Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[hankscorpioLA]

Wrong.

The UK implemented a sugar tax on their soda industry a few years back. It has been successful in lowering sales of sodas with high sugar content.

I tried a PEPSI ZERO or whatever it's called, and trust me, it's everywhere out there because of the cost effectiveness to the supply chain. It brought about innovation in the sector with the creation of thousands of low-sugar lines.

This isn't overnight, but it's one example of why a tax will, in the long-term, have a positive impact on diets.

A reduction in the sale of high sugar soda is not the desired outcome. The desired outcome is a reduction in obesity rates. If the tax causes people to shift from one form of unhealthy eating to another, it's impact is likely negligible.

And it misses the point.

Right now I can drive up to McDonalds here in California and get 2 McChickens for $3. Those two McChickens have about 700 calories combined.

Can you find me a healthy substitute for 700 calories that costs $3? I don't think you can. That is the problem. That is why healthy eating correlates to income. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to not have a healthy diet because healthy diets cost more.

Again, I'm just saying that it's possible to shift consumer habits when adding a tax.

In a sense, you're arguing against yourself. Yes, people in poor financial shape will get more bang for their buck, which is usually unhealthy. That is not a revelation. But if you add a tax or raise the price of the **** food, it changes the dynamic.

The point is, that it is possible. It's not currently happening in North America, but again, the point is that it is possible !!

The argument was never about $3 healthy meals being available

OK...but...hear me out...if the issue is that poor people only feel they can afford to eat unhealthy food...how does raising the price if that food help the situation? If anything, it just makes it worse. That's why healthy eating correlates to income. Because eating healthy is extremely difficult if you are poor.

Also...you didn't address my first point, which is that even if the tax reduced the consumption of sugary sodas, did it impact obesity rates? Did people make healthier choices or did they just make different unhealthy choices?

[YelloC]

Critical thinking requires an individual to be educated on a subject.

Doesn't seem to apply to the overwhelming majority of anti-vaxxers.

To state the 'overwhelming majority' of those questioning the blanket need or who is behind these vaccines are uneducated is not only false it is disrespectful. In the same light it is not reasonable for the other side to call the majority pro-vaxxers uneducated, blind sheep.

Trying to generalize the lowest form of the other side of the discussion or debate to be the norm as a tool to discredit and flex an egotistic muscle is weak.

I'm sorry...was I unclear?

Based on the overwhelming evidence in favor of vaccination, it is not possible to be both informed on the subject and against vaccination.

Anti-vaxxers have no more legitimate basis for their beliefs than do flat earthers or Holocaust deniers.

In my opinion, some anti-vaxxers are using vaccines as a scapegoat so they don’t have to look in the mirror and realize that their children’s conditions are a result of their own poor life choices.
In my younger years I wasn’t as diligent with getting my flu shot, mostly due to ignorance that comes with youth but that all changed after dealing with pneumonia twice in 1 year that was a result of H1N1 and resulted in me coughing up blood for nearly all of six months as well as having a family member with a latex allergy that precludes them from receiving most vaccines. I also have asthma which is made worse by basically every flu virus.

[Ackshun]

A reduction in the sale of high sugar soda is not the desired outcome. The desired outcome is a reduction in obesity rates. If the tax causes people to shift from one form of unhealthy eating to another, it's impact is likely negligible.

And it misses the point.

Right now I can drive up to McDonalds here in California and get 2 McChickens for $3. Those two McChickens have about 700 calories combined.

Can you find me a healthy substitute for 700 calories that costs $3? I don't think you can. That is the problem. That is why healthy eating correlates to income. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to not have a healthy diet because healthy diets cost more.

Again, I'm just saying that it's possible to shift consumer habits when adding a tax.

In a sense, you're arguing against yourself. Yes, people in poor financial shape will get more bang for their buck, which is usually unhealthy. That is not a revelation. But if you add a tax or raise the price of the **** food, it changes the dynamic.

The point is, that it is possible. It's not currently happening in North America, but again, the point is that it is possible !!

The argument was never about $3 healthy meals being available

OK...but...hear me out...if the issue is that poor people only feel they can afford to eat unhealthy food...how does raising the price if that food help the situation? If anything, it just makes it worse. That's why healthy eating correlates to income. Because eating healthy is extremely difficult if you are poor.

Also...you didn't address my first point, which is that even if the tax reduced the consumption of sugary sodas, did it impact obesity rates? Did people make healthier choices or did they just make different unhealthy choices?

1) The company is taxed, not the consumer. If they choose to raise the prices for the end consumer, that's for the company to decide.

2) If Ronald McDonald's profit margin goes from 70% to 30% on particular items that are unhealthy, they are going to hit the drawing board to find something they can continue to offer at the low price while avoiding the tax.

3) Societies evolve due to innovation. Raising the costs to PRODUCE garbage food will have one impact. Innovation.

4) We can't measure this empirically in a month or a year. This is a gradual process. It may take dozens of years.

[Fairview4Life]

Read on Twitter

[Retro_Junkball]

The above cola discussion is reasonable and logical. However, the last post ignores supply/demand curves and presupposes innovation will occur in a mature market under stress (rather than result in collapse). This post was not worthy of the rest of the discussion.

[bballsparkin]

Pepsi Zero still has aspartame though, which is not only a known carcinogen, but artificial sweeteners are actually shown to not only *not* increase weight loss, but actually contribute to weight gain and obesity.

How many people you see drinking "zero calories" are skinny? In my recollection very few. And those that are tend to be very skinny. All or nothing but definitely not worth it.

[bballsparkin]

What about the life coke stuff that uses sativa or stevia or something

I'd think better. But maybe give you gas.

edit: but with coke who knows. probably still bad for you.

[ItsDanger]

"I hope we don't get so many people infected that we actually have that herd immunity" Dr Tony (Vaccine or Bust) Fauci.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4866591/user-clip-dr-fauci-hoping-infected-actual-herd-immunity

Can some high IQ reporter please ask him what % he would consider as "background immunity"? Also, this guy has been there 30+ years and still doesn't have a solution for HIV, time for some new blood (after hyping it up). Wouldn't call him a superstar, if anything he's just another government lifer.

Full quote for context, since this seems strategically clipped:

Q I’m following up Dr. Fauci’s comment earlier about what it’s like going to be coming back to normal and until there’s a vaccine that — there’ll be gradual steps towards restoring normalcy.

Under that — you know, short of a vaccine — does putting 80,000 people, fans, spectators in a sports stadium or 25,000 politicos in an arena for a political convention this summer make a lot of sense? Do those sorts of things require a vaccine to fully protect the American populace?

DR. FAUCI: No, I don’t think that you’re going to have to say that the country cannot get back to a real degree of normalcy until you absolutely have a safe and effective vaccine. It will be really evaluating the kinds of things.

And that’s the reason why — it was discussed up here — why it’s so important to have an antibody test so you know what the penetrance is in society. And then we have a situation where we don’t ever want to get to have to mitigate. We want to be able to contain. And by the time we have to face what’s going to happen with this going back to normality, we will have in place the capability of identifying, isolating, contact tracing so that it never gets out of hand.

Ultimately, the showstopper will be obviously a vaccine where you can vaccinate people and you won’t have it. There’s going to be another issue that’s going to be important and it has to do with somewhat of a comparison, for example, with influenza.

We go through multiple cycles of influenza. There’s always a degree of background immunity in the population. I mean, that will ultimately happen if we get a situation where we get back to normal.

Now, I hope we don’t have so many people infected that we actually have that herd immunity, but I think it would have to be different than it is right now.

So, again, remember, when you say “normalcy” — I mean, we could get back normally, economically and otherwise, without necessarily saying we’re going to forget about the virus. We have to pay attention to this because we’ve had a very bad experience with this virus.

Also, forum heroes questioning the credentials of people like Dr. Fauci is just hilarious. Sorry you think he should have done better vs. AIDS, but facts are facts and his standing in his own community is beyond reproach.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio

I'll translate the long winded diatribe, if there is herd immunity, a vaccine is irrelevant. Ie. No cash windfall. Re: HIV ( not AIDS), anybody with that track record of total failure would have been terminated long ago. Yet he remains. Wonder why? Trust me on this, there are a LOT of serious people questioning his credentials currently. His fearmongering of exponential growth was a disgrace. To conclude, I do not expect herd immunity but most likely outcome is another influenza A type strain each season.

[ItsDanger]

"I hope we don't get so many people infected that we actually have that herd immunity" Dr Tony (Vaccine or Bust) Fauci.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4866591/user-clip-dr-fauci-hoping-infected-actual-herd-immunity

Can some high IQ reporter please ask him what % he would consider as "background immunity"? Also, this guy has been there 30+ years and still doesn't have a solution for HIV, time for some new blood (after hyping it up). Wouldn't call him a superstar, if anything he's just another government lifer.

I read some of his work, he's a pioneer and key in the development of many immunologies. Just finished listening to an audiobook on immunology and he had his hand on so many things, the book wasn't even about him but he kept coming up. You can call him whatever you want - government lifer, hack, loser, whatever - but in the field he's extreme well-respected and he's saved millions of lives. He helped figure out how HIV works when nobody knew. How the virus tricks the immune system to stand down. He's also had a hand in auto-immunities. Why no cure for HIV then? Viruses evolve, one reason why SARS doesn't have a cure. He is without question the Lebron James in his field.

This is the same person at NIH who funded Wuhan Institute of Virology when coincidentally gain of function research was banned in US in 2015. Anyone who wasn't born yesterday understands this was a way to circumvent the system to continue their radical HIV vaccine research. And we're living with results of outsourcing risk to China. Wet market? Not likely according to Dr Peter Chumakov (no way a Russian scientist goes public with misinformation). Good job Fauci.

[Vaclac]

Aspiring totalitarians are making full use of this crisis. Look at this statement by YouTube about why they took down a video by two doctors that dared question the consensus regarding lockdowns.
https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube
I haven't even seen the video - the views expressed may well be incorrect - but the given reason for the take down is highly disturbing on its face. It was taken down for "disputing the efficacy of local health authority guidance", which in their view could lead others not to follow it, and therefore necessitated that the video be taken down. This is such an obviously dangerous standard... seriously, in a democracy we are not permitted to question current policy, specifically the decisions of the people who are currently making the most important decisions? Advocating against a law is not the same thing as breaking it and equating the two is the road to tyranny. If I questioned the wisdom of the war on drugs in the US, would YouTube say I'm encouraging people to break the law and take illegal drugs that are harmful to their health?

[Fairview4Life]

I'll translate the long winded diatribe, if there is herd immunity, a vaccine is irrelevant.

No. Bad translation.

The point he was making is that if there is herd immunity without a vaccine, it means something like 300 million Americans will have had to recover from a Covid-19 infection, and developed immunity. That means millions of dead people and an overwhelmed hospital system. That isn't ideal. So saying you hope we don't have enough infections to develop herd immunity is a completely reasonable statement.

[Fairview4Life]

This is such an obviously dangerous standard... seriously, in a democracy we are not permitted to question current policy, specifically the decisions of the people who are currently making the most important decisions?

Youtube isn't a democracy.

[Cassius]

Well I've been to a TraderJoe's in Nashville. But sure, I'm not disagreeing that the entire attitude and economics around food choices. availability and inventives has to change. No medical system is designed to handle what's to come. Anyway, the southern states aren't what interest me so much here. Plenty of sunlight there. As much as we want to see those red-necked red staters punished for their accumulated sins, this isn't going to be the time.

We were on the same page in a few places. We disagree overall because:

- The question of "why are people vitamin-D deficient" leads back to the same premise
- The US had a task force in place to deal with exactly this situation before it was disbanded, and if Ebola was mishandled like this, we'd all be dead already.
- Comparing Toronto's infrastructure to any US city is exactly why I asked the question in the first place. I'm from Burlington, and no stretch of the imagination can prepare you for the realities of "crossing the tracks" down here.
- By ignoring the southern states, you are eliminating the population that immediately invalidates any subsequent observations and conclusions you can draw from your hypothesis. Look at what's happening in New Orleans. Louisiana is as red as it gets, but it's also as sunny as it gets and black people are dying just as fast as anywhere else.

[tecumseh18]

Aspiring totalitarians are making full use of this crisis. Look at this statement by YouTube about why they took down a video by two doctors that dared question the consensus regarding lockdowns.
https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube
I haven't even seen the video - the views expressed may well be incorrect - but the given reason for the take down is highly disturbing on its face. It was taken down for "disputing the efficacy of local health authority guidance", which in their view could lead others not to follow it, and therefore necessitated that the video be taken down. This is such an obviously dangerous standard... seriously, in a democracy we are not permitted to question current policy, specifically the decisions of the people who are currently making the most important decisions? Advocating against a law is not the same thing as breaking it and equating the two is the road to tyranny. If I questioned the wisdom of the war on drugs in the US, would YouTube say I'm encouraging people to break the law and take illegal drugs that are harmful to their health?

The blocking of public discussion is particularly odious given the "mission creep" that has so clearly occurred here. The original goal of the lockdown was to "flatten the curve" and prevent ICUs from being overwhelmed. The assumption was that yes, everyone would eventually be exposed to the virus, but we just didn't want everyone to be exposed at once. OK, mission accomplished, can we go back to normal now (albeit while wearing mandatory masks)? Apparently not.

Maybe a secondary objective was to get a sense of the fatality and transmission rate, But that was only possible through systematic testing, which just hasn't happened. You still can't get a test in Toronto for antibodies if you're asymptomatic - I know, I've asked, while having routine bloodwork done. And if anything was going to be a goal, it was protecting the elderly. Oops!

So it seems fair game to question the official policy. I don't understand Youtube's thinking here. Blocking free speech only fuels the conspiracy theorists.

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

[Vaclac]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

[Vaclac]

This is such an obviously dangerous standard... seriously, in a democracy we are not permitted to question current policy, specifically the decisions of the people who are currently making the most important decisions?

Youtube isn't a democracy.

No, but it operates in one (many, actually) and purports to be a platform rather than a publisher. More importantly though, the reasons for free speech still exist, but now the public square is not formally a public space. If YouTube and Facebook are going to act this way, then I think we need to regulate them as if they were public entities and subject to the same requirements to allow free speech.

[Kevin Willis]

"I hope we don't get so many people infected that we actually have that herd immunity" Dr Tony (Vaccine or Bust) Fauci.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4866591/user-clip-dr-fauci-hoping-infected-actual-herd-immunity

Can some high IQ reporter please ask him what % he would consider as "background immunity"? Also, this guy has been there 30+ years and still doesn't have a solution for HIV, time for some new blood (after hyping it up). Wouldn't call him a superstar, if anything he's just another government lifer.

I read some of his work, he's a pioneer and key in the development of many immunologies. Just finished listening to an audiobook on immunology and he had his hand on so many things, the book wasn't even about him but he kept coming up. You can call him whatever you want - government lifer, hack, loser, whatever - but in the field he's extreme well-respected and he's saved millions of lives. He helped figure out how HIV works when nobody knew. How the virus tricks the immune system to stand down. He's also had a hand in auto-immunities. Why no cure for HIV then? Viruses evolve, one reason why SARS doesn't have a cure. He is without question the Lebron James in his field.

This is the same person at NIH who funded Wuhan Institute of Virology when coincidentally gain of function research was banned in US in 2015. Anyone who wasn't born yesterday understands this was a way to circumvent the system to continue their radical HIV vaccine research. And we're living with results of outsourcing risk to China. Wet market? Not likely according to Dr Peter Chumakov (no way a Russian scientist goes public with misinformation). Good job Fauci.

Conspiracy theory, not interested. I know of his work in the field in immunology, don't care about his politics. In terms of Wuhan that is not the complete story, after it was built China freezed out Western countries from gaining full access to those facilities. In terms of his work in HIV, he has saved millions of people. His desire is to save millions more and he's getting older, he can't wait 15 years for the governments to get their act together on something he worked his life on. To be fair, in the same situation I would strongly consider doing the same. It's not coming from a bad place. If you're blaming Dr. Fauci for this coronavirus that's a bit of a stretch, even in conspiracy circles. Bill Gates is more culpable. Finally it doesn't matter what you believe, he has vastly improved the field of immunology. If you think he's evil then that's your choice. There are some people who still think Lebron sucks. I doubt he loses sleep, body of work speaks for itself.

[tecumseh18]

- By ignoring the southern states, you are eliminating the population that immediately invalidates any subsequent observations and conclusions you can draw from your hypothesis. Look at what's happening in New Orleans. Louisiana is as red as it gets, but it's also as sunny as it gets and black people are dying just as fast as anywhere else.

OK, I don't know what's going on in Louisiana/New Orleans (although I visited it in the 1990s, pre-Katrina). The Vit-D studies, such as they are at this stage, are based on European populations. But just to speculate, the stay at home rules in such a compact urban environment - no big back yards like in Burlington! - along with a lack of supplementation would make it hard to get sufficient Vitamin D for anyone of any skin shade. And harder if you're darker.

But to reiterate, there's not much we can say for sure. Mainly, we simply don't have the data re exposure, plus every jurisdiction determines cause of death differently. If anything, it's looking like exposure has much more - i.e. earlier - than was originally though. And data from prisons (where prisoners tend to be let outside, AFAIK) indicates that the serious infection rate after exposure is pretty low.

[Crowned]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

[tecumseh18]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

Amazing how putting that name of a publication in quotation marks seems to be intended to demean it, but in fact only demonstrates your ignorance. The slogan of theconversation.com is (and here I'm using quotation marks correctly - i.e. to quote something) "Academic rigour, journalistic flair". And if you actually took the time to read the article, you would see that it embeds its references for ease of reading. On the specific point you raise, their link led to an apparently legitimate report with this summary of findings:

- In NSW, from March to mid-April 2020, 18 individuals (9 students and 9 staff) from 15 schools were confirmed as COVID-19 cases; all of these individuals had an opportunity to transmit the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others in their schools.
- 735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases.
- One child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.
- No teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases.

http://www.ncirs.org.au/covid-19-in-schools