Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

Reply to comment by celebratedrecluse in There’s a Global Pandemic and You Chucklefucks are Still Being Fatphobic by An_Old_Big_Tree

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Sure, a lot of that was my own analysis, because everything you see in the news is about the importance of social distancing. Which, again, in our context is 100% the only option at this point to reduce death. But it didn't have to be that way, is my point, and you can clearly see how this will negatively impact immune response over a population.

Let's discuss my points on immunity:

Diet

Toxic cleaning agents

Over The Counter Drugs Increasing COVID-19 Adverse Outcomes

Above, you can see that while pretty much any drug is going to worsen the underlying condition and people should obviously be encouraged not to take anything, governments are giving conflicting and unhelpful advice to encourage people to buy one OTC drug or another. To prop up the market. Search "COVID OTC" on any search engine and you find articles about the markets but not the lack of WHO recommendations or people talking about how suppressing immune response is a terrible idea for a deadly virus with no recognized treatments. Utter disregard for human life.

Immunity & Social Interaction

This part is the most relevant, because it's inherent to the epidemiology of the social distancing recommendation, and can't really be fundamentally eliminated (but perhaps, ameliorated). Everything else is capitalist nonsense that is the result of our social systems not being designed to handle social distancing.

In short, both physical and psychological "touch" and contact is crucial for overall physical immune health, especially in people with preexisting psychoemotional distress (all of us under capitalism? Lol)

2

[deleted] wrote

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

If you have critiques of the findings or methodologies, it would be great to talk about them, I really need more conversation and stimulation on intellectual subjects since the lockdown.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

This is a separate point, but the last thing I want to say right now is:

Insofar as handling the higher point-in-time caseload for hospitals, we would have had to expand capacity by a factor of about 30-40. This is a huge number, of course, and so flattening the curve to some extent would always be necessary as even a profoundly elastic healthcare system kicks into gear, when we have basically no foreknowledge or time spent preparing in advance of the disease arriving in a given sub-population (a new continent or bioregion, for example).

I'll fully acknowledge that. But there are other ways to handle this type of pandemic preventatively, which actually could negate the need to do social distancing for future pandemics if we do it correctly.

We need to support and enable research into identifying these diseases as they emerge. This has the dystopian name "Epidemiological Surveillance" but it's something that's genuinely important to protect our freedom of movement and overal social health. By identifying cases correctly, developing tests early on, and adding access to testing services worldwide in hotspots where these zoonotic disease emerge, we could have prevented millions of deaths this year. Let's learn from that.

2