The lack of evidence lockdowns worked is a world scandal

[Serial Chiller 8,044]

26 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.” 

 

nuff said really. 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 minutes ago, Helxig said:

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. 

Yea. It works on far away islands where the virus had a limited or no reach. 

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

6 minutes ago, Florin said:

Yea. It works on far away islands where the virus had a limited or no reach. 

And how do you explain South Korea? It is not an island yet they managed the pandemic amazingly. Compared to the UK, which is an archipelago, your claim should work for the British Isles

[Bt1 5,213]

15 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

I'm still waiting for a response

 

Yea. I've found something.

http://archive.is/MVji3

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

And how do you explain South Korea? It is not an island yet they managed the pandemic amazingly. Compared to the UK, which is an archipelago, your claim should work for the British Isles

Far away was the point. 

That should be an anti-lockdown support. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan managed to solve the problem without creating other problems with lockdowns. 

[Jakkusan 803]

Idiotic. The US could’ve prevented a huge amount of deaths with quicker and more efficient shutdowns. It’s dangerous and stupid to spread misinformation like this. 

[Thats stupid Luv 629]

54 minutes ago, ThisBitch said:

8 active KNOWN cases! We must not forget that there are more people with light infections and almost no symptoms who can transmit it

We haven’t, that’s why we have tapered measures of reconditioning our society , and mass testing and contact tracing. Better than 2 million active known cases and no lockdown 👀

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

4 minutes ago, Florin said:

Yea. I've found something.

http://archive.is/MVji3

Okay, thank you for the article. 

A few things:

Studies that aren't peer-reviewed aren't foolproof. A professional can make a mistake that could be identified by others in their respective field.

Why are they quoting JP Morgan? Isn't that a financial institution? Why is its findings being quoted as if they are a leader in health and epidemiology? If anything it raises my suspicion that the article is prioritizing finance and economy over the actual health aspect of the pandemic.

>Nobel prize-winning mathematician Michael Levitt has fared little better, despite his valiant one-man effort to expose the inconvenient truth about Covid numbers. He has claimed, sensationally, that the modelling that justified lockdown made the fatally incorrect assumption that Covid-19’s spread is continuously exponential. In fact, his research has found an uncanny pattern across numerous countries whereby the virus grows exponentially for two weeks, before slowing seemingly irrespective of lockdown and social distancing measures.

COVID is an entirely new virus. Of course there is no existing model to base a pattern on but to say that erring on the side of safety by assuming standard epidemiology and chain of infection is "fatally incorrect" is very misleading. How would he have done it then? Letting more people die than taking action is just as fatal, if not more.

The article barely has any actual statements that could be dissected by professionals. COVID knowledge is continuously evolving because again this is a new virus. Governments and professional recommendations depend on the few data existing at that moment. The UK had terrible statistics compared to many other developed countries so the suggestion to lockdown to ease healthcare burden was perfectly valid at the time. If new information shows up now, that should not be used to punish judgment at the time because nobody knows anything about the virus. Regardless, we have acquaintances working with the NHS during the pandemic and what I know is they struggled to even have appropriate PPE for themselves and many healthcare workers also contracted the virus.

[Bt1 5,213]

11 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

Okay, thank you for the article. 

A few things:

Studies that aren't peer-reviewed aren't foolproof. A professional can make a mistake that could be identified by others in their respective field.

Why are they quoting JP Morgan? Isn't that a financial institution? Why is its findings being quoted as if they are a leader in health and epidemiology? If anything it raises my suspicion that the article is prioritizing finance and economy over the actual health aspect of the pandemic.

>Nobel prize-winning mathematician Michael Levitt has fared little better, despite his valiant one-man effort to expose the inconvenient truth about Covid numbers. He has claimed, sensationally, that the modelling that justified lockdown made the fatally incorrect assumption that Covid-19’s spread is continuously exponential. In fact, his research has found an uncanny pattern across numerous countries whereby the virus grows exponentially for two weeks, before slowing seemingly irrespective of lockdown and social distancing measures.

COVID is an entirely new virus. Of course there is no existing model to base a pattern on but to say that erring on the side of safety by assuming standard epidemiology and chain of infection is "fatally incorrect" is very misleading. How would he have done it then? Letting more people die than taking action is just as fatal, if not more.

The article barely has any actual statements that could be dissected by professionals. COVID knowledge is continuously evolving because again this is a new virus. Governments and professional recommendations depend on the few data existing at that moment. The UK had terrible statistics compared to many other developed countries so the suggestion to lockdown to ease healthcare burden was perfectly valid at the time. If new information shows up now, that should not be used to punish judgment at the time because nobody knows anything about the virus. Regardless, we have acquaintances working with the NHS during the pandemic and what I know is they struggled to even have appropriate PPE for themselves and many healthcare workers also contracted the virus.

You are mostly right, but I failed to remmember peer reviewed studies that show that lockdown worked. 

All these measures were based on "expert" opinions, not studies. Other "experts" disagree and they have numbers by their side, including that jp Morgan study,  so they are at least better than the first ones until further research show up. 

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

Her opinion is backed by scientists, including Noble prize winners scientists. 

Scientists and even noble prize winners can be wrong, especially if they talk about stuff that's not their own field. 

 

Want an example? Google Ivar Giaever, he's a noble prize winner who gave out statements like "climate change isn't a problem, it's not real".... and that's not even his field of expertise, he backed up his statements by a 30minute google research

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

7 minutes ago, Florin said:

You are mostly right, but I failed to remmember peer reviewed studies that show that lockdown worked. 

All these measures were based on "expert" opinions, not studies. Other "experts" disagree and they have numbers by their side, including that jp Morgan study,  so they are at least better than the first ones until further research show up. 

Because that's everything we have at this moment, you can't expect peer reviewed studies when there are little to none, cause we haven't been in this lockdown scenario before. 

 

All we had were experts who study epidemics and use mathematic models to calculate, that's the best option we have.

[Bt1 5,213]

10 minutes ago, Giorno Giovanna said:

Scientists and even noble prize winners can be wrong, especially if they talk about stuff that's not their own field. 

 

Want an example? Google Ivar Giaever, he's a noble prize winner who gave out statements like "climate change isn't a problem, it's not real".... and that's not even his field of expertise, he backed up his statements by a 30minute google research

For the moment, these scientists proved that the first "experts" were wrong. 

We shouldn't ignore that. And we shouldn't implement such tough measures only based on fear, especially now that we see that some of the effects could be devastating for so many people. 

[Bt1 5,213]

11 minutes ago, Giorno Giovanna said:

Because that's everything we have at this moment, you can't expect peer reviewed studies when there are little to none, cause we haven't been in this lockdown scenario before. 

 

All we had were experts who study epidemics and use mathematic models to calculate, that's the best option we have.

Yea. And those experts say that the lockdown were wrong based on the numbers we have. 

There is no mathematic evidence until now that the lockdowns were effective. 

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

Yea. And those experts say that the lockdown were wrong based on the numbers we have. 

There is no mathematic evidence until now that the lockdowns were effective. 

no that's wrong, there's plenty of experts who DO say it was correct to go into lockdown

[Guest]

What's reckless is to not experiment on lockdown. It's an unknown virus that kills, you can't control human beings whereabouts and the only way the virus circulates is by microdroplets when you talk, cough etc so what are you gonna do then? Let people roam the streets and overwhelm the hospitals with severely sick people? Is that better than a lockdown? Of course lockdowns can't last forever, but at least now there are less cases and hospitals are not overwhelmed anymore, people don't act reckless, they stop going to buses, subway unless they have to etc 

Even if hypothetically lockdowns didn't work, why would it be a scandal? We know nothing about this virus and we've tried together to find a solution, the solution doesn't work, so what? At least we tried