I dont understand this chart. It seems to suggest a 35% mortality rate within the first year for control group. This doesnt seem like a typical nursing home cohort.
Sheesh:
Starts off with a game of Follow the Money which includes Kochs, Walton Foundation and Peter Thiel. Then it goes downhill.
2 Likes
I’m shocked EO’s motives are anything but pure.
4 Likes
7 Likes
Seems like 10^6 is a milestone the media should be reporting about more.
Everyone here who was stanning for her back in the day should take a moment and think about the fact that they were duped by someone backed by Koch and Thiel money, and that it was obvious enough at the time that her takes were trash that several of us pointed it out and said she was acting in economic interest not human/medical interest.
The Koch connection is new info for me, I think.
Kids spreading viruses all over the place is such a common part of life. It’s wild to me that people accepted EO’s idea it wouldn’t happen without any explanation why. This one’s just magically different, I guess.
2 Likes
But many if those people would have died anyway. And many of them were no angels. NO ANGELS!
I’m not a stan for Emily Oster, but I agree with a lot of what’s she said, and that protean article is especially stupid. One of the article’s primary criticisms is that EO adopts cost-benefit analysis that rejects the precautionary principle. This complaint is completely ridiculous in the context of school closings because both sides have potentially very large costs! School closings would very obviously lead to a decline in student learning. And keeping schools open would very obviously allow school-based transmission. [I don’t know the extent to which school-based transmission would be greater than the transmission that would occur outside of school if schools were closed. But assume that school openings would cause a net increase in virus transmission, so it represents a cost to opening.]
Why would a “precautionary principle” approach be different from a cost-benefit approach? I guess a precautionary principle approach would say, simultaneously:
- We should be really cautious before we take any actions that are likely to cause material harm to children’s learning.
- We should be really cautious before we take any actions that would likely increase virus spread.
But those two are obviously in conflict, so you have to make an assessment about which goal is more important, and how to weigh the two goals. That’s literally cost-benefit analysis! This critique makes no sense at all.
It also focuses on EO’s statement about vaccines for 4-year olds, as if that was a radical opinion, rather than being consistent with the FDA’s official position. Does the precautionary principle lead to approving vaccines for kids regardless of the balance between efficacy and safety? The entire article is bizarre.
1 Like
Everyone was willing to talk about the costs of distance learning. But that’s a talk that has to happen in the context of actual facts and not corporate think-tank nonsense about kids magically not spreading COVID to their grandparents.
4 Likes
Yes, that’s the rub. The chance of kids dying in school does not really fit into a public policy discussion (cf school shootings). So “fact free” viewpoints are espoused and anybody can do so (cf Emily Oster).
I disagree with that. Emily Oster’s ideas or policy pushes weren’t fact free. She used, or attempted to use studies, white papers, etc to prove her thesis because those are the currency in use in upper class technocracy. That’s the main thrust of the complaint, that she was intentionally being shoddy with the actual data to get to the conclusion she and a lot of people wanted.
Seems like you and I don’t agree on what “fact free” (with the quotes) connotes. But generally speaking I agree with what you said.
1 Like
In news shocking very few, John Campbell remains an utter idiot
Exactly. She was an economist who the media decided was credible on this subject almost entirely because she was promoting an agenda that would greatly benefit our wealthy overlords.
This seemed pretty obvious at the time imo, but it’s even more so now that the financial backing has come out.
Maybe we should have been getting boosters!
(delta wave paper)
Just talked with my mechanic. He and his adult son both had serious Covid last fall. They even gave the son last rites. Both OK now. Both had mRNA 2 doses with appointments the next week for boosters. Both doing ok now. The owner is prolly about 70 and is def not overweight. The son is prolly mid 30s. Big guy but certainly not obese. Assume neither would have made it without their original vaccinations. They got antibodies as well. Since the son got last rites, assume he was on a vent?
Yikes.
1 Like