It is sympathy that drives my reaction. Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Maybe I mean empathy. We all sympathise with the like-minded. I think it a good idea to really try and enter into the mindset of those who you disagree with. At least as far as not reacting to them with hostility. OK a quick reply is to ask if I should empathise with rabid white supremacists. But that's a long way from sympathising with those who may view there life not worth living if it is confined to exclude all that they find makes it worthwhile.
I do not look in disdain from the window of a mighty tower
OK. Honestly you can sound like you do - at least a bit. You make few qualified statements, and if you are ever subject to self-doubt as to your opinions, it's hard to detect.
Willpower is made, not given. It is fought for, struggled for, formed from effort and repetition. It is a constant battle to maintain.
And here is one of the many areas where we see reality in very different ways. I do confess to verging close to determinism at times. I certainly do not believe in libertarian free will and I do believe that a huge amount of our character is preset. That's a different discussion, and generally a fruitless one.
An interesting bywater to go down if how you assess disagreement to be due to difference in beliefs about the world or attitudes such as selfishness vs altruism. It's tricky because the more selfish we are the more we will incline to listen to narratives that makes us happy in our selfishness: e.g. narratives that we shouldn't worry about global warming.
I would say my rather considerable differences with you are due mainly to two things: One is our quantitative estimate of the likelihood of catching COVID and maybe infecting others. The other (and this bears comparison with the wars on drugs) is our different estimates of how far the war against COVID may cause more harm than good in the long term.
But it is entirely probably also that you are more altruistic than me. I know people who are, and there's no reason why that couldn't include you.
Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Who are you to judge the validity of other people’s pain? Who are you to sort the world into those deserving of sympathy and those not?
This is rich. I'm worried about people dying. About people getting illness that scars them for life, and I'm the bad guy?
Who am I to judge? I'm someone who's watched a friend grieve for the loss of a loved one to this. I'm someone who actually cares about preventing that from happening to more people than it has to.
Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Who are you to judge the validity of other people’s pain? Who are you to sort the world into those deserving of sympathy and those not?
This is rich. I'm worried about people dying. About people getting illness that scars them for life, and I'm the bad guy?
Who am I to judge? I'm someone who's watched a friend grieve for the loss of a loved one to this. I'm someone who actually cares about preventing that from happening to more people than it has to.
What part of any of that requires you to shit all over other people’s pain?
Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Who are you to judge the validity of other people’s pain? Who are you to sort the world into those deserving of sympathy and those not?
This is rich. I'm worried about people dying. About people getting illness that scars them for life, and I'm the bad guy?
Who am I to judge? I'm someone who's watched a friend grieve for the loss of a loved one to this. I'm someone who actually cares about preventing that from happening to more people than it has to.
What part of any of that requires you to shit all over other people’s pain?
I'm not doing that. I am putting things into perspective. One person's "I gotta do my hobby" is another person's potential death. That mightn't be a nice thing to hear, but it makes it no less true.
There's no easy way to figure out what might constitute optimal well being or an ideal quality of life in human terms. On the other hand, most of us can appreciate that material suffering, the prolonged deprivation of liberty and risk of death would nearly always be accompanied by emotional distress and anxiety, mental health difficulties. Both/and, not either/or.
Today is officially the first day of spring in South Africa and this marks 159 days under a militarised lockdown. We have food shortages in every province and the economy is collapsing as businesses close and the loss of tourism revenue affects the Cape (more than 16 000 restaurants have permanently closed). Curfews at night (from 10pm until 5am) continue and there is increased police presence in most urban areas to prevent looting and arson. If we have another surge of Covid-19 infections, we will return to Level 5 restrictions with no sales of alcohol or tobacco and daytime curfews, no travel, fewer shops open.
The good news for now is that the severe restrictions have slowed the transmission of Covid-19: hospitals are no longer swamped with virus patients, some businesses and schools are able to reopen, people suffering from cancer or in need of surgery are now able to get treatment. We're doing a little better than Zimbabwe, Kenya, Venezuela or India. For the moment. Because South Africans have lived with the threat of contagious diseases (malaria, typhoid, cholera, Aids, multi-drug-resistant TB) for so long, quarantining is nothing new and many are perhaps more resilient than people who haven't ever known plague.
At the same time, psychiatric wards have long waiting lists here around Cape Town and suicides are increasing. August was officially Women's Month here and the statistics on gender-based violence are higher than ever, with rape crisis services under strain and many shelters for battered women closed.
To be honest, I haven't coped well myself in this pandemic: the future has never seemed so scary and uncertain, the deaths of friends due to Covid-19 haunts me. Oddly, smaller things are often what knock me off balance: having to boil drinking water because our local supplies are contaminated (and we're lucky to have any water at all), or the sight of people standing at the barred gates of our local old-age home waving to the quarantined elderly family members who are not allowed to leave the building.
And once again we have daily power cuts because the national grid is under strain, so getting any work done is difficult and my bandwidth doesn't allow for Zoom. More than anything I miss seeing my friends' smiles.
What part of any of that requires you to shit all over other people’s pain?
I'm not doing that. I am putting things into perspective.
No, you're taking things out of context, blowing things out of proportion, and shitting over someone's pain. We're living on a continuum of pain, there isn't a binary division where the effects on one person gets classed as "pain" and a different effect is "non-pain" allowing anyone to dismiss the effects on one person as important and on the other as not important.
You've, correctly, stated that there are people who are dying or will suffer long-term physical medical conditions because of this virus. There are others who have lost their job because of the pandemic, and others fearing that they will lose their jobs, many of whom will suffer from poorer mental health as a result. Are you saying that those people are not suffering because of the pandemic? Are you claiming that impact on mental health is less important than impact on respiratory function? Others have a secure job, but have struggled with lockdown, working from home while caring for children, finding it difficult to even get out for a walk. Have they not also been adversely affected by the pandemic? Do they not also deserve sympathy for the difficulties and the impact on their health?
Can't you see that for the person directly impacted their pain and suffering can easily be too much? Even if an objective view would say it's less than others are suffering, a view they're likely to agree with even as they wish for their pain to end. Have you ever had a toothache, the pain throbbing through your jaw in the night as you toss and turn trying to sleep - did it ever help you to suppress the pain and go to sleep to think "we'll it's only toothache, it's not like I've got cancer"?
And, you've talked about your own struggles during this pandemic, about finding the will power to do what's needed to live as best you can while maintaining social distancing and personal hygiene to minimise the risk of being part of the chain of infection. For some of us, how we have coped has included coming onto the Ship and venting our pain, not to try and change what needs to be done to limit the spread of the virus but simply to vent (I had my shout and get shouted at back in March). Marvin has expressed the range of problems he's experienced, he's never once suggested that he'll ever break the restrictions that are in place to have a game of cricket or leave his kids alone at home while he goes out to get a break. You haven't ripped into the various people here who have expressed the difficulties they have in wearing a mask yet still put one on when they need to. We've had plenty of people complain about not being able to go to church, or that when they get back that they won't be able to sing or receive Communion that means it'll be church but not as we know it, I've not seen you tell them to get a sense of perspective and that missing the social and ritual aspects of church aren't real pain. You appear to have targeted a single individual who has done nothing more than express his version of the frustration and struggles we're all experiencing with the pandemic, ignoring the rest of us who have expressed our versions of the same, for no reason except you don't consider cricket to be that important in your life.
Now, I've probably attracted far too much unwelcome attention from the Purgatory hosts for a personal attack in response to your attacks on Marvin, and continuing the diversion of this thread into a personal fight.
Thanks @MaryLouise for giving us that update from SA. You might have picked up that there was about a month - late March to late April - where it felt 'real' like that, here (UK). Since then it has been back to 'celebrities and blame news' and all the 'things will never be the same again' stories have disappeared. I don't know what to hope for you. I do hope spring will make it easier for you, it seemed to here, but that may just be coincidental timing.
I agree with @Alan Cresswell . This virus has brought pain to all of us, we shouldn’t judge whose pain is worse than others.
I have lost a dear friend to this virus and her daughter is also one of my closest friends and has been for 40 years. Her pain is immense. But it doesn’t negate the pains others have.
When I look at thebookofface it annoys me when I see people grumbling about ‘something and nothing’. But who am I to judge? It may be the only place they feel they can let off steam. Just as the Ship may be for some here.
I have been as guilty as anyone for saying the equivalent of ‘pull yourself together’ to other Shipmates. 😔
OK. We’ve been a bit lenient with the tangent started by Bishop’s Finger but enough is enough. Hell is for those who are pissed off and for those who are pissed off with the pissed offness of others. Take your pissed offness there please. The tangent stops now.
Dunno. No effect on income. I miss sports we played pre-pandemic, going to restaurants, some community and social events. So I suppose this is suffering. It seems more like slightly inconvenient. So there are probably degrees of pain.
What part of any of that requires you to shit all over other people’s pain?
I'm not doing that. I am putting things into perspective.
No, you're taking things out of context, blowing things out of proportion, and shitting over someone's pain. We're living on a continuum of pain, there isn't a binary division where the effects on one person gets classed as "pain" and a different effect is "non-pain" allowing anyone to dismiss the effects on one person as important and on the other as not important.
A continuum means there is no clear lines or division, it doesn't mean that there are no points that can be differentiated. Pain is a continuum, but that does not make the prick of a needle for an anaemia test equivalent to being stabbed with a jagged knife.
Yes, there are constraints and situations that affect people's mental health and yes, that can be a serious issue. But they are not all the same. Some are merely pricks, some are open wounds. The approach you and others suggest is to rush the pin prick to A&E alongside the knife wound.
What triggered my post was the justification of action, not just the complaint caused by forced inaction.
In other words, people talking about actually doing, not merely whinging about not being able to do.
OK. We’ve been a bit lenient with the tangent started by Bishop’s Finger but enough is enough. Hell is for those who are pissed off and for those who are pissed off with the pissed offness of others. Take your pissed offness there please. The tangent stops now.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Bugger. Apologies, I responded to Alan's post without reading further.
Dunno. No effect on income. I miss sports we played pre-pandemic, going to restaurants, some community and social events. So I suppose this is suffering. It seems more like slightly inconvenient. So there are probably degrees of pain.
There are degrees of pain. I have pain in my shoulder and hip all the time. The hip pain is quite bearable but the shoulder pain sometimes becomes quite unbearable. Yet it’s not acute. I’ve suffered acute pain (Gall bladder, childbirth etc) and it’s far worse than chronic pain imo. But chronic pain wears down your resilience and affects your mood.
At the beginning of this pandemic it was all quite acute. But now, for most, it’s ‘simply’ become chronic.
I was struck, reading a piece written earlier in the year, how different it seemed. Sort of 1914 vs 1917 feel about it - apprehension, uncertainty, a kind of excitement vs weariness, frustration, resignation. Where will we be in another six months? At what point - if ever - do you forget Before, and start thinking This is how it is?
That's the risk of dying from Covid-19 according to BBC Radio 2 Today.
I want to be clear. That's a very misleading (although in one sense, technically correct) statistic.
I haven't posted on this thread for a while, I'm sorry that I haven't read all that I've missed although there's some good stuff on this page. However, I felt the need to share the following; but first let me explain why this is a big sacrifice for me.
I listen to Radio 2 a lot. When I'm in the lab (like today) I usually have it on. The exception is 12-2pm; The Jeremy Vine Show. I don't dislike Mr Vine personally, I think he's fine but his show is appalling. It is a classic of the genre of getting uninformed opinions to argue against each other. It is both tedious and annoying. So I normally avoid it. Currently, Jeremy is on holiday and Vanessa Feltz is covering. I can't stand Vanessa (as a radio presenter). The only thing worse than the Vine Show on R2 is Vanessa doing the Vine show on R2. I write all this to explain why it was a big sacrifice for me to listen in today. However having heard the little trail on Ken the Bruce's show at 11:30, I felt I had to.
Here they trailed a statistician was coming on to explain how he'd calculated this risk and what it meant. My impression was that if they had a real stats person on, there was probably not a problem with the number itself but with the way it was being reported. I listened in and confirmed my hypothesis.
So, what are we talking about? The ONS figures have the UK daily infection rate at ~40 / million per day. So based on these data and others it is correct to say that (overall, and not focusing on any other factors) a person in England has a 1 in 25,000 chance of contracting SARS-Cov2 on any given day and a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of contracting an infection AND subsequently dying from it.
The thing is, this isn't necessarily very helpful. Obviously the risk of dying from Covid-19 is not 1 in 2 million. If it was, then the UK, with a population of ~60m would have had 30 deaths in total! So we know it's wrong in that sense (which is how they were carelessly reporting it).
It's a daily risk. Mathematically it's wrong to simply multiply that risk by a number of days to decide how many days you need to go out for to risk getting Covid-19 but 2 million days is over 5000 years....hence most people might consider it a low risk*
Here's the problem with this:
1) This estimate of risk is based on the current situation and thus on how people are currently behaving. If such a small risk made people change their behaviour then that risk would change.
2) This estimate is based on current infection levels. The real danger of SARS-COV2 is how quickly it can go from 40/1,000,000 infections to 10 times, 100 times that. And if people stop social distancing etc. that change would almost certainly occur very quickly.
3) This estimate is an average for all the population. The data we have suggests that the chance of dying if you're <20 is extremely low. Conversely, it's very high if you're over 85. Moreover, the effect of behaviours on this risk (i.e. how close you stand to people and how often and how well you wash hands) are not quantified in any way. Again misunderstanding this could cause behavioural changes that lead to a much higher risk.
For example, the risk of dying in a plane crash is very low across the board but it's not zero. As I sit here in the lab, it is possible for an aeroplane to crash into the building. If you look at Lockerbie in the 80's and the Concorde crash in 2003 (to name two off the top of my head) - in both those tragedies people on the ground died. Thus it is possible to calculate the risk of being killed whilst on the ground by a plane but the risk of dying in a plane crash increases significantly if you get on a plane. (It still remains extremely low, however!). What's missing from the dataset is that one's risk of contracting Covid-19 might well be very low; but if I change my behaviour and go to the pub every night without a mask on, how much does it change?
To be fair, the statistician explained all of this very well in the interview but then he said something which isn't true. He said that if you give people the facts, then they are very good at deciding which risks to take. This is simply false, we are all intuitively very poor at weighing one risk against another. There's a huge body of literature on this but I meet it every day in my working life when taking consent for surgery. Helping people quantify risk is a key professional responsibility. This especially true when if people change their behaviour, the risk will change and we don't quite know by how much but it's probably quite a lot!
My main beef is how the headline of the piece was repeated at the end: Your chance of dying is 1 in 2 million.... Actually if you take the excess mortality figure for the UK it's about 1 in 1000 overall (unless, of course, your only aim is still being alive at the end of the week! So only out by 200,000%....**
It is said that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics this is not true. There people who mislead because they don't understand statistics and there are people who mislead because they deliberately misrepresent statistics. (This is the former but it's still really dangerous in the current context).
AFZ
* The correct formula is r = 1-((1-0.0000005)^d) where r=risk and d=number of days. But on these figures your chance of dying in a given year would be 0.018%
* * Not strictly correct as this is a retrospective calculation and would have been the risk for everyone in the UK alive at the ~ 1st March.
Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Who are you to judge the validity of other people’s pain? Who are you to sort the world into those deserving of sympathy and those not?
This is rich. I'm worried about people dying. About people getting illness that scars them for life, and I'm the bad guy?
Who am I to judge? I'm someone who's watched a friend grieve for the loss of a loved one to this. I'm someone who actually cares about preventing that from happening to more people than it has to.
You don't feel sorry, either, I suppose, for food service workers who are FORCED to wash their hands after using the pooper ... ??? (How can you be so uncaring ... ???)
It is said that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics this is not true. There people who mislead because they don't understand statistics and there are people who mislead because they deliberately misrepresent statistics. (This is the former but it's still really dangerous in the current context).
L,DL and S is not to meant to say statistics are a lie, but that people lie using statistics. And it works because the audience often don't understand what the stats actually mean.
It is said that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics this is not true. There people who mislead because they don't understand statistics and there are people who mislead because they deliberately misrepresent statistics. (This is the former but it's still really dangerous in the current context).
L,DL and S is not to meant to say statistics are a lie, but that people lie using statistics. And it works because the audience often don't understand what the stats actually mean.
You're right of course, in terms of the original meaning and intent of the phrase. What I was getting out is how I think it is generally understood.
I particularly agree with your diagnosis. I wonder if basic stats concepts (i.e. the idea of confounders and how stats actually work) should be compulsory civics lessons at school. It seems to me to be a vital life skill in the modern world....
He said that if you give people the facts, then they are very good at deciding which risks to take. This is simply false, we are all intuitively very poor at weighing one risk against another. There's a huge body of literature on this but I meet it every day in my working life when taking consent for surgery. Helping people quantify risk is a key professional responsibility. This especially true when if people change their behaviour, the risk will change and we don't quite know by how much but it's probably quite a lot!
Preach, brother.
People are particularly bad at thinking about long tails - small risks of really bad things happening, and about combining risks. If you tell people there's a 50:50 chance it'll rain, they do perfectly fine thinking about it.
If you tell them that 1% of the population is infectious, they'll probably think "1% is a pretty small number. I'm not at much risk". And then they'll sit on a bus with 50 people on it, and the chance of at least one person on the bus being infectious is 40%. Which is rather different from the 1% that they were thinking of.
It is said that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics this is not true. There people who mislead because they don't understand statistics and there are people who mislead because they deliberately misrepresent statistics. (This is the former but it's still really dangerous in the current context).
L,DL and S is not to meant to say statistics are a lie, but that people lie using statistics. And it works because the audience often don't understand what the stats actually mean.
You're right of course, in terms of the original meaning and intent of the phrase. What I was getting out is how I think it is generally understood.
I particularly agree with your diagnosis. I wonder if basic stats concepts (i.e. the idea of confounders and how stats actually work) should be compulsory civics lessons at school. It seems to me to be a vital life skill in the modern world....
Believe me we teach about bias in the course of analysing statistics. Unless we spend months on it there is unlikely to be a substantial impact.
The statistician where I used to work had a cartoon on her wall, "most people use statistics like a drink uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination"
And here come more infections. People who have Covid but are asymptomatic are still infectious. The problem the school district has is that too many of its teachers have been exposed to people with Covid, and if they are quarantined, the district doesn't have enough staff to run the schools.
But instead of admitting that there's a problem, and that trying to run schools safely in a Covid environment necessarily means quarantine and missed school for a lot of people, they're putting their heads in the sand and infecting more people.
@alienfromzog - the other problem with death statistics is that it sells the false narrative that people who contact Covid either die, or have either no symptoms, or a brief cold-like illness and then get over it. And we know that's not true. Millions of people who don't die will nevertheless have lasting health problems from this virus for the rest of their lives. Posting death statistics like that's the end of the story is grossly immoral.
For those who are interested in a technical look at the pandemic, MIT is offering an online course on "COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and the Pandemic" for free to not just their students but the general public as well.
In Fall 2020, all MIT students and the general public are welcome to join Professors Richard Young and Facundo Batista as they discuss the science of the pandemic during this new class. Special guest speakers include: Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore, Britt Glaunsinger, Bruce Walker, Eric Lander, Michel Nussenzweig, Akiko Iwasaki, Arlene Sharpe, Kizzmekia Corbett, and others. The class will run from September 1, 2020 through December 8, 2020 and begin each Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. ET. See the syllabus for lecture details.
Livestreaming details can be found at the website.
A recording of the first lecture (an introduction to Covid-19 and the pandemic by Dr. Bruce Walker, director of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard) is now available on this page.
A recording of the first lecture (an introduction to Covid-19 and the pandemic by Dr. Bruce Walker, director of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard) is now available on this page.
I saw it live, and thought it quite good. Child #1 (age 15) also thought it good. If the rest of the series is of a similar quality, it will be well worth the time.
Re statistics. Consider: the weather forecast says the risk of rain is 30% today. But it's raining right now. So that would suggest 100% just now.
Descriptive statistics and predictive stats are different.
Summary statistics for a population or large group may say the risk is low for the group. The risk for specific people in the group will be much greater. Thus: mask-slacker 20 year old with no risk factors versus older adult with COPD and diabetes within that sample.
I follow the Tour de France. This year on the flatter stages, crowd control and respect for virus risks has been pretty good. But on yesterday’s mountainous stage during the final arduous climb, the Tour reverted to normal scenes.
The climbing cyclists were being encouraged on by enthusiastic crowds waving banners and getting very close to the competitors. A majority were wearing masks but a significant minority weren’t. And as usual the crowds were very close to one another as well as the cyclists.
Not sure if there are other Tour followers out there. It was a great, competitive Stage, very enjoyable as an event, but it did make me wonder about safety standards, the quality of stewarding, and the thoughtlessness of many in the crowds.
Re the Tour de France. I too am a fan, though only once have I seen a stage live and in person - through a crowd in Paris that was 4 or 5 deep. And I share B62s concern, not least as France is a country with plenty of active Covid cases.
Headline stats in the popular press are bollocks (paraphrase mine)
I have only a basic grasp of statistics, and I have always been interested in the thesis that we found it hard to understand very small (or large) numbers.
I agree with your analysis, but I have serious doubts as to the value of this type of statistical analysis of the risk. Do you really believe it is possible to produce risk factors for people which are well grounded?
Personally on a day to day basis, I never think about COVID. I follow the rules solely because I see no virtue in risking confrontation. The politeness argument wirks better for me that the purported medical justification.
I know there has been a lot of implied criticism of the rules-with-holes approach of the UK Gov which, of course, I value. Without causing situations where stress could arise, I have now worn a mask for about 6 minutes since the rule. I can't seriously see that as an attack on my liberties. Though I am concerned we might move to a more oppressive regime, as several administrations have.
I am actually crying now. Bang goes any chance of Dragonlet 3 meeting his grandparents when it is born, unless I chase Mr Dragon or the other children into the garden for the duration. At this rate I may well be in labour on my own.
I live in an area that each year closes off a number of streets and children go trick or treat for Halloween. Those of us not in that area donate candy to the homes there and go watch the children. If someone living in the area does not want to be part of the 2 hour event they turn off their porch light, very few do. A good time is had by all. Because of the virus the powers that be have cancelled the event. . Well some in my area are already chanting about virus or no virus by golly the children need to go out on Halloween and have candy and they are taking their children out anyway as it is no worse then going to Walmart with their kids. I would not take my kid to Walmart let alone go there myself. And no I would not want a whole bunch of children at my door this year. Also If I had little ones I would not want them handling and eating candy handed out by strangers. I am talking close to 100 children and about 40 different houses. I am sure I could come up with some fun things to do with my children at home.
Buy candy in advance, and at least a week before Halloween put it in individual plastic bags which you then put in a shallow box and leave it all alone for a week. On Halloween put the whole thing somewhere where it's accessible without kids crowding around (suitably decorated). Write a sign that explains this is what you've done so that kids can get candy while maintaining social distance, and that you won't be opening the door. Talk to neighbours in advance (especially if you have their phone number) to explain what you're doing and try and get that done throughout the neighbourhood. You then have candy (and bag) that no one has touched for at least a week, you've done your bit to facilitate social distancing between the groups of children (whether or not they do that), and you're maintaining social distance between yourself (and other residents who do the same) and the children. You lose out on the personal interactions, pretending to be scared by the costumes and congratulating them on the work they've put into it and hear their stupid jokes or little songs.
@Alan Cresswell Some good suggestions to those who may want to give out treats. I will pass them on. I live out of the trick or treat area but I will pass it on to the powers that be No child or adult wants the long up hill walk to our mountain five home area.
Comments
An interesting bywater to go down if how you assess disagreement to be due to difference in beliefs about the world or attitudes such as selfishness vs altruism. It's tricky because the more selfish we are the more we will incline to listen to narratives that makes us happy in our selfishness: e.g. narratives that we shouldn't worry about global warming.
I would say my rather considerable differences with you are due mainly to two things: One is our quantitative estimate of the likelihood of catching COVID and maybe infecting others. The other (and this bears comparison with the wars on drugs) is our different estimates of how far the war against COVID may cause more harm than good in the long term.
But it is entirely probably also that you are more altruistic than me. I know people who are, and there's no reason why that couldn't include you.
Who are you to judge the validity of other people’s pain? Who are you to sort the world into those deserving of sympathy and those not?
He wore it for a while, then took it off ... I got about 90% compliance ...
Who am I to judge? I'm someone who's watched a friend grieve for the loss of a loved one to this. I'm someone who actually cares about preventing that from happening to more people than it has to.
What part of any of that requires you to shit all over other people’s pain?
Today is officially the first day of spring in South Africa and this marks 159 days under a militarised lockdown. We have food shortages in every province and the economy is collapsing as businesses close and the loss of tourism revenue affects the Cape (more than 16 000 restaurants have permanently closed). Curfews at night (from 10pm until 5am) continue and there is increased police presence in most urban areas to prevent looting and arson. If we have another surge of Covid-19 infections, we will return to Level 5 restrictions with no sales of alcohol or tobacco and daytime curfews, no travel, fewer shops open.
The good news for now is that the severe restrictions have slowed the transmission of Covid-19: hospitals are no longer swamped with virus patients, some businesses and schools are able to reopen, people suffering from cancer or in need of surgery are now able to get treatment. We're doing a little better than Zimbabwe, Kenya, Venezuela or India. For the moment. Because South Africans have lived with the threat of contagious diseases (malaria, typhoid, cholera, Aids, multi-drug-resistant TB) for so long, quarantining is nothing new and many are perhaps more resilient than people who haven't ever known plague.
At the same time, psychiatric wards have long waiting lists here around Cape Town and suicides are increasing. August was officially Women's Month here and the statistics on gender-based violence are higher than ever, with rape crisis services under strain and many shelters for battered women closed.
To be honest, I haven't coped well myself in this pandemic: the future has never seemed so scary and uncertain, the deaths of friends due to Covid-19 haunts me. Oddly, smaller things are often what knock me off balance: having to boil drinking water because our local supplies are contaminated (and we're lucky to have any water at all), or the sight of people standing at the barred gates of our local old-age home waving to the quarantined elderly family members who are not allowed to leave the building.
And once again we have daily power cuts because the national grid is under strain, so getting any work done is difficult and my bandwidth doesn't allow for Zoom. More than anything I miss seeing my friends' smiles.
You've, correctly, stated that there are people who are dying or will suffer long-term physical medical conditions because of this virus. There are others who have lost their job because of the pandemic, and others fearing that they will lose their jobs, many of whom will suffer from poorer mental health as a result. Are you saying that those people are not suffering because of the pandemic? Are you claiming that impact on mental health is less important than impact on respiratory function? Others have a secure job, but have struggled with lockdown, working from home while caring for children, finding it difficult to even get out for a walk. Have they not also been adversely affected by the pandemic? Do they not also deserve sympathy for the difficulties and the impact on their health?
Can't you see that for the person directly impacted their pain and suffering can easily be too much? Even if an objective view would say it's less than others are suffering, a view they're likely to agree with even as they wish for their pain to end. Have you ever had a toothache, the pain throbbing through your jaw in the night as you toss and turn trying to sleep - did it ever help you to suppress the pain and go to sleep to think "we'll it's only toothache, it's not like I've got cancer"?
And, you've talked about your own struggles during this pandemic, about finding the will power to do what's needed to live as best you can while maintaining social distancing and personal hygiene to minimise the risk of being part of the chain of infection. For some of us, how we have coped has included coming onto the Ship and venting our pain, not to try and change what needs to be done to limit the spread of the virus but simply to vent (I had my shout and get shouted at back in March). Marvin has expressed the range of problems he's experienced, he's never once suggested that he'll ever break the restrictions that are in place to have a game of cricket or leave his kids alone at home while he goes out to get a break. You haven't ripped into the various people here who have expressed the difficulties they have in wearing a mask yet still put one on when they need to. We've had plenty of people complain about not being able to go to church, or that when they get back that they won't be able to sing or receive Communion that means it'll be church but not as we know it, I've not seen you tell them to get a sense of perspective and that missing the social and ritual aspects of church aren't real pain. You appear to have targeted a single individual who has done nothing more than express his version of the frustration and struggles we're all experiencing with the pandemic, ignoring the rest of us who have expressed our versions of the same, for no reason except you don't consider cricket to be that important in your life.
Now, I've probably attracted far too much unwelcome attention from the Purgatory hosts for a personal attack in response to your attacks on Marvin, and continuing the diversion of this thread into a personal fight.
I have lost a dear friend to this virus and her daughter is also one of my closest friends and has been for 40 years. Her pain is immense. But it doesn’t negate the pains others have.
When I look at thebookofface it annoys me when I see people grumbling about ‘something and nothing’. But who am I to judge? It may be the only place they feel they can let off steam. Just as the Ship may be for some here.
I have been as guilty as anyone for saying the equivalent of ‘pull yourself together’ to other Shipmates. 😔
It’s all too easy to do.
{{{{{{{You, and your loved ones, and S. Africa}}}}}}}
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
A continuum means there is no clear lines or division, it doesn't mean that there are no points that can be differentiated. Pain is a continuum, but that does not make the prick of a needle for an anaemia test equivalent to being stabbed with a jagged knife.
Yes, there are constraints and situations that affect people's mental health and yes, that can be a serious issue. But they are not all the same. Some are merely pricks, some are open wounds. The approach you and others suggest is to rush the pin prick to A&E alongside the knife wound.
What triggered my post was the justification of action, not just the complaint caused by forced inaction.
In other words, people talking about actually doing, not merely whinging about not being able to do.
There are degrees of pain. I have pain in my shoulder and hip all the time. The hip pain is quite bearable but the shoulder pain sometimes becomes quite unbearable. Yet it’s not acute. I’ve suffered acute pain (Gall bladder, childbirth etc) and it’s far worse than chronic pain imo. But chronic pain wears down your resilience and affects your mood.
At the beginning of this pandemic it was all quite acute. But now, for most, it’s ‘simply’ become chronic.
I hope there’s a vaccine soon. 🕯
Apology accepted. It’s easy to do.
A Supercomputer Analyzed Covid-19 — and an Interesting New Theory Has Emerged. A closer look at the Bradykinin hypothesis (Elemental/Medium).
I could pick up on some of it. The med/sci Shipmates will get much more.
That's the risk of dying from Covid-19 according to BBC Radio 2 Today.
I want to be clear. That's a very misleading (although in one sense, technically correct) statistic.
I haven't posted on this thread for a while, I'm sorry that I haven't read all that I've missed although there's some good stuff on this page. However, I felt the need to share the following; but first let me explain why this is a big sacrifice for me.
I listen to Radio 2 a lot. When I'm in the lab (like today) I usually have it on. The exception is 12-2pm; The Jeremy Vine Show. I don't dislike Mr Vine personally, I think he's fine but his show is appalling. It is a classic of the genre of getting uninformed opinions to argue against each other. It is both tedious and annoying. So I normally avoid it. Currently, Jeremy is on holiday and Vanessa Feltz is covering. I can't stand Vanessa (as a radio presenter). The only thing worse than the Vine Show on R2 is Vanessa doing the Vine show on R2. I write all this to explain why it was a big sacrifice for me to listen in today. However having heard the little trail on Ken the Bruce's show at 11:30, I felt I had to.
Here they trailed a statistician was coming on to explain how he'd calculated this risk and what it meant. My impression was that if they had a real stats person on, there was probably not a problem with the number itself but with the way it was being reported. I listened in and confirmed my hypothesis.
So, what are we talking about? The ONS figures have the UK daily infection rate at ~40 / million per day. So based on these data and others it is correct to say that (overall, and not focusing on any other factors) a person in England has a 1 in 25,000 chance of contracting SARS-Cov2 on any given day and a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of contracting an infection AND subsequently dying from it.
The thing is, this isn't necessarily very helpful. Obviously the risk of dying from Covid-19 is not 1 in 2 million. If it was, then the UK, with a population of ~60m would have had 30 deaths in total! So we know it's wrong in that sense (which is how they were carelessly reporting it).
It's a daily risk. Mathematically it's wrong to simply multiply that risk by a number of days to decide how many days you need to go out for to risk getting Covid-19 but 2 million days is over 5000 years....hence most people might consider it a low risk*
Here's the problem with this:
1) This estimate of risk is based on the current situation and thus on how people are currently behaving. If such a small risk made people change their behaviour then that risk would change.
2) This estimate is based on current infection levels. The real danger of SARS-COV2 is how quickly it can go from 40/1,000,000 infections to 10 times, 100 times that. And if people stop social distancing etc. that change would almost certainly occur very quickly.
3) This estimate is an average for all the population. The data we have suggests that the chance of dying if you're <20 is extremely low. Conversely, it's very high if you're over 85. Moreover, the effect of behaviours on this risk (i.e. how close you stand to people and how often and how well you wash hands) are not quantified in any way. Again misunderstanding this could cause behavioural changes that lead to a much higher risk.
For example, the risk of dying in a plane crash is very low across the board but it's not zero. As I sit here in the lab, it is possible for an aeroplane to crash into the building. If you look at Lockerbie in the 80's and the Concorde crash in 2003 (to name two off the top of my head) - in both those tragedies people on the ground died. Thus it is possible to calculate the risk of being killed whilst on the ground by a plane but the risk of dying in a plane crash increases significantly if you get on a plane. (It still remains extremely low, however!). What's missing from the dataset is that one's risk of contracting Covid-19 might well be very low; but if I change my behaviour and go to the pub every night without a mask on, how much does it change?
To be fair, the statistician explained all of this very well in the interview but then he said something which isn't true. He said that if you give people the facts, then they are very good at deciding which risks to take. This is simply false, we are all intuitively very poor at weighing one risk against another. There's a huge body of literature on this but I meet it every day in my working life when taking consent for surgery. Helping people quantify risk is a key professional responsibility. This especially true when if people change their behaviour, the risk will change and we don't quite know by how much but it's probably quite a lot!
My main beef is how the headline of the piece was repeated at the end: Your chance of dying is 1 in 2 million.... Actually if you take the excess mortality figure for the UK it's about 1 in 1000 overall (unless, of course, your only aim is still being alive at the end of the week! So only out by 200,000%....**
It is said that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics this is not true. There people who mislead because they don't understand statistics and there are people who mislead because they deliberately misrepresent statistics. (This is the former but it's still really dangerous in the current context).
AFZ
* The correct formula is r = 1-((1-0.0000005)^d) where r=risk and d=number of days. But on these figures your chance of dying in a given year would be 0.018%
* * Not strictly correct as this is a retrospective calculation and would have been the risk for everyone in the UK alive at the ~ 1st March.
You don't feel sorry, either, I suppose, for food service workers who are FORCED to wash their hands after using the pooper ... ??? (How can you be so uncaring ... ???)
You're right of course, in terms of the original meaning and intent of the phrase. What I was getting out is how I think it is generally understood.
I particularly agree with your diagnosis. I wonder if basic stats concepts (i.e. the idea of confounders and how stats actually work) should be compulsory civics lessons at school. It seems to me to be a vital life skill in the modern world....
Preach, brother.
People are particularly bad at thinking about long tails - small risks of really bad things happening, and about combining risks. If you tell people there's a 50:50 chance it'll rain, they do perfectly fine thinking about it.
If you tell them that 1% of the population is infectious, they'll probably think "1% is a pretty small number. I'm not at much risk". And then they'll sit on a bus with 50 people on it, and the chance of at least one person on the bus being infectious is 40%. Which is rather different from the 1% that they were thinking of.
Believe me we teach about bias in the course of analysing statistics. Unless we spend months on it there is unlikely to be a substantial impact.
But instead of admitting that there's a problem, and that trying to run schools safely in a Covid environment necessarily means quarantine and missed school for a lot of people, they're putting their heads in the sand and infecting more people.
A recording of the first lecture (an introduction to Covid-19 and the pandemic by Dr. Bruce Walker, director of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard) is now available on this page.
I saw it live, and thought it quite good. Child #1 (age 15) also thought it good. If the rest of the series is of a similar quality, it will be well worth the time.
Descriptive statistics and predictive stats are different.
Summary statistics for a population or large group may say the risk is low for the group. The risk for specific people in the group will be much greater. Thus: mask-slacker 20 year old with no risk factors versus older adult with COPD and diabetes within that sample.
"College Professor Dies Teaching Online Class After Weekslong Battle With COVID-19" (HuffPost, via Yahoo).
Yikes.
Well, I'm starting up with taking vit. D, then.
B62 Purg Host
I follow the Tour de France. This year on the flatter stages, crowd control and respect for virus risks has been pretty good. But on yesterday’s mountainous stage during the final arduous climb, the Tour reverted to normal scenes.
The climbing cyclists were being encouraged on by enthusiastic crowds waving banners and getting very close to the competitors. A majority were wearing masks but a significant minority weren’t. And as usual the crowds were very close to one another as well as the cyclists.
Not sure if there are other Tour followers out there. It was a great, competitive Stage, very enjoyable as an event, but it did make me wonder about safety standards, the quality of stewarding, and the thoughtlessness of many in the crowds.
I agree with your analysis, but I have serious doubts as to the value of this type of statistical analysis of the risk. Do you really believe it is possible to produce risk factors for people which are well grounded?
Personally on a day to day basis, I never think about COVID. I follow the rules solely because I see no virtue in risking confrontation. The politeness argument wirks better for me that the purported medical justification.
I know there has been a lot of implied criticism of the rules-with-holes approach of the UK Gov which, of course, I value. Without causing situations where stress could arise, I have now worn a mask for about 6 minutes since the rule. I can't seriously see that as an attack on my liberties. Though I am concerned we might move to a more oppressive regime, as several administrations have.
I wonder if churches will be allowed to carry on? We're just getting used to The New Normal!
We'll have to wait for The Decree...
I know this isn't All Saints, but <votive> for you and all your family...