The lack of evidence lockdowns worked is a world scandal

[KORG 4,756]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

No. It was just the same yesterday when you said that you need a lockdown to not run into a pride of lions. 

Do you seriously not understand the analogy? Oh wow. Careful not to trip on the floor.

[Bt1 5,213]

Just now, KORG said:

Do you seriously not understand the analogy? Oh wow. Careful not to trip on the floor.

Your analogy is wrong, which we discussed yesterday. Following your analogy, you would need a lockdown to not go into a pride of lions, but u dont need one to not enter a lion cage. 

But let's not discuss again about all your demonstrated failed analogies. Maybe that explains again your IQ comment. 

Why come back into a thread to make such a comment? 

[Miel 15,009]

Hi, as somebody working in infectious disease research and surveillance, I disagree.

Covid-19 sanctioned lockdowns aren't perfect for many reasons (primarily socio-econimic), but their primary function was to 1) superficially reduce the infection rate as much as possible through individual avoidance of physical contact 2) mitigate the rate of what is seen as an inevitably high traffic of in-patient hospital cases.

In several regions where lockdowns were more strictly enforced, I think it is fair to say that these functions more or less succeeded. On the other hand, regions where lockdowns were slow-to-start, less strictly enforced, or even reopened, it is evident that infection rates instead surged.

Obviously, we cannot ignore social, economic, and political factors that have affected this. Particularly in the United States

- there was no guaranteed economic security during the initial period of quarantine

- lack of standard governmental consistency in reacting to infections caused heavily divisive reactions

- premature "reopening" has since been causing new surges of infections

- incorrect priority of government-sanctioned authority and power (police response to police brutality protests throughout the country just these last few days versus police response to "liberty" riots a month ago by predominantly white and conservative collectives arguing for an end to lockdown)

 

[KORG 4,756]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

Your analogy is wrong, which we discussed yesterday. Following your analogy, you would need a lockdown to not go into a pride of lions, but u dont need one to not enter a lion cage. 

But let's not discuss again about all your demonstrated failed analogies. Maybe that explains again your IQ comment. 

Why come back into a thread to make such a comment? 

It's fine that you dont understand a caged lion analogy.

Not everyone can be of sound mind.

Bless.

[TOSK 640]

3 hours ago, Florin said:

What's your point? The virus is here to stay like all the other viruses around. It wont disappear because the world was in lockdown. 

Also, South Korea didnt have a strict lockdown. They had some restrictions, but nothing like US and Europe.

South Korea's lockdown was strict social distancing but they did shutter some businesses. Wonder why they would do that if it didn't work? It was only 2 weeks ago, and now they are reaping the rewards.

South Korea sticks with virus lockdown rollback despite nightclub outbreak

Officials have linked at least 119 cases of COVID-19 to the night spots, which had just reopened as part of the country’s move to ease lockdown measures to jumpstart its struggling economy. Eleven of the 119 patients are 19 years old or younger.

The Itaewon outbreak prompted officials to re-shutter some nightclubs and bars as well as delay the planned reopening of schools by a week, but the government has stood by its decision to ease broader restrictions by reopening offices, public facilities and sports centres.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea/south-korea-sticks-with-virus-lockdown-rollback-despite-nightclub-outbreak-idUSKBN22P0NO

 

 

 

[President Biden 5,898]

 we’ve been known

 

 meanwhile we are triggering a recession. 20 million Americans are unemployed. I hope “saving the vulnerable” was worth putting about 7% of the US out of work, and even more into deep poverty. We don’t even have 2 million cases.

 

The whole “exponential growth” prediction was BS

 

I am all for mask requirements and was supportive of the early lockdown. But this has dragged on. And honestly, is life really this worth living? You care more about the risk of your life than freedom?  
 

Also, the “vulnerable” population didn’t just become vulnerable. They are vulnerable of every disease. America had more deaths if pneumonia this winter than we’ve had total COVID deaths. We can’t bubble wrap the world for the few who are at rusk. They need to protect themselves. And the reality is they haven't. Everytime I go to get groceries, the store is mostly elderly people putting themselves at risk of exposure. Can’t blame me for them taking a risks. That’s their decision to make

 

Ik personally, I’d rather live free and be at risk of dying than live in prison.

[Bt1 5,213]

4 minutes ago, Miel said:

Hi, as somebody working in infectious disease research and surveillance, I disagree.

Covid-19 sanctioned lockdowns aren't perfect for many reasons (primarily socio-econimic), but their primary function was to 1) superficially reduce the infection rate as much as possible through individual avoidance of physical contact 2) mitigate the rate of what is seen as an inevitably high traffic of in-patient hospital cases.

In several regions where lockdowns were more strictly enforced, I think it is fair to say that these functions more or less succeeded. On the other hand, regions where lockdowns were slow-to-start, less strictly enforced, or even reopened, it is evident that infection rates instead surged.

Obviously, we cannot ignore social, economic, and political factors that have affected this. Particularly in the United States

- there was no guaranteed economic security during the initial period of quarantine

- lack of standard governmental consistency in reacting to infections caused heavily divisive reactions

- premature "reopening" has since been causing new surges of infections

- incorrect priority of government-sanctioned authority and power (police response to police brutality protests throughout the country just these last few days versus police response to "liberty" riots a month ago by predominantly white and conservative collectives arguing for an end to lockdown)

 

I understand your point of view and theoretically that's why we had the lockdowns. 

In reality, your statements rarely reflect real life experience. For example you say that strict lockdowns were better. Well, South Korea, japan, hong kong, taiwan disagree. 

Again, france and germany had similar lockdowns. The differences in deaths are huge, which just shows that other factors were more important. 

It's good that you mention some of the negative effects. We should mention that these first economic, mental health and other effects are just at the start. Solving a problem by creating many other problems is not a success in any way. It is a failure. 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

9 minutes ago, TOSK said:

South Korea's lockdown was strict social distancing but they did shutter some businesses. Wonder why they would do that if it didn't work? It was only 2 weeks ago, and now they are reaping the rewards.

South Korea sticks with virus lockdown rollback despite nightclub outbreak

Officials have linked at least 119 cases of COVID-19 to the night spots, which had just reopened as part of the country’s move to ease lockdown measures to jumpstart its struggling economy. Eleven of the 119 patients are 19 years old or younger.

The Itaewon outbreak prompted officials to re-shutter some nightclubs and bars as well as delay the planned reopening of schools by a week, but the government has stood by its decision to ease broader restrictions by reopening offices, public facilities and sports centres.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea/south-korea-sticks-with-virus-lockdown-rollback-despite-nightclub-outbreak-idUSKBN22P0NO

 

 

 

So, I was right? 

Again, do you expect that a virus that it is all over the world to disappear just because the planet was on lockdown?

Even the officials said that the lockdown intention was to flatter the curve, not eradicate the virus. You seem confused on what the lockdown was supposed to do. 

[Bt1 5,213]

17 minutes ago, KORG said:

It's fine that you dont understand a caged lion analogy.

Not everyone can be of sound mind.

Bless.

Bless. I understood everything. It seems u didnt understand that your analogy is bad. And you still dont.  

Also, next time maybe stay on topic and dont use analogies. U started to use them, because u didn't have valid answers to my questions. Bless again. 

[Miel 15,009]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

It's good that you mention some of the negative effects. We should mention that these first economic, mental health and other effects are just at the start. Solving a problem by creating many other problems is not a success in any way. It is a failure.

I don't disagree! Although I believe that stricter quarantines and lockdown were the logical, superficial next-step in the process of containing viral spread and lowering mortality rates, I also believe that they are indicators of much larger, systemic, and deep-seated issues that were only exacerbated and emphasized.

Other countries had much better

- actions in developing testing processes

- actions in aiding their people with food, shelter

- healthcare, in general

- stricter adherences to lockdown rules, with simultaneously less violent authority

Considering that the United States (speaking for my own country) has essentially failed on all parts, I do hope that regional and larger-overseeing government leaders will prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the people they are accountable to serving. Although some are, I think it is yet for a majority to do so.

 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, Miel said:

I don't disagree! Although I believe that stricter quarantines and lockdown were the logical, superficial next-step in the process of containing viral spread and lowering mortality rates, I also believe that they are indicators of much larger, systemic, and deep-seated issues that were only exacerbated and emphasized.

Other countries had much better

- actions in developing testing processes

- actions in aiding their people with food, shelter

- healthcare, in general

- stricter adherences to lockdown rules, with simultaneously less violent authority

Considering that the United States (speaking for my own country) has essentially failed on all parts, I do hope that regional and larger-overseeing government leaders will prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the people they are accountable to serving. Although some are, I think it is yet for a majority to do so.

 

 

I understand your points. They are valid. However, especially now that we know more about the virus, I cant agree with tougher measures.

The measures should be strict when the virus can be eliminated. Once is on all continents and millions of people have it, there is no point in doing that.

[ICouldntThinkOfOne 215]

This is the paradox of Lockdown; ''Now that we're passed the worst of it, it never affected us so why did we do it?''

This opinion piece was inevitable. The reason we're seeing countries open up so soon is thanks to the extreme measures put in place, some countries had more extemes than others but never the less. 

We need to remember that the number of cases in most countries were under one percent of the population thanks to the measures, but we've still seen outrageous spread, hospitalisation rates and deaths.

take the USA; 328M people. 1.7M cases, and over 100k deaths. That should be terrifying that a disease that shut the entire country down still did that.

Now, imagine no measures we taken at all in a City like New York......

The reasons the measures ''didn't work'' is because there is no payout to them; no numerical value of how many lives saved, only talks of the economy over human life.

[tylertremallose 1,398]

3 hours ago, Florin said:

No. It didnt. It just that its somewhere else on the map. 

I mean I was there while everything started shutting down and it happened pretty quickly and before the virus really got out of hand and I also trust my friends that live there that said NZ shut down pretty quickly. 
 

NZ did pretty well at containing the virus so yes, lock downs do work which is what this debate is about. NZ is a prime example. 
 

 

[TOSK 640]

36 minutes ago, Florin said:

So, I was right? 

Again, do you expect that a virus that it is all over the world to disappear just because the planet was on lockdown?

Even the officials said that the lockdown intention was to flatter the curve, not eradicate the virus. You seem confused on what the lockdown was supposed to do. 

Reuters called it a lock down, their cred is miles above yours. I know exactly what a lock down was meant to do, reduce cases, reduce death and save the healthcare system from collapsing. Show me were I said a lock down was a cure for the virus. You're the one who said lock downs don't work. Reducing cases, reducing death and saving the healthcare system from collapsing is pretty good.

[Bt1 5,213]

1 hour ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

This is the paradox of Lockdown; ''Now that we're passed the worst of it, it never affected us so why did we do it?''

This opinion piece was inevitable. The reason we're seeing countries open up so soon is thanks to the extreme measures put in place, some countries had more extemes than others but never the less. 

We need to remember that the number of cases in most countries were under one percent of the population thanks to the measures, but we've still seen outrageous spread, hospitalisation rates and deaths.

take the USA; 328M people. 1.7M cases, and over 100k deaths. That should be terrifying that a disease that shut the entire country down still did that.

Now, imagine no measures we taken at all in a City like New York......

The reasons the measures ''didn't work'' is because there is no payout to them; no numerical value of how many lives saved, only talks of the economy over human life.

All your statements are false. 

For example, u forgot that antibody tests showed that 1 in 4 in NYC had it like one month ago? 

U forgot to mention that most people who had it, didnt have any symptoms.

That means that a lot of people who had it werent even tested and dont show up on those statistics.

In general, the danger of a young healthy person  to die from covid is similar or less than to die from a car accident.