How silly are Covid restrictions

Author: ronjs ,

Posts

Total: 39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 3,385
4
6
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
6
10
--> @Dr.Franklin
Silly, backwards
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
--> @Dr.Franklin
Thanks for the fulsome reply, Dr.Franklin.

Importantly, all four of your studies date from last spring, at best tracking less than 3% of total US infections.  That is, your conclusion is drawn from papers speculating about what might happen while my data is drawn from what did happen, the actual event.

"“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
Taken out of context.  Here is that same data in context:

"It was determined that viral transmission declined when social distancing and other measures were implemented. In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population. These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.

The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."
That is, your study found that while lockdowns did not impact the percentage of infected who got very sick and died (why would it?), lockdowns did very effectively reduce the overall number of cases which kept healthcare from being overwhelmed and so lockdowns were strongly associated faster recovery rates, LESS transmission and better outcomes overall.  Even a year ago, this paper was strongly promoting the benefits of a full lockdown.


NOTE the warning at the top of this paper:

"Preprints are early versions of research articles that have not been peer reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive and should not be reported in news media as established information."

A year later, this paper is still not published but the paper's primary speculation, that herd immunity from coronavirus can be achieved when 17%-20% of the population is infected has been resoundingly disproved by actual events and doesn't seem to comprehend how herd immunity actually works.  How would 1 person in 5 break the chain of transmission?  Kuhbandner, et al. based that speculation on Diamond Princess cruise, although the fact that so many of the crew got infected compared to relatively few passengers ought to serve more as evidence that isolating passengers was an important protective measure.
Another pre-print.  That is, no body of scientists has yet been willing to call this paper good science.

Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field.
So this paper makes no inference regarding  the effectiveness of lockdowns, but suggests that the public was already self-quarantining and so reducing infection rates before the lockdowns began- which does not seem unreasonable supposition.

This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases.

So here is a non-scientist predicting in mid-April of 2020 that the coronavirus just naturally plays itself out after 70 days and will no longer be a problem by mid-May.  What actually happened was that the number of total cases more than doubled from 2 million to 4.5 million.  One year later the disease has not played itself out and in fact continues to mutate into increasingly tough variants.  There are now 171 million cases and that number will continue to increase for the next couple of years.  This speculation was thoroughly discredited more than one year ago.


The American Institute for Economic Research is best known for the Great Barrington Declaration of last October which called on governments to halt all prevention and vaccination programs and allow herd immunity to solve the epidemic which statement was almost universally condemned by healthcare professionals, noting that libertarian economists are not healthcare experts.  The US's leading infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense" and "unscientific."

fatemperor/Ivor Cummins was an engineer promoting Keto diets before coining the term CASEDEMIC last summer, which is shorthand for a theory that COVID-19 is entirely harmless and the only reason we are tracking increased infections is due to increased testing, which theory scientists dismiss as conspiracy mongering and disinformation.

I should point out that while your evidence is thoroughly discredited, each submission contradicts the others.  Did public panic do more to prevent the disease's spread than lockdowns or did the disease just die out after 70 days?  Is COVID actually harmless or is herd immunity achieved at 17% infection rates?  It is as if you don't care whether your sources are consistent or in agreement, just so long as the scientific consensus is brought into question, no matter how disreputable or obviously wrong the claimant.




Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,119
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @oromagi
That is, your study found that while lockdowns did not impact the percentage of infected who got very sick and died (why would it?), lockdowns did very effectively reduce the overall number of cases which kept healthcare from being overwhelmed and so lockdowns were strongly associated faster recovery rates, LESS transmission and better outcomes overall.  Even a year ago, this paper was strongly promoting the benefits of a full lockdown.
As you said, these articles were written in the spring, I was ok with short term spring lockdowns in order for the medical supplies to get ready, it does make sense with faster recovery rates would come from a lockdown with that original purpose, but as the lockdown continued and the medical techniques only got better, I doubt the lockdown was associated with higher recovery rates now, 

for transmission, the fact that a lockdown is the primary culprit of low transmission is a lie, the paper isn't making the claim itself, rather its citing a study referring to hong kong  that found that practices like quarantine, social distancing, and border restrictions led to lower transmission.(which is true), Hong Kong actually avoided a lockdown thus there is no relation. The paper also only mentions "public health measures" and isn't particularly pro-lockdown.

A year later, this paper is still not published but the paper's primary speculation, that herd immunity from coronavirus can be achieved when 17%-20% of the population is infected has been resoundingly disproved by actual events and doesn't seem to comprehend how herd immunity actually works.  How would 1 person in 5 break the chain of transmission?  Kuhbandner, et al. based that speculation on Diamond Princess cruise, although the fact that so many of the crew got infected compared to relatively few passengers ought to serve more as evidence that isolating passengers was an important protective measure.



The most important thing is the fact is that Germany's lockdowns did not aid the end of the covid spread. The paper is merely suggesting a reason why, I dont know much about herd immunity so i cant comment on that, no matter the cause, the facts remain

So this paper makes no inference regarding  the effectiveness of lockdowns, but suggests that the public was already self-quarantining and so reducing infection rates before the lockdowns began- which does not seem unreasonable supposition.

This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases.
the conclusion isnt pulled from march 24 itself,  it was published in august last year and even updated last week, it uses the data and after the lockdown using models, im not quite the technical details behind it but i doubt it pulls it exclusively from before mar 24

So here is a non-scientist predicting in mid-April of 2020 that the coronavirus just naturally plays itself out after 70 days and will no longer be a problem by mid-May.  What actually happened was that the number of total cases more than doubled from 2 million to 4.5 million.  One year later the disease has not played itself out and in fact continues to mutate into increasingly tough variants.  There are now 171 million cases and that number will continue to increase for the next couple of years.  This speculation was thoroughly discredited more than one year ago.

now obviously his prediction of how covid played out was wrong(granted, the heavy majority of predictions were)but it does contain data about patterns and lockdowns. His observation is correct, he just though that after the initial wave, there would not be another wave in the fall.

The US cases is entirely dependent on how states do, his pattern of initial 6 week transmission followed by decline stands true. Texas, NY, MA, all states and nations follow this rule

The American Institute for Economic Research is best known for the Great Barrington Declaration of last October which called on governments to halt all prevention and vaccination programs and allow herd immunity to solve the epidemic which statement was almost universally condemned by healthcare professionals, noting that libertarian economists are not healthcare experts.  The US's leading infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense" and "unscientific."

fatemperor/Ivor Cummins was an engineer promoting Keto diets before coining the term CASEDEMIC last summer, which is shorthand for a theory that COVID-19 is entirely harmless and the only reason we are tracking increased infections is due to increased testing, which theory scientists dismiss as conspiracy mongering and disinformation.

I should point out that while your evidence is thoroughly discredited, each submission contradicts the others.  Did public panic do more to prevent the disease's spread than lockdowns or did the disease just die out after 70 days?  Is COVID actually harmless or is herd immunity achieved at 17% infection rates?  It is as if you don't care whether your sources are consistent or in agreement, just so long as the scientific consensus is brought into question, no matter how disreputable or obviously wrong the claimant.

The barrington declaration is certainly interesting with some good points and bad points but thats not the subject

Second, covid isnt harmless but it does make sense that more testing = more cases found, right?

I dont think the sources contradict. the 70 day model was a false prediction but the pattern stayed the same and isnt debunked. I also panic lead to some covid cases for sure, 



Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,119
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @fauxlaw
ah,ok
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
--> @Dr.Franklin
-As you said, these articles were written in the spring, I was ok with short term spring lockdowns in order for the medical supplies to get ready, it does make sense with faster recovery rates would come from a lockdown with that original purpose, but as the lockdown continued and the medical techniques only got better, I doubt the lockdown was associated with higher recovery rates now, 
Read your own literature.  Lockdowns improved recovery rates because it helped prevent transmissions, which kept hospitals from getting overrun.  If you believe lockdowns made for faster recovery rates last spring there is no reason to suppose the same measures did not provide the same benefits in the following fall and winter.

for transmission, the fact that a lockdown is the primary culprit of low transmission is a lie, the paper isn't making the claim itself,rather its citing a study referring to hong kong  that found that practices like quarantine, social distancing, and border restrictions led to lower transmission.(which is true), Hong Kong actually avoided a lockdown thus there is no relation. The paper also only mentions "public health measures" and isn't particularly pro-lockdown.
primary culprit is awkward wording.  Your paper says, "This suggests that full lockdown.... may lessen the peak of transmission"  Your paper is clearly making that claim and not referring to Cowling, et al. (that earlier Hong Kong study)

Well, that's just nuts.  Although most legitimate scholarly and scientific papers do spend some time in pre-print- particularly if the findings are controversial or sensational or commercial, literally any findings can be (and in the age of fake news, are)  put out there  as preprints.  A preprint means that it has not yet been peer reviewed and published which means that the findings have not yet been vetted as legit- that's why the papers actually have that warning at the top saying don't treat this as reliable and credible.  Scientists can't cite preprints in their CVs or grant applications, etc. because it doesn't count until its published.  Sometimes, all it means is that somebody paid $25 to make a lie look more credible.  The longer a preprint goes unpublished (and for early COVID studies, a year is a super long time) the less likely it contains any data worth knowing.

In the case of the paper that says we can achieve COVID immunity at 17% infection, that guy is never going to get published because we know that's false.  In the case of the paper that says English people started staying home a week or two before the first lockdown became official- that's probably true but there's nothing scientific or suprising about his claim, its  just a fairly pedestrian observation one could pick up from a newspaper.

The most important thing is the fact is that Germany's lockdowns did not aid the end of the covid spread. The paper is merely suggesting a reason why, I dont know much about herd immunity so i cant comment on that, no matter the cause, the facts remain
That's not a fact, that is a claim made by Christof Kuhbandner, et al. He is specifically refuting

Dehning, et al, Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions

which did get published in Science Magazine and finds a well defined correspondence between the lockdown in Germany and the subsidence of cases.

Kuhbandner does this again with

Flaxman, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe
(which finds that COVID restrictions were the essential factor in curbing the spread of disease across Europe)

which was published in Nature.

  • A little research shows that Kuhbandner is a psychologist challenging epidemiologists and mathematicians in their fields of expertise and outside of his own.
  • Kuhbandner's methodology seems superficially whack, like making the incubation period 5 days when most scientists say the incubation period is 2-14 days and inferring herd immunity based on the single unrepresentative example of the Diamond Princess Cruise Liner.  Can't we assume that COVID spread through Europe rather differently than it did through a luxury liner?
  • Kuhbandner can't find a publisher for his ideas while the people who he says are wrong are getting peer reviewed and published in some of the most prestigious venues possible for scientific papers.
That is the value of relying on peer reviewed, published science over non-peer reviewed, non-published claims- a lot of people have cross checked those claims, a lot of people have a reputational stake in that science.  Kuhbandner's stake in his claims may be no more than the $25 he paid for the pre-print.  He certainly doesn't seem to have invested much in research.  That's why Kuhbander's paper has a warning at the top that says don't report this as legit.

the conclusion isnt pulled from march 24 itself, 

I didn't say it was.  I said  "This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases."

Again, this guy couldn't get published either.


now obviously his prediction of how covid played out was wrong(granted, the heavy majority of predictions were)but it does contain data about patterns and lockdowns. His observation is correct, he just though that after the initial wave, there would not be another wave in the fall.
Which even biology majors in college were predicting because that's how all the other coronaviruses (such as the common cold) work.


The barrington declaration is certainly interesting with some good points and bad points but thats not the subject
It is the central point, in fact.  Libertarian economists loudly broadcasting epidemiological recommendations as if they had any credibility on the subject is exactly the kind of disinformation campaign that has folks like you so badly deluded about the value of COVID restricitions.

Second, covid isnt harmless but it does make sense that more testing = more cases found, right?
No it is totally greedy bullshit cranked out for the same gullible folks that bought his diet books and vitamin supplements.  Telling naive and credulous people that coronavirus is harmless just to make a buck when the disease is actually the leading cause of death in much of the world  is immoral in the extreme.  It may not be a crime but scumbags like Cummins certainly deserve the torture of everlasting damnation that's coming to them.  I would strongly discourage you from linking to his website in future.

Can I also just say that we've moved the goalposts quite a bit?  We started with all COVID restrictions are silly but you have conceded now that some lockdowns were useful in the early part of the pandemic so your position is obviously more nuanced than "all restrictions are silly" in spite of your earlier posts.  You're focused on lockdowns but masks and social distancing and quarantines and border closures and  work from home, etc are also all restrictions which you are obliged to demonstrate as "silly" or else explain which restrictions are silly and which are not.






9 days later

ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 261
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @oromagi
My humour is usually from observing things or events which could be interpreted as humourous. Shoppers are not breaking the law by lining up (while social distancing)to get into a store, it is a result of the fact that they have less places to shop at and can only buy certain items. Greeting cards are just an example of so called non essentials, I for one couldn't  care less about greeting cards, but how does buying non essentials effect the spread of Covid in any way shape or form.
 Mr. Fords business has profited greatly from these restrictions.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
-->@oromagi
My humour is usually from observing things or events which could be interpreted as humourous.
Still can't tell whether anything in you OP was meant to be humorous.  I suspect not.

Shoppers are not breaking the law by lining up (while social distancing)to get into a store, i
Yes they were unless they were buying essential items that could not be delivered or picked up curbside.  You described these people as buying clothes, shoes, and greeting cards so yes, breaking the law.
 a result of the fact that they have less places to shop at and can only buy certain items.
The law required them to stay at home.

Greeting cards are just an example of so called non essentials, I for one couldn't  care less about greeting cards, but how does buying non essentials effect the spread of Covid in any way shape or form.
When people break the law to buy non-essential items, they increase the likelihood of getting infected by breathing in COVID circulating in the air from the exhalations of infected people.  People risk infecting others with virus unaware that they've been infected.  The more people who break the law by shopping for non-essentials, the less the violation seems contrary to norm which gives more people permission to join the scofflaws.  If everybody obeyed the spirit of the law, employers could keep a lot more employees home as non-essential, reducing the risk even further.
 Mr. Fords business has profited greatly from these restrictions.
He was in commercial label business before becoming premier.  My understanding is that his brother Randy is running the business now.  Rob Ford's widow, who has a 20% stake in the company states in a recent lawsuit that the company is worth half of what it was worth in 2006.  I would not be surprised at some corruption since the Ford family is pretty well known for corruption but I don't see any data backing your claim.
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 350
1
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
1
2
2
--> @zedvictor4
Not sure about the bible. But a better way is to let people make their own mistakes and die if they desire. 

Small government would suggest that there are certain things that the government should do - and the society at large is big enough and ugly enough to make it own decisions. 

This is about the government wanting to nanny us.  It is about saying - we don't trust people. It is nothing short of this. 

The Covid Virus  is globally active. Yet it is not as deadly as governments say. Yes, it does kill people. Many people have died from it. And yet many people would have died anyway from the flu or something else.  Many people have been reported dying from it - when in fact it was only that at some time in the past they had had it. 

On the other hand, people are dying from the vaccination - and yet despite the fact they had it within 2 weeks, the governments are saying it is just coincidence. 

I expect the government wants people to get the jab and therefore to maximise people dying from Covid even when they are not and minimise deaths when related to the vaccine for policy reasons - but it is dishonest. And it feeds the conspiracy theories. 

I know several doctors who have made their own studies and are refusing to take the vaccine. They are not normay antivaccers. But they are very concerned about the vaccine. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,540
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @Timid8967
Well, the major cause of vaccine deaths (clotting) has been identified.

And given the rapid rollout of vaccine that covid necessitated, the science was always going to be ongoing rather than pre-established.

So now, at risk people can be identified....And  early symptoms can also be identified and addressed quickly.

And G.P's (Doctors) as we refer to them over here, tend to have a general knowledge of medicine, and are unlikely to be experts in virology and vaccinology.

And conspiracy theorists require no feeding.

And certainly over here in the "West", there's a whole lot of people that expect to be nannied.

And for sure people die...It's the inevitability of life...If you make the wrong decision today, any day, it's curtains.

Is vaccination the right or wrong decision.....Statistically speaking probably the wiser decision for someone of my age.

Whereas Kids, can afford to be blase.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,557
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @zedvictor4
Whereas Kids, can afford to be blase.
Except blaze leads to more getting infected of any age ergo why we have had pandemic.

Because of Trumpet and his 74 million Trumpsters who have written on their foreheads, on their bibles, on the auto-dashboards, that;

1} vaccination conspiracy,

2} stolen election conspiracy, 

3} take away all guns conspiracy,

4} people of color written   threat to whites way of life conspiracy,

5} human induced, erratic climate change conspiracy,

6} all immigrants of color or non-christian are threat to USA whites and whites everywhere conspiracy,

7}  all the other conspiracies they believe in and I cant recall ex that that they are paranoid conspiracy.
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 261
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @oromagi
 Yes I know that subtle, situational humour is not for everyone and actually people are not necessarily lining up to buy non essentials because those items won't scan at checkout. People spread out buying essentials and non essentials causes no more threat than massive lineups at the grocery stores.
 it's good to know that D. Ford is not making any money off of the business, or that there is no nepotism happening, I guess Fords increase in his worth is due to other factor and is just coincidental.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 99
Posts: 4,963
7
9
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
9
11
 Yes I know that subtle, situational humour is not for everyone 
I asked what in your OP was meant to be humorous

 people are not necessarily lining up to buy non essentials because those items won't scan at checkout.
triple negative- I'm lost.  But we can note that lining up at store, buying non-essentials, scanning at checkout for non-emergencies-all are examples of  deliberate bad hygiene during pandemic and quarantine.

People spread out buying essentials and non essentials causes no more threat than massive lineups at the grocery stores.
The quarantine said no non-essentials and definitely no massive lineups.  You are comparing apples to apples.

 it's good to know that D. Ford is not making any money off of the business, or that there is no nepotism happening, I guess Fords increase in his worth is due to other factor and is just coincidental.
As I said, I'm prepared to believe Doug Ford is corrupt.  You made the claim.  If you want anybody to believe you, show some evidence.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,557
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @oromagi
You've missed the point 100%.
When God was handing out brains, the 74 million Trumpsters ---and their international counterparts---   thought God said trains, and that they did'nt need one.

Except for Trump himself, he heard clearly stated, however, he felt with a ego the size of King Kong,  he did not need a brain to rule the world, while holding a bible in one hand, the balls of the so called republicans ---women  republicans dont have balls, but they too thought God said trains---     in thee other hand, as he stood on his soap-box/lock-box with his taxes safely locked away inside.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,540
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @ebuc
I like it.