Lockdowns slow the spread of coronavirus
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I am not necessarily arguing that lockdowns save lives, or that lockdowns were worthwhile, because whether people think something is worthwhile is subjective, according to their individual values and circumstances. I am arguing that lockdowns had an impact on the spread of covid. 3RU7AL said "There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control." coal said the same thing, and then blocked me when I said he was wrong. I aim to defend somewhat unpopular positions on this site, so I will debate this.
By spread I am referring to the transmission of covid from one person to another.
Con should be arguing there is no relationship between lockdowns and the spread of covid.
- country-level analysis by Chaudhry et al. -- no reductions
- German analysis, Christof et al. -- herd immunity already cause the reduction rather than the lockdown
- German analysis by Heiden et al. -- "no survey system... can make a statement about the current infection process"
- UK Lockdown analysis from Cornell -- infections were already in decline before lockdown
- Homburg and Christof -- Flaxman involved circular reasoning that was superfluous and ineffective
- Prof. Ben Israel noting that time constants were similar in growth and decline, regardless of the disease
- Hunter et al. realizing that prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of business was the main cause of stopping COVID, rather than stay at home orders
- Meunier analyzing Western Europe highlights that there is no evidence in growth rate trends
- Colombo et al. conclude that herd immunity is the big cause, supporting Homburg's conclusion
- Christian, an economist, uses cross-country comparison to prove across 24 European countries that lockdowns have failed
- Belarus has done no restrictions, rather, the people have been prepared with PPE, oxygen masks, and execute personal safety and has one of the lowest death rates, proving that Lockdowns are widely ineffective especially with the alternative being the people's protection early on
- Harriet et al. observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure
- Trever Nell noted that the contradictions far outweighed the support, especially since developing nations did better than developed nations, proving that lockdowns weren't all there meets the eye.
- Adam McCann plots stats based on restrictions and finds death rates not reduced.
- New Zealand's policy was ineffective
- Surjit found no evidence for lockdowns
- Chin et al. Also proved the lockdown effects were exaggerated
- Bendavid et al. prove there was no significant benefit
- Kepp and Christian reassert through Northern Jutland that "efficient infection surveillance and voluntary compliance make full lockdowns unnecessary"
- Jonas also proves that behavior changes matter more, especially with curfew and facemasks
- Soltesz et al. prove that the NPI effectiveness cannot be quantified, hence we don't know how many lockdowns actually contributed
- Savaris et al. aren't able to deduce the effect of lockdowns. They admit that "we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34"
- Berry et al. prove that shelter in place order had no health benefits and that they are ineffective because they didn't alter social distancing.
- Ken Rice investigates school closure and finds that "In the absence of an effective vaccination program, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000".
- Shlomai et al. proves that the overwhelming economic effects destroy the people's finance which implicitly results in their death -- you need money to survive
- Ted Cohen realizes that reducing the risk results in the increasing age at which infection occurs, which paradoxically shifts the burden towards older individuals. Remember that the elderly are weaker and more susceptible to die at hands of COVID.
- Morris Altman agrees that the long run lets the government makes bad decisions and lowers human welfare to such a level that it negates any benefits lockdown may have had
- Levan and Lois find that the 180 day of isolation produces more deaths if the vaccination is too late --thus the probability of getting infected is greater for the isolated individual
- Atkeson et al. empirically determine that NPI policy and social distancing is key, rather than lockdowns.
- Quentin et al. notice that resilience can be better improved with physical fitness and immunity, which lockdown discourages (as people cannot leave their homes)
- Taiwan had one of the worst responses but had one of the best health -- suggesting endogenous factors mattered rather than a political response