HOT TOPIC The Worldwide Covid-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Discussion Thread...

[DeletedUser0287]

Of course they 'work' you idiot; just as much as lighting a fire with gallons of gasoline 'works.'

Oh, you'll get your fire. Enjoy getting completely incinerated in the process.

I really don’t get where you stand. Why are you so against lockdown when they ‘work’?

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[DeletedUser0287]

Define what “work” means in the first place. Also it’s impossible to prove anything without a control group to compare to. You just have a pretty graph of data. Without a comparison of another outcome doing the opposite of what we did you can’t prove anything.

Would the control group have followed the same trajectory? Would have the curve gone higher, been flatter, tapered down faster/slower? No one knows. You can measure and graph anything you want, determining the meaning or utility of the data is an entirely different thing. Most people do not understand this, and can be easily manipulated by someone presenting a pretty graph.

A great book about this is called How to Lie Using Statistics.

“Works” means reducing Covid cases I am assuming.

Control Group? Didn’t US and New York didn’t do anything for months even knowing about it? Look what happened without lockdown.

Determining the meaning? Lol, hmm...How hard can that be? We start lockdown and Covid cases steadily drop. We don’t do lockdown and cases increase. It’s not rocket science like you are making it out to be.

Middle school science, X independent variable. X is lockdown or no lockdown. Y dependent variable. Covid cases.

I do agree with it being possible to manipulate data, but in this case how is it manipulated?

 

[DeletedUser0287]

In hindsight, especially seeing how people acted to this whole thing. I think we should never had forced lockdown.

Government should have just recommended to stay home, but those that are against staying home and then later got sick would be put dead last to be treated or actually don’t treat them at all.

Also if you continue to run your direct contact business nobody should stop you, BUT you will be held liable for every person you infect.

This holds people 100% accountable.

 

[ChrisV]

Although I support trump, as much as I “support” any politician, this statement is not based in reality. Covid is much less lethal than initially believed. The 1.5-2 million was based on much higher fatality rates. Remember the point was to flatten and spread out the curve. So if his statement was true then a similar number WILL die over a long enough period of time. The degree of lethality has not been changed.

So in the end 2 things can be true. We flattened the curve and the fatality rate now appears to be an order of magnitude less than initially told/sold.

I'm not really sold on anything right now.

Every week there are new studies that contradict the previous - everything is so heavily politicized that it's just a big scientific clusterfuck. Hydrochloroquine is good. Hydrochloroquine is bad. The asymptomatic rate was underestimated, but it's unclear how much that affected the output numbers. Etc etc etc etc.

It's like watching monkeys hurl shit at each other.

I think the best thing to do is to wait a year then go back and look at all the evidence once the dust settles.

This whole thing has been like watching a bunch of naked farmers trying to catch a greased up pig that got into an amphetamine stash.

Or a goat breaking loose:



For me, I'm personally just going to wait until 2021 or so to see what happened once everyone has better data.

 

[DiamondDog]

Define what “work” means in the first place. Also it’s impossible to prove anything without a control group to compare to. You just have a pretty graph of data. Without a comparison of another outcome doing the opposite of what we did you can’t prove anything.

Would the control group have followed the same trajectory? Would have the curve gone higher, been flatter, tapered down faster/slower? No one knows. You can measure and graph anything you want, determining the meaning or utility of the data is an entirely different thing. Most people do not understand this, and can be easily manipulated by someone presenting a pretty graph.

A great book about this is called How to Lie Using Statistics.

Proof of the opposite action is on the way. Just wait a 2-4 weeks after restrictions are eased.

My pretty graph is much better evidence than the biased "studies" and websites presented in this thread. But hey, those don't get challenged because they align with most people's narrative in here.

 

[DiamondDog]

Of course they 'work' you idiot; just as much as lighting a fire with gallons of gasoline 'works.'

Oh, you'll get your fire. Enjoy getting completely incinerated in the process.

Yawn.

It's mostly alt-right doofuses still rambling on about this stuff that flies in the face of all available evidence. Lockdowns obviously worked great for snuffing this out.

The real question is whether we could have handled this better by having better mass testing protocols, isolation of positive cases, and contact tracing set up in the two months we had to get ready. I’d say yes. But we weren’t prepared so we had to go the lockdown route.

The inaction of many governments in the early stages of the pandemic led to locking down everything as the only viable option.

 

[GIlman]

“Works” means reducing Covid cases I am assuming.

Control Group? Didn’t US and New York didn’t do anything for months even knowing about it? Look what happened without lockdown.

Determining the meaning? Lol, hmm...How hard can that be? We start lockdown and Covid cases steadily drop. We don’t do lockdown and cases increase. It’s not rocket science like you are making it out to be.

Middle school science, X independent variable. X is lockdown or no lockdown. Y dependent variable. Covid cases.

I do agree with it being possible to manipulate data, but in this case how is it manipulated?

Work?? Have you truly reduced them? Or did you just spread them out over a longer period of time? Did even truly spread them out over time, or was that just the natural course the disease was meant to take?

Correlation does not mean causation. There are literally 1000’s or correlated variables to that graph at the moment.

That’s why without a control you can’t claim that what has happened is due to the lockdowns. Could it be warming weather, could it be “herd immunity”, could it be atmospheric pressure, could it be humidity? Could it be masks, could it be social distancing. No one knows the answer, we just have a graph of a variable.

In fact when they surveyed people in NYC the majority of new cases were people sheltering at home, the rate in those that did not shelter was less. Find the clip of Cuomo saying he was baffled by that finding. So, I’m not convinced stay at home did anything positive or is responsible for that graph.

Cuomo says it's 'shocking' most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home

Early look at data from 100 New York hospitals shows that 66% of new admissions related to the virus are people who were at home, Cuomo said.

www.cnbc.com

 

[DeletedUser0287]

Work?? Have you truly reduced them? Or did you just spread them out over a longer period of time? Did even truly spread them out over time, or was that just the natural course the disease was meant to take?

Correlation does not mean causation. That’s why without a control you can’t claim that what has happened is due to the lockdowns. Could it be warming weather, could it be “herd immunity”, could it be atmospheric pressure, could it be humidity? Could it be masks, could it be social distancing. No one knows the answer, we just have a graph of a variable.

In fact when they surveyed people in NYC the majority of new cases were people sheltering at home, the rate in those that did not shelter was less. Find the clip of Cuomo saying he was baffled by that finding. So, I’m not convinced stay at home did anything positive or is responsible for that graph.

Your making it seem that spreading the coronavirus over a longer length of time is insignificant. It helps dramatically, even with shutdown the hot spots were overwhelmed. I specifically say hot spots because other hospitals had much less work.

 

[GIlman]

Your making it seem that spreading the coronavirus over a longer length of time is insignificant. It helps dramatically, even with shutdown the hot spots were overwhelmed. I specifically say hot spots because other hospitals had much less work.

Nope!! I’m saying the effect on the data presented, or any effect at all, from the lockdowns is unknown. If the majority of new infections occurred from people sheltering at home, as demonstrated in NYC, then the lockdowns may have actually exacerbated the rise in infections. Not reduced it. There is as much correlating data that lockdowns did harm as there are they did good in slowing spread. So the cause of that data trend CANNOT be reasonably correlated with the lockdown or any other specific cause.

Data alone without control and context doesn’t prove (or disprove) anything. It’s simply an observation of some event. If someone doesn’t grasp that concept, it’s impossible to have a well reasoned discussion with them.

 

[lowtek]

Yawn.

It's mostly alt-right doofuses still rambling on about this stuff that flies in the face of all available evidence. Lockdowns obviously worked great for snuffing this out.

The real question is whether we could have handled this better by having better mass testing protocols, isolation of positive cases, and contact tracing set up in the two months we had to get ready. I’d say yes. But we weren’t prepared so we had to go the lockdown route.

The inaction of many governments in the early stages of the pandemic led to locking down everything as the only viable option.

Contact trace these nuts. GTFO here with that gestapo bullshit.

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

Nope!! I’m saying the effect on the data presented, or any effect at all, from the lockdowns is unknown. If the majority of new infections occurred from people sheltering at home, as demonstrated in NYC, then the lockdowns may have actually exacerbated the rise in infections. Not reduced it. There is as much correlating data that lockdowns did harm as there are they did good in slowing spread. So the cause of that data trend CANNOT be reasonably correlated with the lockdown or any other specific cause.

Data alone without control and context doesn’t prove (or disprove) anything. It’s simply an observation of some event. If someone doesn’t grasp that concept, it’s impossible to have a well reasoned discussion with them.

The data is about the ratio of infections between those in lockdown and those not in lockdown, not about the rates of infection. The ratio and the rates would be two different things, and the ratio does not seem that unusual depending on the total ratio of those in lockdown and those not in lockdown.

For example, if 66% of admissions are from people infected at home but 80% of residents were in lockdown (a random number), then the rate is lower for those in lockdown while they still make up a larger portion of the ratio compared to those not in lockdown.

Similarly, if 80% of people are in lockdown and there is a family of 5 with 4 in lockdown and one who is an essential worker, if that essential worker becomes infected, the four others will almost certainly be exposed within the home. If all 5 are infected, then only 20% were "not on lockdown" and the other 80% were on lockdown. However, those 80% would be unable to transmit to others so long as they remain in lockdown.

Tl;dr: ratios of total infections and rates of infection in separate populations are not the same thing and should be evaluated with different criteria

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[GIlman]

The data is about the ratio of infections between those in lockdown and those not in lockdown, not about the rates of infection. The ratio and the rates would be two different things, and the ratio does not seem that unusual depending on the total ratio of those in lockdown and those not in lockdown.

For example, if 66% of admissions are from people infected at home but 80% of residents were in lockdown (a random number), then the rate is lower for those in lockdown while they still make up a larger portion of the ratio compared to those not in lockdown.

Similarly, if 80% of people are in lockdown and there is a family of 5 with 4 in lockdown and one who is an essential worker, if that essential worker becomes infected, the four others will almost certainly be exposed within the home. If all 5 are infected, then only 20% were "not on lockdown" and the other 80% were on lockdown. However, those 80% would be unable to transmit to others so long as they remain in lockdown.

Tl;dr: ratios of total infections and rates of infection in separate populations are not the same thing and should be evaluated with different criteria

Agreed, my point being that in a complex system with an infinite number of variable, that without a control it is impossible to show correlation and causation are the same thing. They could be, but you are speculating on that effect. Sweden is the closest we have to a control and they did not have the catastrophic results projected. Still even Sweden isn’t a perfect control because there were many changes people and gov made from normal life.

 

[SteveO]

We cannot isolate this thing out of existence. So, what is the plan... shut down everyone's lives until a vaccine is made?

 

[Thoelt53]

Yawn.

It's mostly alt-right doofuses still rambling on about this stuff that flies in the face of all available evidence. Lockdowns obviously worked great for snuffing this out.

The real question is whether we could have handled this better by having better mass testing protocols, isolation of positive cases, and contact tracing set up in the two months we had to get ready. I’d say yes. But we weren’t prepared so we had to go the lockdown route.

The inaction of many governments in the early stages of the pandemic led to locking down everything as the only viable option.

Bootlicker has entered the chat.

 

[DiamondDog]

Contact trace these nuts. GTFO here with that gestapo bullshit.

Japanese or Germans would probably do just fine without a lockdown or a much softer one. In America there's people comparing early contact tracing (like you) and mandatory mask use to Nazism.

 

[Thoelt53]

Proof of the opposite action is on the way. Just wait a 2-4 weeks after restrictions are eased.

My pretty graph is much better evidence than the biased "studies" and websites presented in this thread. But hey, those don't get challenged because they align with most people's narrative in here.

Ah, so your skill is regurgitating pretty graphs based on biased “studies” and websites. Impressive.

Have you done any critical thinking of your own such that you might come to your own conclusion rather than the conclusion someone else wants you to believe?

You’re simply regurgitating mainstream narrative, are you not?

Yawn.

It's mostly alt-right doofuses still rambling on about this stuff that flies in the face of all available evidence. Lockdowns obviously worked great for snuffing this out.

The real question is whether we could have handled this better by having better mass testing protocols, isolation of positive cases, and contact tracing set up in the two months we had to get ready. I’d say yes. But we weren’t prepared so we had to go the lockdown route.

The inaction of many governments in the early stages of the pandemic led to locking down everything as the only viable option.

“Alt-right.”

Yeah sure. You clearly have a wonderful understanding of the forum’s demographic with your whopping 13 highly valuable posts over the past four years.

Whatever “alt-right” stumbles onto this forum typically leaves shortly thereafter. The same with you commie, boot-licking libtards.

 

[Thoelt53]

Japanese or Germans would probably do just fine without a lockdown or a much softer one. In America there's people comparing early contact tracing (like you) and mandatory mask use to Nazism.

Another history ignorant dipshit has come to lecture us all.

Rejoice.

 

[DiamondDog]

Ah, so your skill is regurgitating pretty graphs based on biased “studies” and websites. Impressive.

Have you done any critical thinking of your own such that you might come to your own conclusion rather than the conclusion someone else wants you to believe?

You’re simply regurgitating mainstream narrative, are you not?


“Alt-right.”

Yeah sure. You clearly have a wonderful understanding of the forum’s demographic with your whopping 13 highly valuable posts over the past four years.

Whatever “alt-right” stumbles onto this forum typically leaves shortly thereafter. The same with you commie, boot-licking libtards.

Someone's mad and making this personal

Not that I have to explain myself to you but I'm no commie or lefty. I'm just an individual with a balanced view and a fair amount of objectivity.

Btw, I'm aware of this forum's demographic (I regularly lurk) but I'm not here to please others or try to make them like me by adhering to their ideas.

 

[Thoelt53]

Someone's mad and making this personal

Not that I have to explain myself to you but I'm no commie or lefty. I'm just an individual with a balanced view and a fair amount of objectivity.

Btw, I'm aware of this forum's demographic (I regularly lurk) but I'm not here to please others or try to make them like me by adhering to their ideas.

Are you @ChrisV’s cousin?

 

[ChrisV]

Someone's mad and making this personal

Not that I have to explain myself to you but I'm no commie or lefty. I'm just an individual with a balanced view and a fair amount of objectivity.

Btw, I'm aware of this forum's demographic (I regularly lurk) but I'm not here to please others or try to make them like me by adhering to their ideas.

Don't even bother... this thread is a confirmation bias circle jerk.

Anyone with any sense (ChickenHawk, JScott) left months ago

It's like going into a Donald Trump rally arguing "hey maybe there might just be some positive aspects of trade with China? Maybe we should take a balanced approach with this?" Unless you're an absolute masochist, I wouldn't even bother.

 

[ChrisV]

It's mostly alt-right doofuses still rambling on about this stuff that flies in the face of all available evidence. Lockdowns obviously worked great for snuffing this out.

The real question is whether we could have handled this better by having better mass testing protocols, isolation of positive cases, and contact tracing set up in the two months we had to get ready. I’d say yes. But we weren’t prepared so we had to go the lockdown route.

The inaction of many governments in the early stages of the pandemic led to locking down everything as the only viable option.

They're not really Alt-Right here. It's more Libertarian, which is basically the Bud-Lite alternative to Anarchy.

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[Andrea3]

Lockdowns don't work?

Can anyone look at these graphs and tell me with a straight face that lockdowns don't work? Deaths and daily new cases have fallen by 95% in Italy during the lockdown period. How can someone claim that reducing the possibility for the virus to spread from person is ineffective?

View attachment 33212View attachment 33213

As Italian living in Germany (where we had "light" lockdown measures comparatevely speaking, i.e. closed restaurants, cancelled big events and the such - but NO stay at home order beside for grocery shopping or going to the hospital - which you may also call house arrest), may I ask you to also have a look at the German chart?

Sure, strict lockdowns work to bring numbers down, but are they really necessary? There are nations like Germany which show declines without having to shut down completely everything for 2 months and longer. With obvious consequences on economy, mental and physical health...

 

[MTF]

Sure, strict lockdowns work to bring numbers down, but are they really necessary? There are nations like Germany which show declines without having to shut down completely everything for 2 months and longer. With obvious consequences on economy, mental and physical health...

There are also countries with some of the most restrictive and longest-running lockdowns in the world that have a very bad situation like Peru.

This article explains possibly why: Peru a virus hot spot despite strict lockdown

The main point is that each country should make a decision based on its unique situation, not copy someone else's approach just because it's the current flavor of the month. Also, this shows that even with a strict lockdown, certain countries just won't benefit from it much because people can't afford the luxury of staying at home.

All of this needs to be balanced with other aspects of our lives. It's the whole narrative "coronavirus is the greatest threat to humanity ever" that pisses off so many people on this forum, particularly seeing how governments around the world are taking advantage of the situation to pass draconian laws, steal, and gain more power.

Also, most decision-makers around the world don't take into account horrible side effects of their often ridiculous illogical policies. This is the second thing that pisses off so many people on this forum, thus making them even more one-sided.

 

[DiamondDog]

As Italian living in Germany (where we had "light" lockdown measures comparatevely speaking, i.e. closed restaurants, cancelled big events and the such - but NO stay at home order beside for grocery shopping or going to the hospital - which you may also call house arrest), may I ask you to also have a look at the German chart?

Sure, strict lockdowns work to bring numbers down, but are they really necessary? There are nations like Germany which show declines without having to shut down completely everything for 2 months and longer. With obvious consequences on economy, mental and physical health...

Read what I said a few posts ago.

 

[Mike Partee]

Hey you.

Yes, YOU.

You reading this.

F— it.

There's better things to do with your time than argue on the internet.

Sincerely,
-UC

 

[VTK]

Haven't stayed up to date on much of the literature but someone sent me this study, showing asymptomatic spread is weak to null...meaning if no symptoms, there's low to no likelihood of spreading the virus.

If true, it could blow the top off this entire thing. No masks, social distancing, BS, because hey, asymptomatic spread is why we subjected ourselves to this whole circus.

edit: I see @Vigilante posted the same article, my bad.

It's certainly very interesting. I'd point out though that it is a study of one single person and whether they were infectious. You wouldn't want to be making any decisions based on this info other than pushing urgently for more research.

 

[Kak]

I am just laughing... We still have the loser lefties STILL arguing in favor of lockdowns when most have been lifted at this point. There isn’t anything close to “blood in the street” that was originally predicted. Sorry commies. You lost the argument.

99% of people DIDN'T get a clinical case, which means the stupid curve could have blown up just the same after the lockdown lift.

The only acceptable argument at this point is that the lockdowns were worthless and the government is just trying to save face. Daddy Trump's swift actions "saving us all" pegs my bullshit meter.

I have been out to eat at least 5 times in the last week and a half. I don’t wear a mask. I shake hands. I don’t care.

At this point I would go to a sporting event even though I don’t like sports.

 

[VTK]

As Italian living in Germany (where we had "light" lockdown measures comparatevely speaking, i.e. closed restaurants, cancelled big events and the such - but NO stay at home order beside for grocery shopping or going to the hospital - which you may also call house arrest), may I ask you to also have a look at the German chart?

Sure, strict lockdowns work to bring numbers down, but are they really necessary? There are nations like Germany which show declines without having to shut down completely everything for 2 months and longer. With obvious consequences on economy, mental and physical health...

It's a good point. The UK and Germany are relatively speaking comparable countries. The UK absolutely 100% ended up needing a lockdown, Germany didn't.

What made it necessary in the UK but not Germany? The Germans had a massive and relatively effective testing and tracing system which along with minor restrictions they used to suppress the spread of the virus and prevent it from over-whelming health services. The UK by contrast only paid lip-service to testing and tracing and held back on any restrictions until a massive base rate of infection had been established. The UK also has several large, international and densely populated cities with London being exceptionally vulnerable to pandemics. If the UK hadn't have locked down, things would have gotten nasty very quickly.

Sweden is another example. They don't have lockdowns but they don't have a huge, densely populated country. This is a generalisation but they seem to be a societally conscientious population who observed strong social distancing without needing it pushing by the Government. This is backed up by credit card data that shows that there was barely any difference in the drop in spending between neigbouring Norway who did lock-down and Sweden who didn't. It's also evidenced by the serology studies showing that very few people in Sweden have been infected. The UK and Sweden started with the same strategy and got two extremely different results, so again it shows the conversation requires nuance and context.

South Korea didn't need a full lock-down despite being hit hard and early by Corona, because they have an exceptional testing, tracing and quarantining system. The UK and US didn't have a system like this, Spain and Italy also didn't (or got blindsided).

So lockdowns aren't strictly necessary and can be avoided with strong early epidemiological controls, but in some countries they became necessary.

 

[VTK]

Hey you.

Yes, YOU.

You reading this.

F— it.

There's better things to do with your time than argue on the internet.

Sincerely,
-UC

Arguably the best post in the entire thread and thanks for reminding me before I got stuck in again aha.

 

[GPM]

This makes me laugh. Sure the lock-down slowed stuff down, but WHO CARES. Lock-down might slow the spread of the annual flu as well, but is that something that needs to be done?

I read in the paper the other day that something close to 80% of the deaths in my Province were the elderly in long-term care homes. While that is a tragedy, if you ask me it is something on its own. We failed our elderly, and this just highlighted it in a big way.

Back to young, healthyish people. Do they need to be locked down? WHY???????? It is a giant a$$ non event. People get sick all the time! Why destroy everything to stop them from getting sick? They get sick, they get better.

I will do you one better. I have a good friend who's life might LITERALLY BE SAVED because of COVID19. Yup, you read that right. He has had leg pain for a while and went in to get it checked out, they booked him in for some proper scans that would take place in 2021 (Thanks Canada!). A few weeks ago he started having trouble breathing and he thought he caught the COVID, so he went in to get tested. They all came back negative, so they decided to do those scans right away. Turns out he had hip cancer that is spreading through this body and somehow ended up in this lungs. So they got him on treatments right away.

He would probably be dead if he had waited until the original scan date, instead thanks to COVID19 he was able to get in and scanned and get treatment right away. He has a young daughter at home. COVID19 might end up being what SAVED this little girls father.

Lock down? WHYYYY???????????