Lockdowns work.

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
^^Is that a science denier's idea of a convincing argument?
What science? You have never linked direct evidence that lockdowns work. You have just kept linking the same graph showing the rates of death which actually show countries with no lockdowns having fared better than countries with lockdowns.

You have posted no scientific proof of anything.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
What science? You have never linked direct evidence that lockdowns work. You have just kept linking the same graph showing the rates of death which actually show countries with no lockdowns having fared better than countries with lockdowns.

You have posted no scientific proof of anything.
Do I need to explain a log plot to you again?

I grant you that I posted evidence, not proof. Proof isn't actually the goal. The goal -- the one I support -- is to save lives and reduce the effect of the virus on society -- by taking smart actions. Reducing transmission of the disease through social distancing measures, aka lockdown, is one very smart action, though it is more of a blunt force instrument than anything else. Smarter actions are needed. We need to reduce the number of transmission to a level where containment efforts, such as wide scale testing, contact tracing and isolation protocols can effectively be employed. This isn't some radical science. It's just reason.

You recommend that we all just go out and let people die. That's sacrificing humans to capitalism and consumerism. No wonder you've failed to convince anybody but a flat earther that this is a wise course of action. It would work, I don't doubt. It's more than likely to cause a major disruption in our economy as well as threaten food supplies but I agree eventually we would see fewer new cases that way too. The thing is, most people would rather not see loved ones die when there is a path toward the same result that doesn't necessarily mean we must hold millions more funerals.

I do regret your losses. I do regret the world is not going to go back to where it was a few months ago. I'm just looking for the path forward that does not sacrifice others in the lost hope of getting back to where we once were.

The flat earther said "they" were Jews. LOL. What conspiracy theory do you espouse when you say "they" are somehow doing something venal?

Oh, and the state of Washington is doing very well compared to the state of NY. Both states started at about the same point but Washington locked down right away and people stayed home. It's there for you to read about if you want.

 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I grant you that I posted evidence, not proof.
It's not even evidence. It's a graph showing the wrong curve, with each country lined up regardless of when their outbreaks began, showing deaths. In fact, not only is it the wrong graph which means that it is not evidence that lockdowns have kept the spread of the virus within healthcare capacity, it clearly shows countries that did not implement such measures having achieved superior results.

You recommend that we all just go out and let people die.
No. I do not. I suggest old fatasses isolate themselves. I have repeatedly stated that nobody is saying anyone has to go out. I highly recommend that old and obese and those with relevant comorbidities such as cardiopulmonary conditions and diabetes do not expose themselves to the Wuhan boomer-doomer. What I suggest is avoiding a fucking famine. What I suggest is that the onus of proof is upon those attempting to destroy the global economy and food supply chain.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
It's not even evidence. It's a graph showing the wrong curve, with each country lined up regardless of when their outbreaks began showing deaths. In fact, not only is it the wrong graph which means that it is not evidence that lockdowns have kept the spread of the virus within healthcare capacity, it clearly shows countries that did not implement such measures having achieved superior results.


No. I do not. I suggest old fatasses isolate themselves. I have repeatedly stated that nobody is saying anyone has to go out. I highly recommend that old and obese and those with relevant comorbidities such as cardiopulmonary conditions and diabetes do not expose themselves to the Wuhan boomer-doomer. What I suggest is avoiding a fucking famine. What I suggest is that the onus of proof is upon those attempting to destroy the global economy and food supply chain.
Suggesting we end lockdowns is endorsing rapid spread of this disease. Your ideal is Sweden, which quite admirably sustained a horrendous rate of new infections and deaths without swamping their medical systems. They have the highest death rates anywhere in northern Europe. So, yeah, you are endorsing human sacrifice so that you can get your cheeseburger. I'm not laying a morality thing on you for that. I'm just saying that this isn't a very convincing argument for those of us who don't live in a country with a robust healthcare system. Also, it's not necessary, and probably the worst form of action for us to take:

Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu
link to pdf

Using geographic variation in mortality during the 1918 Flu Pandemic in the U.S., we find that more exposed areas experience a sharp and persistent decline in economic activity. The estimates imply that the pandemic reduced manufacturing output by 18%. The downturn is driven by both supply and demand-side channels. Further, building on findings from the epidemiology literature establishing that NPIs decrease influenza mortality, we use variation in the timing and intensity of NPIs across U.S. cities to study their economic effects. We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over.

This paper came from a set listed on a website dedicated to the MIT Sloan research about the coronavirus pandemic


Washington State is a great example that shows effectively implementing a lockdown in fact saved lives without damaging its economy compared to others that did not respond intelligently.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Suggesting we end lockdowns is endorsing rapid spread of this disease.
No. It isn't. All of the worst outbreaks have exploded under lockdowns. All of the countries that have fared the best have embraced voluntary social distancing.

It has gotten into our elderly care homes and prisons and infected those most vulnerable to it despite our efforts, as a plethora of serosurveys are making quite evident. The fact is, you cannot prove or even provide direct evidence that the measures which have been put into place have kept healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, because it doesn't exist. That was the reasoning behind risking famine and it didn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere. This is why everyone defending lockdowns has gone from "they worked" to "they helped". I agree that they may have very slightly impacted the rate of spread. I have maintained this from the very beginning but only because logic would dictate it. Not because there is any evidence of it. However, what is very obvious is that a famine is looming and that will be a one-two punch that will make the pandemic far more deadly.

The fact is, the measures which are most effective against the spread of the virus, are best achieved voluntarily. All jobs are essential. The governments see this and they are opening up as much as possible. The evidence is not on your side.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu
link to pdf

Using geographic variation in mortality during the 1918 Flu Pandemic in the U.S., we find that more exposed areas experience a sharp and persistent decline in economic activity. The estimates imply that the pandemic reduced manufacturing output by 18%. The downturn is driven by both supply and demand-side channels. Further, building on findings from the epidemiology literature establishing that NPIs decrease influenza mortality, we use variation in the timing and intensity of NPIs across U.S. cities to study their economic effects. We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over.
First off, that was the flu, a hundred years ago, in a world far less dependent on a global food supply chain and despite what you may believe there were never nationwide or statewide lockdowns. A few cities locked down. That is by no means comparable. It simply doesn't apply. People still worked and produced and sold food. They didn't deem certain businesses essential but not others. Those "lockdowns" were far less severe and only spplied to 43 metropolitan areas. The study only measured recovery rate for cities that locked down vs those which didn't during the 1918 h1n1 pandemic. Also, that pandemic preceded the 20s and killed between 2 and 10 percent of the population. This one is apparently killing less than half a percent of the population and the overwhelming majority of these deaths are retired and infirm (read: nonworkers).
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
First off, that was the flu, a hundred years ago, in a world far less dependent on a global food supply chain and despite what you may believe there were never nationwide or statewide lockdowns. A few cities locked down. That is by no means comparable. It simply doesn't apply. People still worked and produced and sold food. They didn't deem certain businesses essential but not others. Those "lockdowns" were far less severe and only spplied to 43 metropolitan areas. The study only measured recovery rate for cities that locked down vs those which didn't during the 1918 h1n1 pandemic. Also, that pandemic preceded the 20s and killed between 2 and 10 percent of the population. This one is apparently killing less than half a percent of the population and the overwhelming majority of these deaths are retired and infirm (read: nonworkers).
It's a valid study that contradicts the notion that lockdowns mean harm to economies. In 1918, cities and states that took proactive measures to cut down the effects of the epidemic DID NOT do worse than other localities that tried to ride it out. From the data presented in the article, there is no evidence that lockdowns negatively affected cities. It DID save lives. That is all it intends to say.

I've asked before for you to post something that you find convincing. All I've seen are tables that I don't find convincing, memes that mock people who lost loved ones and pugnacious arguments that I find repelling.

So, convince me instead of trying to bully me. That doesn't work and in fact is a negative to the message you are promoting.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
No. It isn't. All of the worst outbreaks have exploded under lockdowns. All of the countries that have fared the best have embraced voluntary social distancing.

It has gotten into our elderly care homes and prisons and infected those most vulnerable to it despite our efforts, as a plethora of serosurveys are making quite evident. The fact is, you cannot prove or even provide direct evidence that the measures which have been put into place have kept healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, because it doesn't exist. That was the reasoning behind risking famine and it didn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere. This is why everyone defending lockdowns has gone from "they worked" to "they helped". I agree that they may have very slightly impacted the rate of spread. I have maintained this from the very beginning but only because logic would dictate it. Not because there is any evidence of it. However, what is very obvious is that a famine is looming and that will be a one-two punch that will make the pandemic far more deadly.

The fact is, the measures which are most effective against the spread of the virus, are best achieved voluntarily. All jobs are essential. The governments see this and they are opening up as much as possible. The evidence is not on your side.
Lockdowns most certainly reduced R0. That is clearly shown in the figures that I've posted earlier. There are no better data than a death count.
 

Budzbuddha

Well-Known Member
I am currently experiencing work place harassment and they picked a great week to do it in the peak week of the pandemic here . I started a notebook and now know what I’m up against so better prepared to use some new survival skills to keep them at bay. I am taking it day by day and might get a lawyer if needed. I am aggressively looking for another job but am preparing not to pay anything back on my contract.
my last job I had a contract I broke and they tried to threaten me with certified letters and shit but they eventually just stopped following up. It’s a hospital sign on / relocation bonus bullshit. the first hospital I worked at fresh out of school relocated me from PA to WA and I was involved with watching work place racial harassment of my black coworker by our director and helped assist in getting his Racist ass fired . It was so traumatic as a new grad I wanted out and found another job, they begged me to stay but I left and they forgave my sign on bonus . I can see something similar in the works now and just want out and will encourage them not to peruse any type of payback.
It’s goin to be lawyer fantasyland before long .... everybody suing everybody. Front line exposure , PPE availability , OSHA , Labor board , internal HR , discrimination, harassment , NDA , .... on and on.

GL and thank you for your service during this time.

30D6E19C-25BC-4AB0-94FE-15670B0E997E.gif
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Lockdowns most certainly reduced R0.
It is not certain. Not even close to certain. Infection rates are unknown and you're going to have to wait for the NIH seroprevalence study to come out to prove this unequivocally but it is demonstrable in several seroprevalence studies which have already been conducted that this is the case. However, I would tend to agree that lockdowns have had a very slight positive effect on the reproductive rate, as I have all along.
That is clearly shown in the figures that I've posted earlier.
No, the figure you have repeatedly posted has nothing to do with the reproductive rate. Any inference that can be made in regard to the reproductive rate based on it is completely unscientific.
There are no better data than a death count.
You keep declaring this, but it's simply fasle, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. They don't even have a final death count.

"Look how many deaths have been counted, the R0 is down" is what you're literally saying and it is quite retarded.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Anybody with half a brain knows lockdowns work. Anybody with half a brain knows it's a temporary solution that won't last forever.

Maybe people who bitch about losing money for a couple or 3 months should have financially insulated themselves a little better to go along with their stimulus payments and enhanced unemployment compensation. You spend every penny you get, you're probably a lousy manager.

I see very few people financially hurting around here right now, simply because they recently got laid off.

The dead people had it worse. They're gone. They can't go out and be a whining crybaby protester. Maybe they should go read a book about the depression or WW II and the sacrifices people went through for years without complaint.

A couple months is nothing compared to that. A minor glitch. I was laid off the entire year in 1982. I survived. Nobody ever said life would be a big bowl of cherries.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
It's a valid study that contradicts the notion that lockdowns mean harm to economies.
I agree. it is a valid study which does indicate this. However, and I patiently explained this already, there are very distinct differences between that pandemic and the economy of that time with this pandemic and the economy of this time and the types of lockdowns are far different.

It simply doesn't apply.
In 1918, cities and states that took proactive measures to cut down the effects of the epidemic DID NOT do worse than other localities that tried to ride it out.
States did not lockdown. 42 cities locked down. I already explained this very patiently. Those lockdowns were far less restrictive and were much more like the sort of measures Hong Kong has put into place. Large gatherings and schools were closed. Businesses were not forced to shutter and such measures were implemented in select metropolitcan areas. Surrounding rural areas continued to supply food and people were not forced into 20% unemployment. Also, that pandemic killed between 2% and 10 percent of the population in all age groups. This pandemic is killing the retired and infirm. Our economy is global as is our food supply chain and these lockdowns are national and statewide, making some employment essential and others not.

Also, that study only measured the pace of recovery. it just doesn't apply.
I've asked before for you to post something that you find convincing. All I've seen are tables that I don't find convincing, memes that mock people who lost loved ones and pugnacious arguments that I find repelling.
I have patiently explicated every argument you have put forward, even the asinine declarations of falsehoods, while you were insulting me and feigning sympathy.
So, convince me instead of trying to bully me.
I'm not trying to bully anyone. I made a thread and compised dozens of well researched and worded arguments, none of which were rebutted. That thread was filled with shitposts and memes and personal insults against me. This thread, which was made simply to mock that thread has much of the same and yet I am here patiently explicating your arguments even though you're assertions are completely asinine and declarative and the dimwitted crowd's on your side.

Quit crying about being bullied while sticking up for the biggest bully on this site who mocked me for days when I lost my livelihood and family members in NYC and Mexico City. The person you're sticking up for is a piece of shit homophobe who does nothing but insult and make allegations of pedophilia while calling people retards and cocksuckers. You're fucking right I mocked him, which was what he wanted.
 
Last edited:

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
There are 5.4 million people in Norway. They have had less than 8k cases and 211 deaths from covid19. They have one of the most aggressive test and trace programs in the world. They have to date conducted more than 170k lab tests which is one of the highest testing rates in the world. They reported their first case in late February.

There are 10.1 million people in Sweden. Sweden has neither locked down nor conducted aggressive test and trace programs. Their testing rate is less than a third of that of Norway per capita. Their outbreak started earlier than most countries in Europe as they were reporting human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the end of January.

Here are the logarithmic case per day graphs from these two countries. Note the flatness of the curves. Also note that this is the curve that scientists use in regard to "flatten the curve" arguments.
Screenshot (95).png
Screenshot (94).png
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Sweden has had a total of 21,167 confirmed (clinically apparent) cases and 2,669 deaths.
Swedish official Anders Tegnell says 'herd immunity' in Sweden might be a few weeks away
Sweden, unlike its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway – and virtually every other country in the western world – has resisted extensive lockdown restrictions to stem the coronavirus outbreak. Instead, it's largely kept society, including schools and restaurants open, and relied on voluntary social-distancing measures that appeal to the public's sense of self-restraint. Polls show the strategy is broadly supported by most Swedes.
What's the latest from Sweden?
Tegnell: We are doing two major investigations. We may have those results this week or a bit later in May. We know from modeling and some data we have already – these data are a little uncertain – that we probably had a transmission peak in Stockholm a couple of weeks ago, which means that we are probably hitting the peak of infections right about now. We think that up to 25% of people in Stockholm have been exposed to coronavirus and are possibly immune. A recent survey from one of our hospitals in Stockholm found that 27% of staff there are immune. We think that most of those are immune from transmission in society, not the workplace. We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Sweden's gamble on coronavirus herd immunity couldn't work in the US — and it may not work in Sweden

Analysis banner

  • Sweden has been both praised and vilified for its more relaxed pandemic public health stance during the coronavirus outbreak.
  • The country has adopted a strategy that relies on personal responsibility and willful obedience.
  • Swedes are asked to stay home when they're sick with COVID-19, keep their distance while out in public, but otherwise carry on with life as usual, as much as possible.
  • The strategy isn't perfect, and has exacted a deadly toll, but it's still worth looking at in its entirety, as others consider when, how, and whether to relax their own stay-at-home orders.
In Sweden, bars and restaurants are open to the public, you can go get a haircut, and primary school is in session.

The coronavirus has arrived, but life goes on.

The country has taken a lighter-than-most approach to social distancing for COVID-19, relying on people to monitor themselves for symptoms, stay home when ill, practice good handwashing, and avoid crowds.

You see very few masks on people's faces in current photos from Stockholm and other Swedish cities.

It's a strategy that hasn't been employed in neighboring Finland or Norway, and it's one that some Swedish parents (keeping their kids out of school) as well as doctors and scientists (writing open letters of protest to the government) do not agree with at all.

The ruling concept relies on a bedrock of trust between the government and its people, an expectation of willing obedience and a mindset of safety first, coupled with a desire to keep people healthy, both physically, and mentally.

"What every country is trying to do is to keep people apart, using the measures we have and the traditions we have to implement those measures," the Swedish public health agency's chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, recently told Nature. "The citizen has the responsibility not to spread a disease."

If anyone can have success with such a low-enforcement disease-fighting strategy, it may be Sweden. A sparsely-populated country of people who generally agree to follow the rules is certainly a better candidate than most others for this public health experiment.

But even in Sweden, the reality is that COVID-19 is a tough disease to corral, and the relaxed disease-fighting plan doesn't seem to be going as well as some officials there might've hoped.

Sweden is home to a culture of willing obedience
Sweden is a country of willfully compliant citizens, home of a so-called "consensus culture." It's a place that's birthed some of the world's safest cars, and most inoffensive furniture. Nearly everyone pays their taxes without prodding, despite the record high rates.

"People trust the government," American archaeologist and Scandinavian art history professor Nancy Wicker, who's traveled frequently back and forth between Sweden and the US for nearly four decades, told Business Insider. "It's definitely part of the culture to follow the rules, or guidelines, and to not be too pushy about it."

The Swedish prerogative asks citizens to act like adults, and then trusts that, left to their own devices, people will. The Swedish even have a word for this, folkvett. It translates, roughly, to "good manners," but really means much more, expecting that Swedish people will act appropriately and do the right thing, without being told, or if not, face severe public shame and moral judgement.

In the US, the land of "liberty or death!" and vociferous coronavirus protests, where individualism and independence are prized above all else, it's hard to imagine the same we're-a-collective disease-fighting strategy working as well.

A different interpretation of what 'a healthy society' means
sweden high school closed
Students study at home in Stockholm, as high schools in Sweden are closed due to the coronavirus, March 19, 2020. Jessica Gow/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images
The Swedish coronavirus strategy is rooted in a practical, grown-up sense of being in this fight together, and for the long haul.

"People want to get along, and not draw attention to themselves, which is really different than most Americans," Wicker said.

Swedish actor Alexander Skarsgård once described the mindset at work here, Jantelagen, as "don't think you're special," and it applies to all Swedes (even movie stars and kings).

Indeed, Swedish King Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus said as much in a recent, rare national address.

"We must act responsibly and selflessly," he said. "Everyone in our country has this obligation. Each and every one of us. There is still a great deal of uncertainty. But one thing is certain: we will remember these times and look back on them. Did I think about other people? Or did I put myself first? We will have to live with the choices we make today, for a long time to come."

sweden king
Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf addressed the nation about the novel coronavirus on Swedish national public television, April 5, 2020. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images
Sweden places a high importance on the rights of the child, stressing that children need time, space, and friends to play with, and that adults, similarly need go to work, not just to make ends meet and keep the economy chugging along, but to feel a part of the fabric of their society.

The Swedes are also seriously weighing concerns that have been taken as inevitable, if unfortunate, collateral damage in other countries, such as the mental health risks of being stuck inside, rising rates of abuse, and substance use disorders.

"It's good for people to be outdoors," Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde recently told Politico. "If you're locked inside there's risk of depression, domestic violence, alcohol abuse."

Swedish officials insist they are not sacrificing the elderly and the vulnerable, they are trusting people to be sensible
sweden coronavirus ppe
Nurse Renee Jarvalt puts on her personal protective equipment (PPE) on April 22, 2020 in Stockholm, Sweden. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images
Other countries, including the UK and the Netherlands, originally toyed with the idea that a tight lockdown would lead to unrest, and that it would be more realistic to go for a looser approach, and to aim for herd immunity.

Both were accused of heartlessness: sacrificing the old and vulnerable to avoid anger over pubs closing. They backpedaled, and issued lockdowns. But Sweden has persevered.

This doesn't mean that the country is simply comfortable throwing away its elders, or that anything you might've seen in a horror flick like Midsommar about old people jumping off cliffs to get rid of themselves, is rooted in reality or history. ("Definitely not, definitely not," Wicker said.)

Rather, the comparatively lax strategy is about trying to create a sustainable set up that Swedes will respect long-term, leaning on a culture of asking and not telling.

"The health agency in Sweden, we have to remember this, their job is not just simply to deal with contagious diseases, they are concerned with the health of the population as a whole," Swedish historian Lars Trägårdh told Business Insider. "Whereas in Norway, Finland, Denmark, the politicians have the last word."

Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister, Isabella Lovin, told the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday "it's a great myth that Sweden hasn't really taken very serious steps" to limit the spread of the virus.

"Every country needs to take its own measures according to its traditions and its systems of governance," Lovin said, a nod to the fact that Sweden's public health agency runs independently, so politicians never get to make decisions about Swedish health.

"It's a real fear that if you have too harsh measures, then they can't be sustained over time, and you can get a counter-reaction, and people would not respect the voluntary recommendations that will need to be respected for a very long time."
more...
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
There are 5.4 million people in Norway. They have had less than 8k cases and 211 deaths from covid19. They have one of the most aggressive test and trace programs in the world. They have to date conducted more than 170k lab tests which is one of the highest testing rates in the world. They reported their first case in late February.

There are 10.1 million people in Sweden. Sweden has neither locked down nor conducted aggressive test and trace programs. Their testing rate is less than a third of that of Norway per capita. Their outbreak started earlier than most countries in Europe as they were reporting human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the end of January.

Here are the logarithmic case per day graphs from these two countries. Note the flatness of the curves. Also note that this is the curve that scientists use in regard to "flatten the curve" arguments.
View attachment 4553502
View attachment 4553503
Ummm ok lol. None the less lockdowns seem to lower the number of new cases and deaths (even if they are fat and old). I and countless others will take that as a success. Also there is an ugly rumour someone is stealing snorkels on your island :(.
 
Top