RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt
-
@Loki said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
That's harder to determine. Sure, you can overreact.
To me what's reasonable is taking serious precautions. Define that however you want, I don't care.
What's not reasonable is being flippant about the death count. Care about the economy all you want; that, too, is a serious problem the likes of which we've never seen before. But that doesn't excuse just writing the deaths off because they're "going to happen anyway." I mean come on.
@Aqua-Letifer said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Loki said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
That's harder to determine. Sure, you can overreact.
To me what's reasonable is taking serious precautions. Define that however you want, I don't care.
What's not reasonable is being flippant about the death count. Care about the economy all you want; that, too, is a serious problem the likes of which we've never seen before. But that doesn't excuse just writing the deaths off because they're "going to happen anyway." I mean come on.
Car accidents, opioids, pollution, industrial accidents, mental abuse- none of them stop the economy- make sure you add the, to your list. The best argument, and a really good one is overwhelming the health system.
-
Personally I think saving as many fucking lives as possible is the best argument, but apparently that's unreasonable crazy talk.
Please love yourself.
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
@Aqua-Letifer said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
And the people who are dying from coronavirus are those who are at risk of death anyway.
Did he really say that? Who’s not at some risk of death?
@Loki I wasn’t commenting on VDH’s personal under reaction. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s reacting just fine. He’s no spring chicken and he isn’t exactly fit. Wouldn’t shock me to learn of a few dozen pack-years of smoking history for that matter.
What bothered me was his continued commitment to a position that facts have already fully invalidated. There simply are no conceivable facts that could come to light that would revive his position. The body count is already too high in places where the virus got raging before lockdown. The graph says it all.
-
I know we're only hearing about the bad cases, but there are a lot of those, it seems. There are also plenty of people not dying but getting really sick, and if hospitals are overwhelmed, then it seems likely that a lot more of these people will die, which is what we're trying to avoid, after all. I was tempted not to even point this out, as it seems so blindingly obvious, but apparently some people still don't actually believe it, or think it's important.
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Yes, we might finally be past that point.
The current US COVID death toll according to CDC is 37,202
Yesterday the US COVID death toll passed the 2018-2019 estimated deaths due to flu of 34,157
The CDC 95% UI estimate of deaths due to flu could actually go as high as 52,664.
But let's just go with the single number estimate, COVID wins
This means Dr. Fauci and Mr. Trump were wrong when they said "flu is worse".
As of yesterday, no doubt about it they were wrong, wrong, wrong.
-
Personally I think saving as many fucking lives as possible is the best argument, but apparently that's unreasonable crazy talk.
@Aqua-Letifer said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Personally I think saving as many fucking lives as possible is the best argument, but apparently that's unreasonable crazy talk.
Crazy is a little harsh, but it is certainly unreasonable.
I think if you thought through what it would take I'm sure you would agree. The number of people and time and money needed is probably more than exists in the universe.
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Yes, we might finally be past that point.
The current US COVID death toll according to CDC is 37,202
Yesterday the US COVID death toll passed the 2018-2019 estimated deaths due to flu of 34,157
The CDC 95% UI estimate of deaths due to flu could actually go as high as 52,664.
But let's just go with the single number estimate, COVID wins
This means Dr. Fauci and Mr. Trump were wrong when they said "flu is worse".
As of yesterday, no doubt about it they were wrong, wrong, wrong.
@Copper said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Yes, we might finally be past that point.
The current US COVID death toll according to CDC is 37,202
Yesterday the US COVID death toll passed the 2018-2019 estimated deaths due to flu of 34,157
The CDC 95% UI estimate of deaths due to flu could actually go as high as 52,664.
But let's just go with the single number estimate, COVID wins
This means Dr. Fauci and Mr. Trump were wrong when they said "flu is worse".
As of yesterday, no doubt about it they were wrong, wrong, wrong.
I never know how seriously to take your posts, but there's far more to it being obviouly wrong than the current death count.
-
I know we're only hearing about the bad cases, but there are a lot of those, it seems. There are also plenty of people not dying but getting really sick, and if hospitals are overwhelmed, then it seems likely that a lot more of these people will die, which is what we're trying to avoid, after all. I was tempted not to even point this out, as it seems so blindingly obvious, but apparently some people still don't actually believe it, or think it's important.
@Doctor-Phibes said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
I know we're only hearing about the bad cases, but there are a lot of those, it seems. There are also plenty of people not dying but getting really sick, and if hospitals are overwhelmed, then it seems likely that a lot more of these people will die, which is what we're trying to avoid, after all. I was tempted not to even point this out, as it seems so blindingly obvious, but apparently some people still don't actually believe it, or think it's important.
Quoted for emphasis.
-
More Levitt, posted yesterday:
Link to video -
@Levitt said >
In this interview with Freddie Sayers, Executive Editor of UnHerd, Professor Levitt explains why he thinks indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people.
huge mistake
I wonder if he has visited tncr
-
Yeah Mr Levitt is saying a bunch of reasonable stuff that people are castigated as stupid and evil for saying. To wit:
- The damage from the lockdown will be greater than the damage from the virus
- There is a meaningful difference between a young person dying and an old person dying
- If we could protect the old people, the death rate numbers would not be alarming.
- Face masks are a viable mitigation, without a lockdown, and no you don't need an n95 mask
- If you want to find the people who are making this into a political football, look first to those getting righteous about the incalculable value of life. That idea is not so prevalent in the virus rhetoric in a culture like Sweden where there are fewer political concerns.
- Nobody risks anything personally by blowing risk out of proportion. Nobody will care if they're wrong. The attitude which assumes some personal risk is to encourage people to think clearly about the cost of the lockdown
- The people incurring the costs of this lockdown are the young folk, and that cost extends far beyond the immediate concerns of this virus. The people the lockdown is in service of, is the old folk.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Levitt said >
In this interview with Freddie Sayers, Executive Editor of UnHerd, Professor Levitt explains why he thinks indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people.
huge mistake
I wonder if he has visited tncr
@Copper said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Levitt said >
In this interview with Freddie Sayers, Executive Editor of UnHerd, Professor Levitt explains why he thinks indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people.
huge mistake
I wonder if he has visited tncr
TNCR has appeared to veer left in response to the virus.
-
Yeah Mr Levitt is saying a bunch of reasonable stuff that people are castigated as stupid and evil for saying. To wit:
- The damage from the lockdown will be greater than the damage from the virus
- There is a meaningful difference between a young person dying and an old person dying
- If we could protect the old people, the death rate numbers would not be alarming.
- Face masks are a viable mitigation, without a lockdown, and no you don't need an n95 mask
- If you want to find the people who are making this into a political football, look first to those getting righteous about the incalculable value of life. That idea is not so prevalent in the virus rhetoric in a culture like Sweden where there are fewer political concerns.
- Nobody risks anything personally by blowing risk out of proportion. Nobody will care if they're wrong. The attitude which assumes some personal risk is to encourage people to think clearly about the cost of the lockdown
- The people incurring the costs of this lockdown are the young folk, and that cost extends far beyond the immediate concerns of this virus. The people the lockdown is in service of, is the old folk.
@Horace said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Yeah Mr Levitt is saying a bunch of reasonable stuff that people are castigated as stupid and evil for saying. To wit:
- The damage from the lockdown will be greater than the damage from the virus
- There is a meaningful difference between a young person dying and an old person dying
- If we could protect the old people, the death rate numbers would not be alarming.
- Face masks are a viable mitigation, without a lockdown, and no you don't need an n95 mask
- If you want to find the people who are making this into a political football, look first to those getting righteous about the incalculable value of life. That idea is not so prevalent in the virus rhetoric in a culture like Sweden where there are fewer political concerns.
- Nobody risks anything personally by blowing risk out of proportion. Nobody will care if they're wrong. The attitude which assumes some personal risk is to encourage people to think clearly about the cost of the lockdown
- The people incurring the costs of this lockdown are the young folk, and that cost extends far beyond the immediate concerns of this virus. The people the lockdown is in service of, is the old folk.
I haven’t listened to yet but if this is accurate #7 is the most alarming.
-
he goes into that towards the end of the interview. It becomes a little touchy feely where he says how much joy young people like his grandchildren give him and that as an old person he's had a great life and is willing to sacrifice to ensure the young folk have those same opportunities.
-
Yeah Mr Levitt is saying a bunch of reasonable stuff that people are castigated as stupid and evil for saying. To wit:
- The damage from the lockdown will be greater than the damage from the virus
- There is a meaningful difference between a young person dying and an old person dying
- If we could protect the old people, the death rate numbers would not be alarming.
- Face masks are a viable mitigation, without a lockdown, and no you don't need an n95 mask
- If you want to find the people who are making this into a political football, look first to those getting righteous about the incalculable value of life. That idea is not so prevalent in the virus rhetoric in a culture like Sweden where there are fewer political concerns.
- Nobody risks anything personally by blowing risk out of proportion. Nobody will care if they're wrong. The attitude which assumes some personal risk is to encourage people to think clearly about the cost of the lockdown
- The people incurring the costs of this lockdown are the young folk, and that cost extends far beyond the immediate concerns of this virus. The people the lockdown is in service of, is the old folk.
@Horace said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
- The damage from the lockdown will be greater than the damage from the virus
The damage from the lockdown is damage from the virus.
People think the current economic problems are entirely due to a coerced supply disruption. But Sweden tells us otherwise.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
The thing is, first they say it's not that bad, then it morphs into 'only sick people are going to die' - now it's 'sacrifice the old to save the young'.
I don't trust these people.
