@naruciakk@augustus@shpuld it just doesn't make sense that you'd treat people for alcoholism, smoker's lung cancer or broken legs after a mountain bike ride, but not treat people who got covid.
@lain@augustus my favorite is people saying that anyone who hasn't taken the vaccination should be refused the health care (that they have been paying for with their taxes)
@augustus when critics of the corona measures get covid, there's always people who say "Now they'll see how wrong they were". I think many really believe that if you are in any way critical of what governments are doing these days, you don't believe that there's a somewhat dangerous virus at all. if someone's going by the published numbers and decides that the risk is worth it, why should they think differently after they get it? the numbers didn't change.
@velartrill@augustus@naruciakk@shpuld but either way, our anecdotes might give some guidance, but even the official data shows the same: https://www.intensivregister.de/#/aktuelle-lage/zeitreihenback when it all started i did expect a lockdown to come and bought a few weeks of food, told my parents to not meet with my sister because it might be dangerous, wore masks months before there was any mandate.but then all the good news about covid came out, that it's not as dangerous as feared, that some things don't actually work well (like lockdowns), that countries who do next to nothing fare almost the same as those who are the most draconian, but instead of lifting restrictions, governments doubled down. it's irrational and totalitarian.
@velartrill@augustus@naruciakk@shpuld my wife went in for a week for lung issues (non-covid, non-smoking) during the first wave too, they had zero covid patients but had to keep rooms free just in case
@lain@naruciakk@augustus@shpuld we had to go to the hospital in kassel during the height of the initial "wave" because like a complete retard i managed to get a fragment of glass in my foot at the worst possible time and couldn't walk, and i was terrified i was going to get the 'rona (i have asthma and that was before we knew it wasn't a risk factor) but the hospital was completely empty lol, granted it was pretty late at night, usually the ERs are bustling around that time in the US tho
@naruciakk@augustus@shpuld it never overloaded the healthcare system in most countries, especially not in germany. either way, i'm forced to pay for a certain healthcare system here, so i'm not saying 'oh ok only treat me for certain diseases but still take my full money'
@lain@augustus@shpuld Yeah, but these things have never overloaded the healthcare system, COVID very much did. World is not perfect and if that were only a temporary measure, I'd probably take it as the lesser evil.
@hakui@meowski@naruciakk@lain@augustus@shpuld@velartrill (this is not necessarily true. in the same way evolution in other organisms selects for reproductive fitness rather than being long-lived, evolution in viruses selects for transmissibility rather than not-host-killing. those two latter can be useful to an extent, but other strategies exist as well)
@lain@augustus@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill my sense is the entire thing was planned from the beginning- including the collaboration between WIV, UNC, with CDC and USAID funding and they went forward with this "great reset" agenda even though the virus didn't turn out to be anywhere near as dangerous as they had hoped, which is why the whole thing looks like such an obvious shamif people were falling over dead in the street like those early viral hoax videos out of china, it would be a lot more convincing, but they aren't.
@meowski@augustus@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill i'm sure some faked issues or overdiagnosed covid to get more money, but even given that, according to the official german statistics, there never was any danger that could even remotely justify the means taken.
@lain@velartrill@augustus@naruciakk@shpuld hospitals were caught repeatedly staging fake news reports with crowding and long lines here in the US to justify their funding
@hakui@meowski@naruciakk@lain@augustus@shpuld@velartrill sure, but evolutionary strategy, game theory etc, are common in human analysis. it's something in the human model rather than the process itself, platonism bad, etc etcimmediately, yes. but once the virus has successfully spread it doesn't matter if the host dies or not (unless you have a persistent infection that flares back up every now and then to make the host a spreader, like herpes zoster (and technically this is an oversimplification as well, because in the long run extremely rapid spreaders might exhaust the entire available population and die and slower spreaders stick around, in the same way a population of deer that just kept reproducing could eat all the available food and then starve))
@shmibs@augustus@lain@meowski@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill evolution is a random process and is not based on "strategy"but you agree that it's more likely to spread a virus to more people over time if the host doesn't keel immediately from it right
@shmibs@hakui@augustus@meowski@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill it does matter, a dead host can't spread a virus, no matter how infectious (well, unless people handle the corpse). A constant sniffle virus has better chances of survival and spreading as ebola.
@lain@meowski@naruciakk@augustus@shpuld@velartrill@hakui it's good enough at spreading, which is all that mattersmore generally, different local optima exist, and one with high transmissibility followed by high mortality might be selected for. you might get stuck, or it might even be feasibly likely to jump from one optimum to the other, but the high-t high-m optimum is still overall more effective
@shmibs@augustus@hakui@meowski@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill hiv is famously bad at spreading. You can kiss all night with an hiv positive person and the chance of infection is negligible. You can even have sex, unless it involves blood, it's not very dangerous.
@lain@augustus@hakui@meowski@naruciakk@shpuld@velartrill lower mortality rates do become more of a likelihood in the long run, like mentioned above, because if the high mortality disease kills all its hosts before they can reproduce it won't be able to spread any more. and then you could always have a 100% mortality disease that everyone catches from birth but only kills when you turn 30 or something, but the host might successfully evolve persistent immunity to it over time to extend its lifespaneven in that space, though, there's room for a slow spreading slow killing high mortality disease that simmers through the population one by one