[argvargc]

9 million - including many children, and mostly people of colour - die each year of starvation. Where's the emergency, trillions and unprecedented worldwide cooperation and effort to eradicate that forever within less than a year? It doesn't even require the invention of anything new, and is primarily a logistical (/expense) problem. Would save three times as many lives just in the first year, overwhemingly more life years overall, and be much easier to implement, being confined to mainly a few known, poorly-resourced areas (rather than the entire earth).

If you've seen or lived the effects of starvation firsthand, you'd find it difficult to understand why suddenly everyone is willing to do anything, even destroy their own livelihoods or take rush-developed intravenous shots, to try and save the lives of a significantly smaller number of predominantly elderly people who were about to die of just about anything else anyway, at the expense of those 9 million (or any other of preventable causes of death that kill in higher numbers per year and have been known about for decades, for example: smoking).

Why not spend a year making the manufacturing of cigarettes illegal, have a worldwide crackdown with cigarette company executives hauled to jail for crimes against humanity, make it illegal to depict smoking in any media, censor all images of cigarettes, and launch a 24/7 every news channel, every street corner propaganda campaign, with celebrities publicly blacklisting smokers?

Save significantly more lives in the first year, and keep doing so year after year. Wouldn't need to trash the economy, ruin businesses, or risk plunging anyone into poverty, etc - and no need for anyone to take a rushed, long-term untested shot.

[atleta]

> 9 million - including many children, and mostly people of colour - die each year of starvation.

The sad thing about this kind of argument is that it never goes away. Whatever happens. I started an argument more than a year ago with a guy, when we had 3000 deaths. World wide, total. He kept saying that it's less than the number of people who die in car accidents in a day. And he was right. What he didn't get is that without counter-measures it would grow exponentially for quite a long time and to quite a large total.

And it did grow and we continued this argument for months (with 1-2 comments a month) he had to keep raising the stakes. Next it was less than the number of flu deaths per year, next it was less than the number of car accident deaths, this time per year, then the number of HIV deaths, and then he just stopped arguing. I pinged him at 1M last June, never responded. I don't think he changed his mind.

I see your argument as a continuation of that. You just raised the stakes again, but however much the total count will be, you guys will always find something bigger. Implicitly stating that it's only worth taking counter measures against the worst cause of death. (Be it lockdowns or vaccines.) But it doesn't make sense. This is ON TOP of all those. Also, let's not forget that the only way we managed to keep it down to 3M is by imposing pretty strict lockdowns worldwide. Without those it would have been a lot worse. And even with these lockdowns the health care system is waaay overloaded in a lot of places, which means that COVID kills indirectly as well.

Yes, help people who are starving: we can easily do so by donating money. As long as you have the money. But don't make it worse by not vaccinating and letting COVID kill others, kill even those who are very poor (they definitely have worse chances) and kill the economy which obviously means more people starving and less help for those who have already been starving.

[argvargc]

9 million/year have not been helped by donations, that's why the number persists.

The "per year" number for COVID cannot change now, it's been a year. It is what it is.

COVID, in light of other preventable deaths, and especially in terms of life years lost, is not of justifiable greater concern compared to others, and from mortality rates/demographics and seroprevalence, this has been broadly known from not long after the beginning. The dollar cost versus life-years-saved is borderline insanity.

The argument lockdowns saved lives has been thoroughly debunked [0], and even the most cursory common-sense look at any per-capita chart by country and measures employed confirms that at a glance.

If you want to continue killing tens of millions per year so you can save the lives of far fewer, you have no standing. Frankly, that position disgusts me.

[0] https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co...

[atleta]

> 9 million/year have not been helped by donations, that's why the number persists.

I don't know where you are getting with this. As I said, this is at best an independent problem that can (and should) be handled. In reality it's worsened by the pandemic.

> The "per year" number for COVID cannot change now, it's been a year. It is what it is.

Though I think I didn't say the "per year" number would grow now, you are actually wrong for two reasons:

- while it's been a year, the beginning of that year was pretty mild, less deaths per day than during the summer or these days. So as we move the window, actually the per year number will increase. E.g. if you look at the "total deaths" graph on Worldometer [0], you'll see that it ramped up around the middle of October. It accelerated about 2x (but at least 1.5x).

- we got these "wonderful" results with various restrictions. And you are agruing for no restrictions, but you can't prove that no restrictions wouldn't yield much worse numbers.

> in terms of life years lost, is not of justifiable greater concern compared to others

I've already responded to this: it doesn't have to be a greater concern. It's a preventable concern. As far as I can remember, we were talking about vaccinations.

Also, years of life lost changes as the epidemic goes on and as the virus mutates and seem to get more aggressive (which is an affect of breeding it in a large number of humans). And let's not forget again, that the numbers are affected by how much the health care system is overloaded. Young people will die if they can't get into a hospital because too many people get sick at once.

> The argument lockdowns saved lives has been thoroughly debunked [0],

Yeah, I know. The whole pandemic has been "debunked" quite a few times. The first "debunk" I've read was a year ago, when a guy started lamenting that it would just die because of the network effect. It didn't. I've checked one random article from your link. It looks pretty weak. It just says that no matter what, the epidemic wave just stops after 6 weeks, because that's what it does. It lumps together countries like Sweden and Taiwan, which is crazy in its own right, because Taiwan has 11 deaths/30M people today and Sweden had like 8k/7M back in June (IIRC that's when that article was written). Needless to say, with the 3rd wave in Europe, the 6 week rule is out of the window: our 2nd wave (here in Hungary) was in a decline in mid February, when it started to rise, probably due to the spread of the UK variant. Without any change in the lockdown policy. Our hospitals have been full for about 1.5 months now. We've been world leaders in daily deaths for probably a month or so.

Yeah, so the article after just saying that the lockdowns don't do anything, because all countries seem to behave the same, concludes with "well, we certainly need to explain this..." (they seem to read my mind). And then say nothing about it. But they have included this (just to contradict you): "Certainly, a full complete lockdown reduces the spread of the virus."

People forget, that epidemiology is a well established field of science. It's only new for them. If I'd have to guess why the epidemic could start to decline on its own, I'd say that people just shit in their pants after a while and start to keep more distance. This could probably be seen in the mobile tracking data if anyone cared.

The sad thing about the lockdowns and the restrictions is that they work pretty well. If combined with all the other efforts and if people comply. Because in the end that's what matters: what people do. Not what governments say they should do. If you (or any of those authors) care to look at East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, you'd see that it can indeed be controlled pretty efficiently. Not for free, but for a lot cheaper than what most of the Western world ended up with. What they do is the complete opposite of what we're doing and what you re suggesting. Instead of ignoring, they react very quickly and vigorously. Closing entire counties if they found a few infected (that's e.g. what I've heard from a guy living in Thailand - they have 70 dead for 70M). And this allows them to have less restrictions overall. Because math. You can stop it when it's just a very low number or you can fuck around and stop it when you have a lot of dead people, when your hospitals are full. Of course, if you can stop it by testing, contact tracing, light restrictions (no mass gatherings), masks, etc., all the better.

Another piece of interesting (but not unexpected) information is that the economic effects indeed correlate with the number of deaths. [1]

> If you want to continue killing tens of millions per year so you can save the lives of far fewer, you have no standing. Frankly, that position disgusts me.

I don't kill anyone, but you definitely look angry and seem to handle this on an emotional level. Which I get, a lot of people do this but it doesn't help with having a logical argument.

[0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/q2-gdp-growth-vs-confirme...

[argvargc]

You've linked to two sites that aggregate data, and provided armchair analysis of them to back up your position.

I've linked to 30+ studies supporting mine, none of which you've mentioned or shown studies that counter them (I'd expect at least 10's of counter studies if you have any kind of a point, hundreds if it has merit deserving of such servitude).

Your examples of lockdowns "working" are East Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Firstly, most of East Asia actually did comparatively little versus the West, especially early on - when they were at the epicentre - and is hampered in implementing lockdowns by a significantly higher population density, and in general, in the case of Japan, a significantly older population, placing them at an immediate disadvantage at that outset.

Your other examples of Australia and New Zealand are poor. If anything is prone to be an outlier, and worthy of less consideration versus other countries, it's these two. Especially New Zealand. It's one of the most isolated countries on the planet, has a tiny population and little through traffic. Compare numbers against any other pandemic (eg, Swine Flu 2009), and you'll see it's always going to do well just fine regardless of what measures may or may not be employed.

Considering the well-established link between the sun and the proliferation of these kinds of viruses (ie, a "flu season"), which happens for a variety of reasons (not least is Vit D production), nullifies those countries as useful controls, particularly against Europe and North America.

Finally, we have the figure of 9 million people who starve, and 8 million people who smoke, both of which are preventable, and both of which could be solved which much less effort, less expense and less social cost, and these are just two - but you still wish to persist in saving the lives of considerably fewer, the bulk of whom were already near death anyway.

None of your arguments make logical sense, and you are unable to back them up with science.

Further, you haven't bothered to even attempt to refute my core logical arguments or the bulk of science I've presented to back them up.

I'm not learning anything from this conversation, but thank you for your engagement. Go well.