of those responsible seem perfectly acceptable.  Such actions fall into the category of 'legislate in haste and repent at leisure'.

Edited by anonguest
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

What a guy!

 

howtoliewithstatistics.jpg

Everyone should read that book (assuming it is not photoshopped in) as it shows how people misuse them, so it's illuminating. It also shows classes of statistical errors people make unintentionally. 

58 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

They've refreshed those stats since I last looked at it.

I told you thru would, as the ones you used before were only up to the end of November. But you didn't listen. Guess who was right. 

58 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

Anyhow if you adjust that for population size:

92,185 / 9,971,638 =  0.93%

97,941 / 10,099,265 = 0.97%

In 2018 deaths that would be 92,185 vs 96,724 or 4539 excess deaths

If we generously assume that all those excess deaths are covid deaths and not caused by lack of medical treatment for other conditions that would imply about ~60% of the official swedish covid death count (~10,000) is deaths that would have happened anyway.

You may be right in aggregate, but we don't tend to consider people like that. Some of the people who would have died of flu may have isolated and have survived and some who were healthy and woukd not, died of COVID. If you read the top book in the stack of Bill Gates' set you can find out how you can pool data like this and fool others or yourself. 

58 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

That's the worst case the number is likely much higher.

Still waiting for you to withdraw your inaccurate comment about deaths in Sweden in 2018 and 2020.

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

OK Burgers, and looking at factors that are unique to the majority of C19 deaths are not logic. Got it thanks.

No, they aren't a pandemic can infect you even if you are not trying to ingest it. It's pretty hard to eat a burger by accident. You are making a spurious comparison. 

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

"More than 99% of coronavirus patients who died in Italy suffered from other, pre-existing health issues, according to a study by the country’s health officials."

I wonder what % of those were avoidable issues.

Some. But are you prepared to wash your hands of someone who has diabetes and let them die or discount their death? You sound like a eugenicist.

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

If you had a positive PCR test it could be reported as a COVID19 death. If you died of just Asthma after PCR even more likely.

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-man-killed-crash-listed-covid-19-death-raising-doubts-over-health-data-1518994

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anonguest said:

You're now taking the example given grossly out of context (possibly vexatiously so).  I am making no comparison with the grotesque Nazi actions or in anyway 'debasing' those actions by comparing them with the completely different situation of the pandemic.  I will try, again, to articulate the concern at hand.

It was a stupid, lazy attempt at comparison. 

1 minute ago, anonguest said:

The issue and concern raised is that, as history shows and human behaviour can easily permit to happen again, restrictive and punitive measures are implemented that are wholly unjustified - but in the irrational minds of those responsible seem perfectly acceptable.  Such actions fall into the category of 'legislate in haste and repent at leisure'.

Your second paragraph is true. But I don't see any evidence of this over covid in the UK. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

It was a stupid, lazy attempt at comparison.

With respect it was not!  It was a perfectly justfiable and relatively modern episode of human history to use as an example of how bad, but in isolation seemingly innocuous small actions, cumulatively can ultimately end in horror.

Laws of increasing severity are made acceptable through past precedents.  They key is not get on to the slippery slope at all in the first place.

Your second paragraph is true. But I don't see any evidence of this over covid in the UK. 

I made no reference to the UK.  i was also making a specific point of how, unbelievably of all places, these proposed worrying measures are being discussed/proposed in Germany!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anonguest said:

IF, and I say IF, I were then it would likely be only very very very marginally.  The key bit here is the manner in which detentions would be imposed (e.g. dragged from ones home at 6am on the decision of local plod vs proper due process court action, with right to defend oneself, etc) and safeguards (e.g. limits on duration, etc)

My objection remains though at the idea of forcible detention/incarceration as a 'protection' against a threat that isn't socio-economically destructive in extent to warrant/justify such action, i.e. the punishment is disproportionate to the claimed damage wrought by the offender.  IF it were the Black Death (or perhaps even just SARS proper) then very possibly yes.  IF it is a wartime situation and the offender is engaging in activity that will result in numbers of deaths which can be de facto guaranteed to be prevented by taking the offender out of circulation (e.g WW2/blitz - failing to maintain their home blackout and so aiding enemy bombers etc) - then yes again.

The mere thought of implementing such actions, given the situation, points strongly to such policy makers as having let themselves descend into an irrationally panicked and 'headless chicken' frame of mind.

Let's never forget that the Nazis never referred to their camps as concentration camps but 'places of protective custody' - where they sought to protect the public from people who they decided were dangerous.  Not to the public but dangerous to them!  IF we already live in a society where just uttering certain words in public will get you imprisoned then do you honestly believe government will never incarcerate people who, one day, choose to publicly preach the opposite of what the government wants you to hear and do?

Why pick on the Germans with nonsense talk about Nazis, we lock people up all the time for driving without a licence, irrespective of whether they were putting people at a specific risk - they are locked up for refusing to do what they are told. There are plenty of other similar examples e.g. not paying the TV licence or fines.  

If you did a risk assessment I suspect you would find that Covid carries/potential carriers who refuse to isolate are a much bigger risk to others than people driving without a licence, driving while drunk or even leaving those leaving a light on during the Blitz.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Why pick on the Germans with nonsense talk about Nazis, we lock people up all the time for driving without a licence, irrespective of whether they were putting people at a specific risk - they are locked up for refusing to do what they are told. There are plenty of other similar examples e.g. not paying the TV licence or fines.  

If you did a risk assessment I suspect you would find that Covid carries/potential carriers who refuse to isolate are a much bigger risk to others than people driving without a licence, driving while drunk or even leaving those leaving a light on during the Blitz.  

 

Because......it just so happens, incredulously, that it is German politicians suggesting these dramatic measures.

Also.....I am not aware that driving without a license, unless perhaps a grossly repeated offence and/or with other unusual circumstances, is ordinarily treated with imprisonment?  fines and bans, yes.  But imprisonment (here in the UK)?

Even though we both agree it is morally wrong to do I do not believe that someone infected, fed up of being cooped up at home, who selfishly goes out for a short walk for, say, a short walk in the open at his local park only and has de facto negligible interaction with others poses a comparable risk as, say, someone failing to 'blackout', in the situation like The Blitz.  The latter easily leading to numerous deaths for sure. 

Edited by anonguest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.