:@LeSving Just read elsewhere that Norway (as part of Covid restrictions) has just banned the sale of booze, is this true?? Scary stuff!!
The price of the booze there is even scarier.
gallois wrote:
The problem with that argument is that we are seeing an increasing number of very fit very healthy people suffering enough from catching it to have an affect their work for several months.
When you think about it, it is completely obvious.
Covid-19 is an aggressive respiratory infection. These are people who push their respiratory systems to the limit and rely on the performance gained through doing so in order to do their job. If a professional sportsperson loses some X% of their respiratory capacity as a result of illness, it is much more a problem for them than the same % is for e.g. me.
To anyone with critical reasoning skills this does not equate to a “it is really dangerous for everyone and you should be very scared of it” argument, but the nuances are lost on the average person so it is perhaps a useful marketing tool for vaccination.
Completely disregarding Covid, respiratory infections have always been a big problem for elite athletes. Generally when you have a respiratory illness you cannot really train or perform at any kind of level without risking prolonging it or damaging the lungs, so they take more steps to avoid them than the rest of us.
skydriller wrote:
:@LeSving Just read elsewhere that Norway (as part of Covid restrictions) has just banned the sale of booze, is this true?? Scary stuff!!
To be precise, they forbid selling alcohol beverages in bars and restaurants. You can still buy your alcohol at the ‘vinmonopol’ and drink it home. I guess the idea behind it is to reduce the number of people gathering in bars and restaurants. To some extent, it is a of closing down bars without saying it because bars typically don’t really make money if they don’t sell alcohol.
Among strange things they published they also recommend not using changing rooms and shower in training center, makes you wonder what they think people might be doing there.
Good news, we are still allow to fly, but the days are quite short right now :-)
Graham wrote:
If you’re not a member of an at-risk group (e.g. elderly or relevant comorbidities) then your risk of dying of Covid-19 is very small indeed, particularly if vaccinated. So small that, if people really understood risk, they would not worry about it in comparison to some other risks they take.
I have quoted the numbers above you get 2 “one in 200” tickets if you do not belong to that risk group and 3 of such tickets of such tickets if you do. If the difference is “very small” or not has to be evaluated by the individual.
It is orders of magnitude bigger than dying from terrorism, dying from from an accident in a nuclear power plant, dying from a Covid vaccination, etc. All things people are scared about but as you would say “if they understood risk they would not worry”.
Malibuflyer wrote:
I have quoted the numbers above you get 2 “one in 200” tickets if you do not belong to that risk group and 3 of such tickets of such tickets if you do.
Where do you get those numbers from?
I do not believe for a moment that a non-elderly, fit-and-healthy person has anywhere near that high a chance (1 in 100, you say?) of dying if they are infected with Covid-19.
The published figures are an unsuitable basis for these estimates anyway, because they don’t account for undetected infections. It is still thought that >50% of infections are completely asymptomatic and go completely undetected.
Graham wrote:
Where do you get those numbers from?
A good overview can be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247461
Graham wrote:
The published figures are an unsuitable basis for these estimates anyway, because they don’t account for undetected infections. It is still thought that >50%
Common argument (not only with Covid): If the data doesn’t fit to belief, than there is always something that is not reflected in the data (and can’t be by nature). Who thinks that the undetected rate is >50%? Ain’t that heavily depending on the country and hence the testing requirements?
btw.: The "1 in 100 lottery " number came from your post, not from mine…
Malibuflyer wrote:
A good overview can be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247461
In the article you mentioned (the section “Limitations”):
In the majority of papers presented within this analysis, the individuals were already admitted to hospital, hence there is a strong selection bias towards those more severely affected and, as such, our results may underestimate the degree of risk.
WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
To be precise, they forbid selling alcohol beverages in bars and restaurants.
Yes. According to the head of health directorate, corona spreads proportional (or perhaps exponential 
) with respect to the alcohol consumption in bars. It was funny watching the press conference yesterday evening. The media has been all “where are the restrictions?” for a couple of months now. Then yesterday it was all WTF, restrictions? Why? According to the media I guess restrictions is a necessity, but only as long as they don’t restrict
It’s a circus for sure. Now they are also employing the military and drug store people to distribute and set vaccines. Two shots obviously don’t do much, but the third shot is the magic one
Malibuflyer wrote:
Common argument (not only with Covid): If the data doesn’t fit to belief, than there is always something that is not reflected in the data (and can’t be by nature). Who thinks that the undetected rate is >50%? Ain’t that heavily depending on the country and hence the testing requirements?
Well, I believe it’s been the accepted situation since the pandemic started, but also noted in the paper you cited, in the Limitations section:
Recent evidence from nationwide blanket testing suggests that 86.1% of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 had none of the three main indicative symptoms of the illness, such as cough, fever, or a loss of taste or smell
That being the case, and also given (a) how incredibly infectious it is, and (b) not everyone tests regularly ‘just in case’, it stands to reason that there is a very large number of unrecorded infections out there, quite possibly more than the number of recorded infections.
Are you really arguing that national testing systems are close enough to picking up all infections so as to allow the reliable calculation of an infection fatality rate?
I also noticed the caveat that @Valentin posted. Doesn’t quite make sense to me – surely if they’re looking only/primarily at individuals admitted to hospital then we are excluding asymptomatic patients and thus by analysing this group as a proxy for the population, vastly over-estimating the degree of risk to the average person. Or perhaps I mis-understand their use of language and what exactly they are referring to under-estimating the risk of.
