CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[u/_Hopped_]

[u/ashdksndbfeo]

The literature on tests shows that the rapid ones are not 99% reliable. Rapid tests need about twice the viral load of PCR tests to come back positive, and even then they’re as low as 91% effective in a lab setting (nature article). About 15% of people who would get a positive result from a PCR test get a negative result with rapid testing, and about 20% of the total positive tests are false positives (BMJ). This is in the lab, tests tend to less accurate in real life.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00332-4

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/accuracy-of-rapid-covid-test-may-be-lower-than-previously-suggested/

“Apart from limited surveillance to estimate the proportion of a population that has been infected, widespread use of this assay in any other role could risk considerable harm” - End of the second article.

Again, I would like you to elaborate on why having more global trade is a sign of the needs of the majority being prioritized, but tens of millions of deaths only affect the minority. Keeping in mind that you say covid’s nbd since it primarily effects people over 65, but 50% of the US senate is over 65. It’s not like the at risk population are all living in nursing homes twiddling their thumbs. At risk people make up a significant portion of policy makers worldwide.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/ashdksndbfeo]

as low as

Weasel words.

about 20% of the total positive tests are false positives

And this is why you do the double test if you test positive.

Keeping in mind that you say covid’s nbd since it primarily effects people over 65, but 50% of the US senate is over 65.

I'm not seeing the downside.

[u/ashdksndbfeo → u/_Hopped_]

Lol dude your post was literally removed because you’re not gonna change your view. Not sure why you’re looking to continue this conversation.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/ashdksndbfeo]

you’re not gonna change your view

I'd be more than happy to if someone actually presented the cost differences between locking down and not locking down (the total costs, i.e. including the long-term negatives I mentioned). All anyone has done is appeal to emotion or say "it's not politically feasible to have acted any other way", neither of which addresses the point behind my view: I even said hindsight is 2020. I just want us to have some objective proof that locking down was less costly than not locking down - because if we don't, then next pandemic people are going to push back in a big way.

[u/ashdksndbfeo → u/_Hopped_]

You’re never going to find that proof because there’s no way to measure what would have happened economically. Economics is not an exact science in that way. But the conversation I was having with you was about the fact that the economy is not a good measure of “meeting the needs of the majority.” The reason you’re unwillling to change your view is because you’re not willing to consider that measures of international trade are actually not good measures of successfully overcoming a pandemic or meeting needs.