The lack of evidence lockdowns worked is a world scandal

[KORG 4,756]

Just now, Florin said:

What stupid people? Noble prize winner stupid? 

Its Nobel for a start. It's not an award that's given to individuals for not being misinformed on pandemic handling.

The undertone to all of these "let us out" maniacs, you may have noticed, is "so what if a few people die". Its psychotic.

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

I wished to read the article to get an unbiased opinion but it's making me subscribe so could you tell us the scientific facts the article mentions?

In epidemiology there is an irony that in retrospect, strict measures appear to be an overreaction but that shows that lockdowns were effective because you know the disease was contained if the situation post-lockdown appears mild enough for people to think the measures were excessive. Because the whole point of a lockdown is to avoid overwhelming the health care system and to minimize risk and fatalities. 

[Morphine Prince 109,766]

“Jacobs is a Brexit supporter and has been lauded by The Conservative Woman website as a rising star. Jacobs is sceptical towards elements within the environmental movementsclaims of a climate emergency, while still believing climate change is an existential problem.” 

 

[Rio 5,088]

dumb to believe that if no lockdowns were set in place, that the death toll would be at least 10m or more by now.
 

basic epidemiological virology will tell you that this virus would killed SO many if no lockdowns occurred, literally. it's scary people may believe that

[Monster7 5,697]

5 minutes ago, mezzanine said:

those numbers are TOTALLY FAKE

Be careful, maybe those numbers may not be accurated, but no way everyone has passed it, in Madrid or Barcelona yes a LOT of people sure passed it but that's it

7 minutes ago, mezzanine said:

They are NOT testing,

This is really a problem, the only people I know who have been tested several times are doctors. And only 4 people of my family in the '5% studio'

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, KORG said:

Its Nobel for a start. It's not an award that's given to individuals for not being misinformed on pandemic handling.

The undertone to all of these "let us out" maniacs, you may have noticed, is "so what if a few people die". Its psychotic.

Look. The answer is not to ignore the data and the studies that we have. 

It was actually well known that lockdowns arent effective from previous studies. Now that the hysteria is going down, other scientists remind people of that. And the data agrees with them. 

If we dont take serious noble winners, what kind of "experts" should we take serious? 

[Bt1 5,213]

12 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

“Jacobs is a Brexit supporter and has been lauded by The Conservative Woman website as a rising star. Jacobs is sceptical towards elements within the environmental movementsclaims of a climate emergency, while still believing climate change is an existential problem.” 

 

And? She based her opinion on scientists, including a noble prize winner. 

It's funny to see how easy is for people to turn themself into science deniers just because the scientists dont agree with them. 

[Bye 3,947]

I'm sure this excuse for an article is a great comfort to those health care professionals who had to choose who to put on ventilators or who to not in places like Italy, leading to their deaths. Lockdowns are meant to prevent such scenarios. 

[KORG 4,756]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

Look. The answer is not to ignore the data and the studies that we have. 

It was actually well known that lockdowns arent effective from previous studies. Now that the hysteria is going down, other scientists remind people of that. And the data agrees with them. 

If we dont take serious noble winners, what kind of "experts" should we take serious? 

Oh I see. So preventing contagion doesnt work? Limiting the spread to reduce cases to ease the burden on healthcare systems so people who go to hospital are less likely to die due to hospitals being overrun... that doesnt work?

I think its wise to check WHY these people say these things. Are they shareholders in businesses that are losing money? Yes. Do they believe what they're saying? No.

The data and the studies are incomplete. The lockdown are still happening and death tolls have been kept low compared to what they would otherwise have been.

[KORG 4,756]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

And? She based her opinion on scientists, including a noble prize winner. 

It's funny to see how easy is for people to turn themself into science deniers just because the scientists dont agree with them. 

Why are you obsessed with the nobel prize? They have a history of giving the peace prize to war mongering figures in the past. It's not the most iron clad award - but it is just that. An award.

[Bt1 5,213]

8 minutes ago, Rio said:

dumb to believe that if no lockdowns were set in place, that the death toll would be at least 10m or more by now.
 

basic epidemiological virology will tell you that this virus would killed SO many if no lockdowns occurred, literally. it's scary people may believe that

Well. Science doesnt agree with you. Maybe u dont understand that social distancing measures can exist outside of lockdowns? 

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

Science doesnt agree with you

I'm still waiting for a response

23 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

I wished to read the article to get an unbiased opinion but it's making me subscribe so could you tell us the scientific facts the article mentions?

In epidemiology there is an irony that in retrospect, strict measures appear to be an overreaction but that shows that lockdowns were effective because you know the disease was contained if the situation post-lockdown appears mild enough for people to think the measures were excessive. Because the whole point of a lockdown is to avoid overwhelming the health care system and to minimize risk and fatalities. 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

5 minutes ago, Sam Winchester said:

I'm sure this excuse for an article is a great comfort to those health care professionals who had to choose who to put on ventilators or who to not in places like Italy, leading to their deaths. Lockdowns are meant to prevent such scenarios. 

If you read the article and some other studies, they say that in some countries maybe some tougher measures were necessary, but not everywhere and not for a long time, because u create other collateral damages with such measures. 

 

[Helxig 45,479]

It worked in my country. We acted fast, put strict lockdowns and border control policies in place, and after just 6 weeks now only have 8 contained cases and no community spread. Everything is quickly going back to normal, our government paid us a supplement wage, and are in talks of now possibly giving every citizen a $1500 stimulus check to stimulate the economy. Because we acted fast and have (practically) eliminated the virus our economy has been able to kick start into gear again quickly without taking too much damage, and other countries are even outsourcing work here which is creating jobs. 

[Bye 3,947]

Just now, Florin said:

If you read the article and some other studies, they say that in some countries maybe some tougher measures were necessary, but not everywhere and not for a long time, because u create other collateral damages with such measures. 

 

In fact lockdowns weren't the same worldwide. And you also have to remember that there are social/political repurcussions to everything. In some countries, the public itself was clamoring for lockdowns due to fear. Ultimately, going for a lockdown (how restrictive varies by region) was better than not.