Lockdowns don't work.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The problem with only conversing with people in such a way that shows your disdain for their intelligence, is that in general, people are not so stupid. Anyone can see that these arguments are left without rebuttal and that the tactics of the house-arrest crowd is to simply drown out the dissent with volume or to distort and deceive. Or worse yet, some frame the discussion as though the person who disagrees should feel guilty or refrain from attacking their position because their grandmother died? Why should anyone care about you when all you do antagonize and troll?
Why even comment if you think that everyone who will read it is stupid? Nobody is saying that you have to go outside.
Why even comment if you think that everyone who will read it is stupid? Nobody is saying that you have to go outside.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Are you now claiming not to know about the widely distributed meme called "flatten the curve"? Are you also not aware that this very mainstream meme was pushed by governments? Are you really claiming that you don't fucking know which curve THEY were referring to?
This is nonsense authored by a guy who claims, with no evidence presented, that the curve we were supposed to flatten was not the spread of the virus, but the fatality rate.
That was never the metric. How many died was always a matter of how many we allowed to die. The way to decrease that number has been "flatten the curve" and lockdowns did not flatten the curve. The curve is and has always been growth of confirmed cases.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So that was almost two weeks ago. This indicates that up to 1 in 12 Belgians have it by now.
www.brusselstimes.com
Coronavirus: Study shows 4.3% of Belgians have developed antibodies
www.brusselstimes.com
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
At this rate, Sweden will be one of the first countries with herd immunity and will have achieved it without destroying their economy and stripping liberties.
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
They arent sure if antibodies are warrant immunity.
Immunity from COVID-19 antibodies not certain, HIV co-discoverer cautions
NBC News: What do you think the need is right now for an antibody test?
Gallo: The No. 1 reason for me is to know the extent of the epidemic. You're able to follow the spread of the virus to know the reality of what is going on.
Some people will say the tests can do more. They'll say, 'well, the antibody test also means you can go back to work.' That may be true, but we can’t tell if the antibodies are protective. There are some suggestions that when you have antibodies, you're associated with clearing the virus when the antibody titers are good. [A titer is a measurement of antibody levels in a person's blood.]
But that's not always the case. Sometimes the antibodies are positive and the person is still very infectious. So, you have to remember that.
I'd like to say there are antibodies and there are antibodies and there are antibodies. Some are nothing at all. Some are protective indicators. And sometimes, though not so commonly, they can make matters worse.
For example, dengue fever — if you get infected and have antibodies and then get infected again, you do worse. Another one is in babies, the respiratory syncytial virus. They can have antibodies that make things worse.
NBC News: How confident are we that if we do have these antibodies and we're identifying the correct ones, that we've now become immune, that we can't get sick again?
Gallo: We've been hearing that at those press conferences, but I don't agree with it. I think that you have no idea that you're going to be protected, because you don’t have the data. There are variations. Take HIV for example — if you have certain antibodies and a lot of antibodies against HIV, you're not protected.
It takes more than that. It takes very, very specific kinds of antibodies at a high enough titer count
On the other hand, a positive antibody could mean you're protected. But it could mean what I mentioned with dengue. I don't think it is. But imagine what it would mean that you'd be worse off.
So you understand that you're hearing statements that are simplistic a lot of times. I don't understand why they just can't say, it's likely that will be true, but we cannot say that with any absolute certainty.
Immunity from COVID-19 antibodies not certain, HIV co-discoverer cautions
NBC News: What do you think the need is right now for an antibody test?
Gallo: The No. 1 reason for me is to know the extent of the epidemic. You're able to follow the spread of the virus to know the reality of what is going on.
Some people will say the tests can do more. They'll say, 'well, the antibody test also means you can go back to work.' That may be true, but we can’t tell if the antibodies are protective. There are some suggestions that when you have antibodies, you're associated with clearing the virus when the antibody titers are good. [A titer is a measurement of antibody levels in a person's blood.]
But that's not always the case. Sometimes the antibodies are positive and the person is still very infectious. So, you have to remember that.
I'd like to say there are antibodies and there are antibodies and there are antibodies. Some are nothing at all. Some are protective indicators. And sometimes, though not so commonly, they can make matters worse.
For example, dengue fever — if you get infected and have antibodies and then get infected again, you do worse. Another one is in babies, the respiratory syncytial virus. They can have antibodies that make things worse.
NBC News: How confident are we that if we do have these antibodies and we're identifying the correct ones, that we've now become immune, that we can't get sick again?
Gallo: We've been hearing that at those press conferences, but I don't agree with it. I think that you have no idea that you're going to be protected, because you don’t have the data. There are variations. Take HIV for example — if you have certain antibodies and a lot of antibodies against HIV, you're not protected.
It takes more than that. It takes very, very specific kinds of antibodies at a high enough titer count
On the other hand, a positive antibody could mean you're protected. But it could mean what I mentioned with dengue. I don't think it is. But imagine what it would mean that you'd be worse off.
So you understand that you're hearing statements that are simplistic a lot of times. I don't understand why they just can't say, it's likely that will be true, but we cannot say that with any absolute certainty.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you want proof that antibodies work, even though the presence of antibodies in such a wide portion of the populace is proof that our measures to stop the spread of the virus have failed, utterly.
But you didn't care for proof that our measures would stop the spread of the virus, when economists warned they would cause global economic meltdown and famine?
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Im only quotng an expert. Not my opinion because I dont have one, as Im not an expert on viruses.
The guy above is, and Dr Fauci also said the same thing.
Dr. Fauci urges caution about relying on coronavirus antibody tests
Argue all you wish. Ill listen to the experts. When they say Ok, then Ill agree. Its just not known
The guy above is, and Dr Fauci also said the same thing.
Dr. Fauci urges caution about relying on coronavirus antibody tests
Argue all you wish. Ill listen to the experts. When they say Ok, then Ill agree. Its just not known
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Dr Fauci also said this:
Dr. Fauci says immunity certificates 'possible' after coronavirus pandemic. Here's what that means.
Experts argue documentation verifying a person is immune to the coronavirus could help reopen the economy by allowing some to safely return to work.
www.usatoday.com
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Possible means Maybe. Just like I said. They dont know yet.
When theyre positive, then, ok, until then, its unknown.
Presence of the antiboidies does not guarantee immunity.
Public Health Dayton Montgomery County said Tuesday the presence of antibodies does not mean there is an immunity to COVID-19 coronavirus and it does not mean you cannot contract the virus again.
When theyre positive, then, ok, until then, its unknown.
Presence of the antiboidies does not guarantee immunity.
Public Health Dayton Montgomery County said Tuesday the presence of antibodies does not mean there is an immunity to COVID-19 coronavirus and it does not mean you cannot contract the virus again.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you want proof that antibodies work, even though the presence of antibodies in such a wide portion of the populace is proof that our measures to stop the spread of the virus have failed, utterly.
But you didn't care for proof that our measures would stop the spread of the virus, when economists warned they would cause global economic meltdown and famine?
But you didn't care for proof that our measures would stop the spread of the virus, when economists warned they would cause global economic meltdown and famine?
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Fuck a bunch of economists. I only care about what the Scientists say.
Again. Presence of antibodies does not guarantee immunity, not does it mean one cannot contract the virus again.
Public Health Dayton Montgomery County said Tuesday the presence of antibodies does not mean there is an immunity to COVID-19 coronavirus and it does not mean you cannot contract the virus again.
Again. Presence of antibodies does not guarantee immunity, not does it mean one cannot contract the virus again.
Public Health Dayton Montgomery County said Tuesday the presence of antibodies does not mean there is an immunity to COVID-19 coronavirus and it does not mean you cannot contract the virus again.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Epidemiologists don't work on models to predict global economic crashes and actual fucking famines.
Also there's this:
So you want proof that antibodies work, even though the presence of antibodies in such a wide portion of the populace is proof that our measures to stop the spread of the virus have failed, utterly.
But you didn't care for proof that our measures would stop the spread of the virus, when economists warned they would cause global economic meltdown and famine?
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Seeing as how this study was completed almost a week ago and the test kits were collected even before that, NYC could be a week away from herd immunity.
nymag.com
Antibody Test Estimates 1.7 Million NYC Residents Have Had Coronavirus
The results indicate a massive undercount of official cases — but there are caveats.
nymag.com
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Still doesnt dipute the fact they dont know if antibodies give immunity, and if you can contract the virus again.
They dot know dude. Maybe they do, maybe they dont..
They simply dont know.
Its also going to rear its ugly head again in the fall. Scientists say were in the 2nd inning of a 9 inning game.
Also nobody says the lockdown is going to totally eradicate the virus, but it is going to help ER, and Hospitals no be overwhelmed.
They dot know dude. Maybe they do, maybe they dont..
They simply dont know.
Its also going to rear its ugly head again in the fall. Scientists say were in the 2nd inning of a 9 inning game.
Also nobody says the lockdown is going to totally eradicate the virus, but it is going to help ER, and Hospitals no be overwhelmed.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you want proof that antibodies work, even though the presence of antibodies in such a wide portion of the populace is proof that our measures to stop the spread of the virus have failed, utterly.
But you didn't care for proof that our measures would stop the spread of the virus, when economists warned they would cause global economic meltdown and famine?
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Scientists say the lockdown has slowed the virus. Ill go with them over someone thats not a virus expert.
My wife is also a Cardiologist, and ER doctor, and she says the same thing. Ill also agree with her.
Sorry unlesss your an expert, all you are is someone on the net, spouting off. Just like me. Im not expert, but Drs, and Experts say the lockdown has slowed the progression. It would even be worse.
Spout all you want. Ill believe my wife, and scientists.
My wife was also warning against hydrochloroquine when she first heard tRUmp say to use it. What have you got to loose. She thought he was a fucking nut.
My wife is also a Cardiologist, and ER doctor, and she says the same thing. Ill also agree with her.
Sorry unlesss your an expert, all you are is someone on the net, spouting off. Just like me. Im not expert, but Drs, and Experts say the lockdown has slowed the progression. It would even be worse.
Spout all you want. Ill believe my wife, and scientists.
My wife was also warning against hydrochloroquine when she first heard tRUmp say to use it. What have you got to loose. She thought he was a fucking nut.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No they don't.
Scientists are not known for making claims lacking proof. If a scientist made such a claim, they said so tentatively or made it clear it was their opinion. There is no proof of such a claim. It doesn't exist. If it did, someone here would surely have cited it in this very thread. I seek that shit daily. There is no direct evidence that lockdowns are working. There is direct evidence they're causing the worst recession in a century.
That's the elephant in the room.
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Fauci sure did, and also said if they would have taken earlier action, death rates would have been lower.
Earlier action would = Less Deaths.
Yep, he did say that.
Coronavirus: Fauci says US 'could have saved lives' with earlier action
"If we had, right from the beginning, shut everything down, it would have been different," Dr Anthony Fauci told CNN
When asked about a New York Times report that Dr Fauci and other officials had suggested aggressive mitigation towards the end of February, Dr Fauci said health officials could only make recommendations from a "pure health standpoint".
"Often, the recommendation is taken. Sometimes, it's not. But it is what it is, we are where we are right now."
Dr Fauci, who is leading the US response to coronavirus, added that "no one is going to deny" that logically, earlier mitigation could have saved lives.
But he said "what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated".
"There was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then."
Fauci's admission lends credence to the recent declaration from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that Trump’s dismissals of the seriousness of the Coronavirus have been “deadly.” Reportedly, public health officials in the administration including Fauci recommended instituting social distancing measures all the way back in the third week of February, but the president didn’t actually institute national social distancing guidelines until almost a month later.
Earlier action would = Less Deaths.
Yep, he did say that.
Coronavirus: Fauci says US 'could have saved lives' with earlier action
"If we had, right from the beginning, shut everything down, it would have been different," Dr Anthony Fauci told CNN
When asked about a New York Times report that Dr Fauci and other officials had suggested aggressive mitigation towards the end of February, Dr Fauci said health officials could only make recommendations from a "pure health standpoint".
"Often, the recommendation is taken. Sometimes, it's not. But it is what it is, we are where we are right now."
Dr Fauci, who is leading the US response to coronavirus, added that "no one is going to deny" that logically, earlier mitigation could have saved lives.
But he said "what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated".
"There was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then."
Fauci's admission lends credence to the recent declaration from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that Trump’s dismissals of the seriousness of the Coronavirus have been “deadly.” Reportedly, public health officials in the administration including Fauci recommended instituting social distancing measures all the way back in the third week of February, but the president didn’t actually institute national social distancing guidelines until almost a month later.
Last edited: