Battery, or other, storage is irrelevant there though as it is an issue for both. That continues to not make any case for wind being 'expensive' now.
Yeah because intermittent power sources never incur costs over the same situation sans intermittency.
The fact that there are other costs is irrelevant to the question of whether we should compare "solar + battery" to wind without batteries. If you are going to bring batteries in to it to deal with intermittent generation then that is just as much an issue for wind as it is for solar.
Quark Blast wrote:
The rate of wind installation has peaked globally
Wind installations grew by about 19% last year as compared to 2018, and were expected to grow another ~26% to a new record high this year. The pandemic will certainly cut into that, but a new record is still possible this year... and will certainly happen once economic activity picks up again.
Thus, you'll maybe get away with this claim for a year or two if the pandemic keeps construction down, but after that it'll prove as obviously false as your previous prediction that wind power was reaching its limits... five years ago.
How do you maintain this belief that wind power is expensive / slowing in the face of observed reality continually demonstrating otherwise?
Quark Blast wrote:
and will continue to suffer under pressure from solar. Wind really does suck, comparatively.
Compared to future solar, sure. Compared to fossil fuels, as implied by your original claim that wind power is "prohibitively expensive", just no.
Quark Blast wrote:
If you're alive to see that time, you best hope you're wrong.
Of course I'd hope that Russia will become less of a fossil fuel backed kleptocracy over the next ten years, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.
His parsing style is necessary to nail down any meaning from you and not letting you get away with claiming you were right about vague and mostly incorrect predictions or claiming support from sources that don't say what you're using them to argue.
Personally, I've given up. If CB wants to continue the exercise in futility, that's his right.
Total US energy consumption (i.e. not just electricity) from coal fell below that of renewable energy last year for the first time since burning wood was the primary source of energy production (~1885).
US coal consumption should drop another ~90% and then bottom out around 2030... unless we find ways to reduce or eliminate its use in steel making and a few other niche areas by then.
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.
Drag you into this? Are you so weak?
:D
This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.
thejeff wrote:
His parsing style is necessary to nail down any meaning from you and not letting you get away with claiming you were right about vague and mostly incorrect predictions or claiming support from sources that don't say what you're using them to argue.
Well his parsing style misconstrues my meaning far more often than not.
thejeff wrote:
Personally, I've given up. If CB wants to continue the exercise in futility, that's his right.
Good idea. Giving up that is. I'll join you (metaphorically).
Final clause:
There is another reason I believe wind power to be generally a boondoggle. One of my professors* made the comment, "very astute observation", about a minor point in the conclusion of a term paper/project. I can't quote myself exactly but basically I said that over the lifetime of most wind power installations, not counting subsidies, they will remain a loss unless/until power rates go up to compensate.
In Germany they raised the power rates to compensate. Way to screw the little guy!
After the class was over I tried looking into studies regarding the cost-benefit of wind power over the lifetime of the installation. I've likely posted links to most of them up thread. There aren't many.
Later that school year, I asked her, "Why aren't there very many?"
She replied {paraphrasing}, "Asking certain questions will not enhance one's career." And she didn't elaborate any further.
* She is a minor contributing editor to the IPCC and studied under one of the "major" editors for her PhD, so she knows her stuff.
Total US energy consumption (i.e. not just electricity) from coal fell below that of renewable energy last year for the first time since burning wood was the primary source of energy production (~1885).
US coal consumption should drop another ~90% and then bottom out around 2030... unless we find ways to reduce or eliminate its use in steel making and a few other niche areas by then.
Woo Hoo!! Way to go Natural Gas!*
:D
* Been kick'n Coals Ass for two decades and counting! Uhh!
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.
Drag you into this? Are you so weak?
:D
This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.
My posts are on me. I would appreciate it if you would not reference me in your attacks on others as if I shared your issues with them.
As far as I can tell, CB is reading your words correctly in most cases. If that doesn't match your meaning, perhaps that's more of a problem with your writing than his parsing.
I can't quote myself exactly but basically I said that over the lifetime of most wind power installations, not counting subsidies, they will remain a loss unless/until power rates go up to compensate.
Which would have been true five years ago. Now, utilities buying wind power pay less than they would for almost any coal or nuclear, and most natural gas.
Quark Blast wrote:
In Germany they raised the power rates to compensate. Way to screw the little guy!
Not accurate. They added a rate surcharge to fund construction of renewable energy and shut down of nuclear power. When they started that process renewable electricity cost more than coal (though not nuclear), but as the process has continued the newer renewable installations now cost less.
Also, as I noted the last time you made these false claims, the 'little guy' is fine with this arrangement. The surcharge and transition enjoy overwhelming public support.
Quark Blast wrote:
After the class was over I tried looking into studies regarding the cost-benefit of wind power over the lifetime of the installation. I've likely posted links to most of them up thread. There aren't many.
Later that school year, I asked her, "Why aren't there very many?"
She replied {paraphrasing}, "Asking certain questions will not enhance one's career." And she didn't elaborate any further.
Odd. Any remotely knowledgeable, or Google capable, person should have been able to point you to many studies which have been done on this subject. Here are some recent ones;
As you might guess from the years in the titles, several of these analyses are updated annually... so, not exactly rare. I'd consider most of these sources relatively unbiased, though somewhat conservative in their future estimates.
The government funded EIA and IEA, on the other hand, have a fairly clear anti-renewables bias, as can be seen from this 2016 IEA report which projected onshore wind power dropping to a $50/MWh median LCOE in 2050... when actually it got there earlier this year. There are also laughably bad graphs of EIA and IEA projections of solar installations vs actual installations. Conversely, the EIA keeps stubbornly insisting that US coal consumption will return to growth.
Despite that, both the EIA and IEA do concede the current low cost of wind power.
So on one 'side' we've got numerous studies, even from sources clearly biased against renewables, saying that wind power costs are low... and on the other we've got your personal beliefs anecdotally supported by an unspecified single 'expert'.
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.
Drag you into this? Are you so weak?
:D
This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.
My posts are on me. I would appreciate it if you would not reference me in your attacks on others as if I shared your issues with them.
As far as I can tell, CB is reading your words correctly in most cases. If that doesn't match your meaning, perhaps that's more of a problem with your writing than his parsing.
I've specifically pointed out that in general, though not of late, you actually read-to-understand my posts. CB and the metalhead seem to read-to-misconstrue my point purposefully ('cause nobody who can type a sentence can really be that dumb). CB especially does this more than half the time and, given that he parses each of my posts multiple different ways and responds to each little sub-section as if it weren't embedded in the whole, it means virtually every post of his grossly misconstrues my intended argument.
My most recent reference to you (quoted above herein) was implicitly calling back to the recent nearly 3-page ####-fest between the metalhead and CB up thread. Short summary of events:
I was not at all involved in that exchange, you attempted to step in talking sense, and both of them proceeded to ignore your helpful contribution and continue the ####-fest unabated. I LOL'd for days watching their MAD idiocy.
No, I dare say, you rarely agree with me and I'm totally fine with that. My main point is:
CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.
I intend to take-up your self-imposed advice (namely, "Personally, I've given up.") and spend my time online in better ways. An easy thing to do as anything from sleeping to armpit-farting the national anthem via TikTok is time better spent than trying to have a discussion with either of them. Q.E.D.
Yes, and I was annoyed by that exchange and then you started posting again and, as I believe I said at the time, reminded me what incoherency really was.
My point wasn't that agree with CB's arguments rather than yours, but that I generally agree with his parsing of your posts and why he does it.
And again, you are using me to support your attacks on CB and IT and I do not agree with you there. Either on the topic of climate change or the topics of arguments on this board.
It is however a nice parallel to your common tactic citing sources that don't actually say what you claim they do.
Yes, and I was annoyed by that exchange and then you started posting again and, as I believe I said at the time, reminded me what incoherency really was.
My point wasn't that agree with CB's arguments rather than yours, but that I generally agree with his parsing of your posts and why he does it.
There's a multifaceted reason it seems incoherent to you.
1) You pay attention to the mud that CB's frenetic parsing throws up.
2) You pay attention to the entirely irrelevant "what if's" that the other guy tries to derail the thread onto.
3) You likely didn't read my cited sources, if at all, with the idea in mind that I might be focusing on facts that aren't the main purpose of the source but are nonetheless germane to my argument.
thejeff wrote:
And again, you are using me to support your attacks on CB and IT and I do not agree with you there. Either on the topic of climate change or the topics of arguments on this board.
Might I point out for your edification that, logically, you don't have to agree with me and yet your contributions to this thread can (at least in part) directly support my contention that CB and the other guy generate their own total ####-show without any help from me whatsoever.
thejeff wrote:
It is however a nice parallel to your common tactic citing sources that don't actually say what you claim they do.
See 3) above in my first portion of this response.
.
Stay safe, avoid handshakes and I'll be back once the global chaos calms down enough to make a useful prognostication about our future climate.
CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.
Indeed, I like to think that I behave the same way regardless of who is in the discussion.
That is, I generally try to respond to interesting points with further discussion, false information with corrections, and rude behavior with disdain.
Your joy at the rare instance where you were not the sole subject of dispute from everyone is understandable, but doesn't make your lack of basic understanding of the topic, failures of logic, or obnoxious behavior any less.
CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.
Indeed, I like to think that I behave the same way regardless of who is in the discussion.
That is, I generally try to respond to interesting points with further discussion, false information with corrections, and rude behavior with disdain.
Your joy at the rare instance where you were not the sole subject of dispute from everyone is understandable, but doesn't make your lack of basic understanding of the topic, failures of logic, or obnoxious behavior any less.
It's funny that you can't see your own contribution to the mess that could be a useful discussion. The fact that I was none of the contribution to the ####### contest between you and the metalhead is sufficient proof that I'm not necessary in order for you to be a total #######. That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor. That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
But an argument from reason is not something you seem open to if at first you believe you disagree with the other. Hence I am wasting electrons and pixels again here.
Back to the OP (more or less):
The whole issue with wind power is similar to the whole virus issue (see the "spoiler" section below). Lots of experts have opinions, and there is a consensus, but long term money isn't going for wind. Short term money? Sure because of subsidies and the whole "bandwagon" thing it's super easy to make bank on building boondoggles. So they get built.
Right now China, domestically and through it's Belt and Road Initiative, is going ape#### building all sorts of crap to keep people employed. There is in fact some long term thinking in the infrastructure they're building out but mostly it's very short term. Even, and this is a stupid as humanity can get, building out as yet an uncertain but large amount of coal fired capacity (100's of GW).
How the Coronavirus 'facts' have been handled by the experts:
An express "informed" opinion that no travel bans should be issued
An express "informed" opinion that the Coronavirus can't be transmitted from person to person
An express "informed" opinion that herd immunity is a thing but won't be until 70%-80% of the population is exposed
Therefore, Sweden is DOOMED!
Oh wait, the travel bans were established too late
Oh wait, the Coronavirus can be transmitted person to person
An express "informed" opinion that face masks should not be worn
Oh wait, the face masks should be worn. Ha! Who knew?
Huh? The number of people infected is much higher than thought
Huh? The death rate is much higher than thought or is it the death rate is lower than thought? Hard to tell.
Oh wait, perhaps herd immunity maybe isn't a thing
No, the number of people infected is much lower than previously thought
But hey, Sweden seems to be doing alright. Better than some, worse than others but a closer to herd immunity than anyplace else
These experts are ####### geniuses and I'm so glad they're calling the shots.
:D
First of all my claim was this:
"Sweden seems to be doing alright. Better than some, worse than others but closer to herd immunity than anyplace else".
Sweden is halfway to herd immunity (assuming it's a thing) and the US of A is at ~5%.
Per Capita Deaths (/100k):
Belguim = 83.05
France = 43.05
Sweden = 43.24
US of A = 21.14
.
Case Fatality Rate:
Belguim = 16.2%
France = 15.2%
Sweden = 11.6%
USA of A = 5.8%
Sweden has long since acknowledged it could've done a better job protecting elder communities. Their demographic also skews old relative to most countries, so they had that working against their numbers.
Still they did better at proteting the elderly than the state of NY and NYC <-- Talk about a total #### show! Nothing like sending COVID-19+ patients back from the hospital to the retirement home. Who the #### made that decision?
That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor.
Nonsense. I listened to, and discussed the issues with, everyone who commented. Again, that for once people disagreed with someone other than you is not the great revelation you seem to think.
Quark Blast wrote:
That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
Do I really need to start citing links to show how very far from reality that "three" is?
Quark Blast wrote:
The whole issue with wind power is similar to the whole virus issue (see the "spoiler" section below). Lots of experts have opinions, and there is a consensus, but long term money isn't going for wind. Short term money? Sure because of subsidies and the whole "bandwagon" thing it's super easy to make bank on building boondoggles. So they get built.
Again, just plain false.
Global current construction ('short term money'), investments in future deployments ('medium term money'), and investments in research and design improvements ('long term money') all heavily favor wind and solar over fossil fuels.
Quark Blast wrote:
These experts are ####### geniuses and I'm so glad they're calling the shots.
A: You grossly over-simplify and misrepresent the facts
B: For the most part medical (and climate) experts aren't 'calling the shots'... politicians and wealthy people are
C: Funny how you go from claiming that experts support your position to expressing such contempt for them when it is proven that they don't
Well, it's been a while now since anyone but the 4 of us has posted in this thread
So, overall far more than three of the other people "on this forum" have a problem with him, but for the recent history of this thread it is 'only' 100%?
First let me point out you flat out ignore the numbers I posted.
Because they make my case and are from a source even you fear to gainsay.
Way to be consistent!
:D
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor.
Nonsense. I listened to, and discussed the issues with, everyone who commented. Again, that for once people disagreed with someone other than you is not the great revelation you seem to think.
And I notice "everyone" is so tired of your ######## that they no longer bother to "discuss" the topic with you.
Good Job! You win the internet!
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
Do I really need to start citing links to show how very far from reality that "three" is?
See my previous comment.
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The whole issue with wind power is similar to the whole virus issue (see the "spoiler" section below). Lots of experts have opinions, and there is a consensus, but long term money isn't going for wind. Short term money? Sure because of subsidies and the whole "bandwagon" thing it's super easy to make bank on building boondoggles. So they get built.
Again, just plain false.
Global current construction ('short term money'), investments in future deployments ('medium term money'), and investments in research and design improvements ('long term money') all heavily favor wind and solar over fossil fuels.
And you subtract the long-term wind investment from the total and you get essentially the same number as the long-term solar investment.
.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
These experts are ####### geniuses and I'm so glad they're calling the shots.
A: You grossly over-simplify and misrepresent the facts
B: For the most part medical (and climate) experts aren't 'calling the shots'... politicians and wealthy people are
C: Funny how you go from claiming that experts support your position to expressing such contempt for them when it is proven that they don't
Yet one more instance of you utterly failing to read my post for comprehension, opting instead for just enough sense to make a quasi-cogent "rebuttal", only not really.
Obviously, I decry the consensus "expert" opinion because it is a bandwagon forced agreement. Say something different than the consensus and just try and get funding for your research. The guy in Russia spent a decade+ languishing while the rest of the crowd finally could no longer deny the danger posed by permafrost. He should've been published a full decade before he was. Yes indeed scientists are click-ish ###hats too. Who knew?
You know what? Since I'm already not dancing to the tune the metalhead wants to call (for like years now), I'll go ahead and magnanimously declare that you win the Internet and get the special ribbon of merit for also winning the Climate Change thread on Paizo's forums after five long years (close enough to five years).
"On Wednesday, the architect of the strategy said that, in retrospect, he might have pushed something closer to other countries' restrictions."
"Asked whether too many people in Sweden had died, he replied: 'Yes, absolutely.'"
"Deaths in Sweden, though, have been eight times higher than in Denmark and 19 times higher than in Norway, even though Sweden is only double each neighbors’ size. The outbreak appears to be continuing to course through their society, even while most other European countries seem to have gotten things under control, at least for now."
That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
No one on these forums are defending you, therefore you must be wrong.
Your evidence is just as easy to use against you. Therefore, it isn't very good evidence.
Helmet on too tight?
:D
First, your basic argument there is; "It takes one to know one". Nice.
Second of all, you ignore the other two salient points. Good job! Way to be a ####### Internet ####.
Third, my comment wasn't directed to you but tangentially involved your ignorance and so you want to speak up about it and lose a second time. Ok, I'm fine with that.
Fourth, I'll repeat the full argument to help you read for comprehension:
It's funny that you can't see your own contribution to the mess that could be a useful discussion.
1) The fact that I was none of the contribution to the ####### contest between you and the metalhead is sufficient proof that I'm not necessary in order for you to be a total #######.
2) That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor.
3) That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
You ignore the first two items (either of which by themselves prove you're wrong), then pick out the third and least important point (hence it being listed last) and claim I use equivocal argumentation. Brilliant! Watch out Holmes a metal helm is about to replace the trusty old deerstalker.
:D
CB wrote:
"On Wednesday, the architect of the strategy said that, in retrospect, he might have pushed something closer to other countries' restrictions." {Sure he 'might have' and then they might have only ended up with numbers as bad as France. LOL snort-ha!} see below how France compares so favorably with Sweden
"Asked whether too many people in Sweden had died, he replied: 'Yes, absolutely.'" {That's a ####### loaded question! Did they ask him if he's stopped beating his wife to? LOL what #### journalism}
"Deaths in Sweden, though, have been eight times higher than in Denmark and 19 times higher than in Norway, even though Sweden is only double each neighbors’ size. The outbreak appears to be continuing to course through their society, even while most other European countries seem to have gotten things under control, at least for now."
I put the proper emphasis on those quotes for you and added relevant commentary.
Or you could argue the numbers I provided. You know? The ones that prove your case wrong? Here:
Per Capita Deaths (/100k):
Belguim = 83.05
France = 43.05
Sweden = 43.24
US of A = 21.14
.
Case Fatality Rate:
Belguim = 16.2%
France = 15.2%
Sweden = 11.6%
USA of A = 5.8%
Or you could argue the numbers I provided. You know? The ones that prove your case wrong?
That you think you can still 'prove' that Sweden did the right thing when even the person responsible for their policy now admits that they didn't just shows how impervious you are to facts.
Again, to quote Tegnell, "Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did".
The numbers you cite are for radically different countries with radically different issues (e.g. higher population density, more people per household, less ability to work from home, larger geographic area to manage, etc). As quoted in my last message, Sweden has done far far worse than neighboring countries with similar demographics and other factors.
Or you could argue the numbers I provided. You know? The ones that prove your case wrong?
That you think you can still 'prove' that Sweden did the right thing when even the person responsible for their policy now admits that they didn't just shows how impervious you are to facts.
Again, to quote Tegnell, "Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did".
The numbers you cite are for radically different countries with radically different issues (e.g. higher population density, more people per household, less ability to work from home, larger geographic area to manage, etc). As quoted in my last message, Sweden has done far far worse than neighboring countries with similar demographics and other factors.
Polite words fail me in the response needed for your utter disregard for the truth and your exceedingly lame attempt to disparage my character.
3) That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
I am addressing this point specifically. I'll move onto other points, once we get done dealing with this one.
Your claim is b*%!!$$@. I just told you why. Either you accept that it is a b~@~~~%$ claim, or you hold onto it.
If you are going to hold onto it, you need to demonstrate that it isn't b!$~++&+.
Otherwise, you're just using b%@!&@!+ to prop up your argument.
This is where you and I come to disagreements. You say things that are clearly stupid, and you cling to them, even when you get called out on them. If you stopped doing that, we'd get along better. For evidence of this, notice how often you and I have had areas where we at least somewhat agree in the past few months. That can happen more often, but you have to let go of this stupid s!%%.
"There are things we could have done better but in essence I think Sweden has chosen the right path."
Quark Blast wrote:
So #### it CB!
Way to lose on a public forum!
You really can't see anything but what you want to see, can you?
Anders Tegnell wrote:
"Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did"
"Yes, absolutely." [in response to being asked whether too many people in Sweden had died]
Even when defending his approach he admits too many people have died and it could have been better... specifically if they'd done it more like the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Sweden has more than five times the death rate of neighboring countries with similar demographics and the virus is still spreading out of control. Sweden is one of very few countries where the week with the highest number of new cases was last week. So much for your 'herd immunity will allow them to reduce their infection and death rates faster' argument.
As usual, there is what you believe... and then there is observed reality showing the exact opposite.
But only when replying to you and the metalhead. Think about that!
CBDunkerson wrote:
Anders Tegnell wrote:
"There are things we could have done better but in essence I think Sweden has chosen the right path."
Quark Blast wrote:
So #### it CB!
Way to lose on a public forum!
You really can't see anything but what you want to see, can you?
Stunning lack of self awareness with that accusation (see more below).
CBDunkerson wrote:
Anders Tegnell wrote:
"Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did"
"Yes, absolutely." [in response to being asked whether too many people in Sweden had died]
Even when defending his approach he admits too many people have died and it could have been better... specifically if they'd done it more like the rest of the world.
That question put to Dr. Tegnell was total #### journalism. Click-bate fake newsery at its finest.
So tell us 'O Great One, what is the correct and specific answer to the question:
How many people dying is ok?
Think about what the Dr. actually said instead of your ######## ######## spin on what he said.
"Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did."
Yes, if the Dr. could have time traveled into the future and then came back to when the virus was first hitting, he would have done things differently.
Well no ####!
How is that the least bit controversial?
How is that the least bit damning to Dr. Tegnell and his approach to the Coronavirus?
CBDunkerson wrote:
Meanwhile, Sweden has more than five times the death rate of neighboring countries with similar demographics and the virus is still spreading out of control. Sweden is one of very few countries where the week with the highest number of new cases was last week. So much for your 'herd immunity will allow them to reduce their infection and death rates faster' argument.
As usual, there is what you believe... and then there is observed reality showing the exact opposite.
Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world is going to be dealing with outbreaks for the next 18 months and by summer's end Sweden will be pretty much done and back to normal with a final total number of deaths per capita about the same as comparable countries - say Switzerland or Belgium - a year from now.
Meanwhile, in places like the USofA, for every 1% unemployment goes up with the Coronavirus lockdown there are an additional 10,000 collateral deaths. So add 150,000 deaths (and counting!) to the final Coronavirus total in the US. That will be the baseline price of battling the virus in terms of human lives, just in the USofA.
Wow, last time I looked at this thread it was full of complete BS about slavery and suggestions to put nuclear power plants in military bases, but going by the last few posts, it's somehow become worse.
How is that the least bit damning to Dr. Tegnell and his approach to the Coronavirus?
Because he concedes that it would have been better if they had responded more like most other countries did.
You previously claimed that, [unlike Sweden] "the rest of the EU will be dealing with their current infection and death rates until at least the fall of 2021".
As it turns out, most of the EU countries have already managed to reduce the rate of infections and deaths... long before the fall of 2021. Conversely, Sweden is one of the few countries in the world which still has a rising infection rate.
So, given that trends thus far have been the exact opposite of what you expected you have of course re-evaluated and...
Quark Blast wrote:
Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world is going to be dealing with outbreaks for the next 18 months and by summer's end Sweden will be pretty much done and back to normal
...doubled-down on your illogical conclusions.
For the record, New Zealand is currently "pretty much done and back to normal", and most developed countries are trending that way. Generally, the earlier in their outbreak countries imposed lock-downs, and/or the more thorough they were, the closer they are to getting down to zero new cases.
Thus, your belief that Sweden will get 'back to normal' a full year before the many countries that are currently way ahead of them on the trend-line for that seems... overly optimistic at best.
How is that the least bit damning to Dr. Tegnell and his approach to the Coronavirus?
Because he concedes that it would have been better if they had responded more like most other countries did.
No. Just No!
What Dr. Tegnell said was, "Should we encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did."
Every country (with the possible exception of Brazil it seems) would have responded differently.
So the #### what?
Do you time travel? Do you know anyone who does?
No? Then shut the #### up about what the Swedes did "wrong".
Per Capita Deaths (/100k):
Belgium = 83.05
France = 43.05
Sweden = 43.24
US of A = 21.14
.
Case Fatality Rate:
Belgium = 16.2%
France = 15.2%
Sweden = 11.6%
USA of A = 5.8%
Those numbers tell a truth. That truth is that Sweden has done better than several countries that locked down.
You also ignore another truth. The truth that the Coronavirus will be back this fall/winter. And the reasonable worry that it will hit just as hard when it does come. Only the Swedes can roll with that viral punch.
Yet another truth you ignore is the 10,000 additional deaths/1% unemployment. Not pedantically/asininely/directly attributable to the Coronavirus but, given that the global recession we're in wasn't possible without the Coronavirus, I'll go ahead out on a limb and make that call. Those 10,000 additional deaths are also, on average, far younger deaths - meaning far more potential has been lost.
But go on. Tell me I'm "wrong" because that seems to be your only response to the facts and truths I present here in this thread. You be you. Protect that weak-### ego you carry around. I don't mind watching you make a ####### #### out of yourself daily herein.
Wow, last time I looked at this thread it was full of complete BS about slavery and suggestions to put nuclear power plants in military bases, but going by the last few posts, it's somehow become worse.
Should be a cinch for you to up the quality of this thread then instead of just dropping in one more lightweight slam against the participants.
This analysis finds that the US could get to 90% clean electricity by 2035... based on current wind, solar, and storage costs. With no increase in cost to consumers. Doing so would eliminate coal electrical generation and reduce natural gas by 70%.
The study assumes adoption of government policies would be required to drive such a rapid transition. While that could still happen, I think it is likely that the continuing decline in wind, solar, and storage costs will get us to results similar to those projected here even without significant government action.
1: The pandemic, for all its size, will be just a blip in terms of overall climate impact.
2: Claims that China (and/or other countries) could somehow be 'faking' data on their emissions are absurd. We can literally see how much they are emitting.
The Pandemic isn't over (and funny because you think it is). Not for at least another year. And as such the economic impact (and thus climate impact) is not yet finished.
Although there are countries where the pandemic is much closer to over. Sweden in particular and the price to pay for that lead hasn't been noticeably worse than other areas. Just check out these stats and you'll see Sweden is smack in the middle. This fall when the "second wave" of the Coronavirus hits Sweden will likely lead the way in successfully dealing with it.
Sweden’s Prime Minister Rejects Criticism of Coronavirus Strategy
Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven rejected criticism of the country’s Covid-19 strategy, amid accusations that the softer lockdown his government chose has resulted in one of the world’s highest mortality rates.
“We’ve followed the same main strategy as others,” Lofven said in an interview on state broadcaster SVT on Sunday evening. “Which in other words means keeping the contagion at levels that the health-care system can handle...
Rather than a failure of strategy, Lofven said increased testing has led to a spike in reported infection rates.
“But if you look at people in hospitals with Covid, the number is diminishing, as is the number of deaths,” he said.
Near as I can tell, no one is close to herd immunity. If other countries can manage the next wave even as well as they managed the first, they're still not going to be anywhere near herd immunity. Which means that limiting the damage from each wave remains the better strategy.
Beyond that, I still don't see why a fall second wave is likely. This isn't a seasonal disease. Waves come and go based primarily on our behaviour, not on the time of year. In the US, we're seeing cases drop in some areas (particularly the early hard hit ones) and rise sharply in others that backed off on social distancing early. I expect that to continue with a series of localized or regional "waves".
Near as I can tell the proper approach is to use social distancing and lockdowns to reduce your caseload to the point where you can use testing and contact tracing to stop community spread. With numbers low enough, you can stop the lockdowns and reduce the social distancing to the point it doesn't noticably hurt the economy. And then you're done, as long as you can keep that up. A major influx from outside can screw you up, but if you stay on top of it, you should be able to catch it early and stomp it out again.
The Pandemic isn't over (and funny because you think it is).
Nobody has said that it is over. You are, once again, just making things up.
Quark Blast wrote:
Not for at least another year. And as such the economic impact (and thus climate impact) is not yet finished.
Absolutely true.
Yet still also absolutely true that whatever the total impact eventually is will be an insignificant blip in terms of climate impact.
Quark Blast wrote:
Although there are countries where the pandemic is much closer to over. Sweden in particular and the price to pay for that lead hasn't been noticeably worse than other areas.
Reality: New infections increased each of the past three weeks in Sweden, and look set to do so again this week. Most countries have decreasing infections. New Zealand hasn't had any cases for weeks now. Sweden's below average performance hasn't led to economic costs noticeably better than other areas.
Your figures on deaths per capita are not good metrics for determining 'success'. Population density and other factors play major roles in determining those values. Sweden having similar death rates as areas with much higher population density means they are doing badly. Compared to neighboring countries with similar demographics they have had several times more infections and deaths.
Near as I can tell, no one is close to herd immunity.
By the end of summer, you'll see.
thejeff wrote:
If other countries can manage the next wave even as well as they managed the first, they're still not going to be anywhere near herd immunity. Which means that limiting the damage from each wave remains the better strategy.
Except that does nothing for the 200,000 to 300,000 premature deaths attributable to the unemployment rates here in the USA.
Are you counting those deaths in your calculus?
thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, I still don't see why a fall second wave is likely. This isn't a seasonal disease. Waves come and go based primarily on our behaviour, not on the time of year. In the US, we're seeing cases drop in some areas (particularly the early hard hit ones) and rise sharply in others that backed off on social distancing early. I expect that to continue with a series of localized or regional "waves".
The waves are seeming to come in ~4 month increments. The one this fall is likely to be worse because of the reduced outdoor activities compared to summertime combined with better viral survival in cooler/more humid conditions.
thejeff wrote:
Near as I can tell the proper approach is to use social distancing and lockdowns to reduce your caseload to the point where you can use testing and contact tracing to stop community spread. With numbers low enough, you can stop the lockdowns and reduce the social distancing to the point it doesn't noticably hurt the economy. And then you're done, as long as you can keep that up. A major influx from outside can screw you up, but if you stay on top of it, you should be able to catch it early and stomp it out again.
True, and to re-quote the PM from Sweden,
“But if you look at people in hospitals with Covid, the number is diminishing, as is the number of deaths,” he said.
CB wrote:
Sweden having similar death rates as areas with much higher population density means they are doing badly. Compared to neighboring countries with similar demographics they have had several times more infections and deaths.
Beyond that, I still don't see why a fall second wave is likely. This isn't a seasonal disease. Waves come and go based primarily on our behaviour, not on the time of year. In the US, we're seeing cases drop in some areas (particularly the early hard hit ones) and rise sharply in others that backed off on social distancing early. I expect that to continue with a series of localized or regional "waves".
The waves are seeming to come in ~4 month increments. The one this fall is likely to be worse because of the reduced outdoor activities compared to summertime combined with better viral survival in cooler/more humid conditions.
Any source for the 4 months?
What countries or areas have seen a 4 month wave pattern? (Has it been long enough anywhere to really see that?
If there's really such a cycle, Wuhan should be deep in the second wave now and it should be starting in Italy. The first definitely isn't happening and the second certainly isn't clear.
Meanwhile in the US, we're still in the first wave and while the initial hotspots have managed to knock it back, it's growing elsewhere as strict measures haven't been taken - many people refusing to do or require the minimum, like masks.
As far as I can tell all the wave talk is based on past respiratory illnesses, much like the claim it would fade away in the summer, which it clearly isn't doing.
The US pattern thus far seems far more linked to measures taken against it than to any kind of natural cycle. There are reasons it might be worse in cooler weather, but it seems to be contagious enough during the nice times to continue being a disaster.
I guess you're right that we'll what happens in Sweden compared to the other Nordic countries over the summer and into the fall.
What countries or areas have seen a 4 month wave pattern? (Has it been long enough anywhere to really see that?...
I said "~4 months". Don't go all CB on me now.
That amount of time seems to be what about half the population will tolerate (excepting of course "happy-happy, joy-joy" places to live like China where of course you will tolerate the government restrictions or else) all the lock-down hassle and/or when peeps start to get blasé about protocol.
Given that asymptomatic spread is minor to non-existent, I'd say herd immunity is also a thing with the Coronavirus and by fall (aka the end of summer) Sweden will be there if it's possible.
So, while you say, "Which means that limiting the damage from each wave remains the better strategy", I'll remind you again that does nothing for the 200,000 to 300,000 premature deaths attributable to the unemployment rates here in the USA.
Are you counting those deaths in your calculus?
Those deaths are real and ongoing. And they skew far younger than direct from infection Coronavirus deaths.
Quality of life is much more than mere quantity.
And you know, speaking of quality, I'm rather burned out on the whole thread and the Internet in general ( even Google search sucks ### anymore. WTH? How did that happen?).
What countries or areas have seen a 4 month wave pattern? (Has it been long enough anywhere to really see that?...
I said "~4 months". Don't go all CB on me now.
That amount of time seems to be what about half the population will tolerate (excepting of course "happy-happy, joy-joy" places to live like China where of course you will tolerate the government restrictions or else) all the lock-down hassle and/or when peeps start to get blasé about protocol.
Given that asymptomatic spread is minor to non-existent, I'd say herd immunity is also a thing with the Coronavirus and by fall (aka the end of summer) Sweden will be there if it's possible.
So, while you say, "Which means that limiting the damage from each wave remains the better strategy", I'll remind you again that does nothing for the 200,000 to 300,000 premature deaths attributable to the unemployment rates here in the USA.
Are you counting those deaths in your calculus?
Those deaths are real and ongoing. And they skew far younger than direct from infection Coronavirus deaths.
Quality of life is much more than mere quantity.
And you know, speaking of quality, I'm rather burned out on the whole thread and the Internet in general ( even Google search sucks ### anymore. WTH? How did that happen?).
1) Asymptomatic spread is nothing like non-existent and has nothing to do with herd immunity anyway. To qualify: It looks like the extremely mild cases aren't a major factor in contagion, but that much spread occurs from asymptomatic people who later develop symptoms.
2) The data I've seen doesn't show hundreds of thousands of premature deaths for the US. More like another 40K or so beyond the COVID-19 deaths.
But I'll throw that back at you: Do you think the NY outbreak would have been no worse if we hadn't locked down? How do those averted extra deaths factor in?
3) 4 months based on what the population will tolerate makes a little more sense than some natural cycle, though I suspect that may vary greatly from country to country, partly based on what the authority figures are telling the public. Here, Trump and the GOP downplaying the disease and demanding we reopen has certainly sped the process up.
1) Asymptomatic spread is nothing like non-existent and has nothing to do with herd immunity anyway. To qualify: It looks like the extremely mild cases aren't a major factor in contagion, but that much spread occurs from asymptomatic people who later develop symptoms.
It does have to do with herd immunity. Those who barely get the 'bug' also don't seem to keep antibodies for very long. Which could be fine if the next time they are exposed they barely get symptoms again. Which is to say they are essentially immune and therefore not part of the herd - they are neither significantly catching it nor passing it along.
thejeff wrote:
2) The data I've seen doesn't show hundreds of thousands of premature deaths for the US. More like another 40K or so beyond the COVID-19 deaths.
But I'll throw that back at you: Do you think the NY outbreak would have been no worse if we hadn't locked down? How do those averted extra deaths factor in?
Firstly, we're not done with deaths from the Coronavirus. Not for at least another year and that assumes a vaccine that is effective and stays effective year after year.
Secondly, we're also not done with knock-on deaths from the elevated unemployment rate (side note - the ###### up employment situation has caused me to alter both my employment plans and it has made graduate school far more attractive; as such I really don't plan to participate nearly as much on these forums as I have the past few years).
To answer your question more directly:
I think that protecting old people silo'd up in care centers is smart and the one thing Sweden has long since admitted they didn't do well enough early on. Health care providers, being exposed repeatedly to some of the very worst cases, also need extra protection. Virus load seems to be a strong partial determiner in how bad one comes down with COVID-19.
Those deaths are only averted if we get a vaccine.
Just yesterday you chastised my apparent assumptions about the Coronavirus with the following statement:
"As far as I can tell all the wave talk is based on past respiratory illnesses, much like the claim it would fade away in the summer, which it clearly isn't doing."
So in light of your own warning on assuming what the Coronavirus will do I'll note that the flattening the curve approach only works if/when we get an effective vaccine.
thejeff wrote:
3) 4 months based on what the population will tolerate makes a little more sense than some natural cycle, though I suspect that may vary greatly from country to country, partly based on what the authority figures are telling the public. Here, Trump and the GOP downplaying the disease and demanding we reopen has certainly sped the process up.
Two things:
The worst states (so far) are all democratic states who regularly give the proverbial finger to the federal administration.
And as we've seen the impact of the virus varies within countries markedly, starting with China, Italy, etc.
I'll note that the flattening the curve approach only works if/when we get an effective vaccine.
No, this isn't true at all.
There are other ways to eliminate/reduce the impact of covid-19 without a vaccine. Flattening the curve also help put those methods into place, and does not require a vaccine.
For example, flattening the curve to put in place widespread testing and contact tracing also works.
New Zealand huh? That country with a total population sitting between the Central African Republic and Mauritania? That country with the population density sitting between Papua New Guinea and Niger? That New Zealand?
Not a big accomplishment relatively speaking. Also, they're not done dealing with the Coronavirus. Their GDP is down and will stay down until the vaccine(s) are developed and proven effective.
OTOH, if what people are arguing is:
If we are willing to totally #### the global economy for an indeterminate amount of time, test constantly and lock people down who fail the test (and pay for all that magically), we can lower the death rate.
To which I say:
Well, yeah but that's known to not be a viable long term solution.
Sweden is however going after a long term solution that everyone else will be emulating whether they want to or not; unless/until an effective vaccine is developed.
