Without a doubt the lockdown back and forth was an obvious self-inflicted disaster of quite staggering stupidity.

Those who object to lockdowns only have a good point (although not necessarily sufficient point) if they include all the opening ups. If the focus had remained on keeping R below 1 then there's no doubt it would have been very effective at preventing so many deaths after the 1st wave.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/new-...ng-people.html

it is probably time for POTUS to hold a press conf telling americans the days of gluttonous unhealthy food consumption are over if you wanna stay alive for awhile

You fat shamer

Sadly here in Canada that topic is taboo as well or the part about taking zinc, vitamin c and vitamin d

Sweden compared to Sweden. It isn't cherrypicking because you have to compare over many seasons to get the big picture. A rise in excess deaths for one season follows a prior soft season due to a build up of the frail and susceptible usually. No hysteria back then though.

[IMG][/IMG]

The entire region of south east asia and australisia combined have an average death rate from covid that is about 30 times lower than the rest of the world. Its 30 deaths per mil versus 1000 deaths per million.

Sars cov 2 was found in sewers in europe as far back sept 2019. So rest assured the virus was out walkies in all those countries as the number of flights from China to all those countries were as per usual way before lockdowns were a thing. It jùst didnt trigger. So its not lockdowns as we locked down much harder than the region overall and still have been impacted 30 times greater.

Mac, since you have not really my question fully, i will simplify.

Do you agree with the above conclusion that lockdowns can in fact work and that is demonstrable fact and thus we should remove from all discourse on this topic the suggestions that 'lockdowns don't work'?

Coming to support Mac here as I think he's misunderstood a bit.

Lockdowns do of course work. There should be no debate on wheather they work or not. If you put youself on a deserted island you will not get covid, you will also not infect anyone. Its clear that isolation/lockdowns do works.

Everything works, in THEORY: communism works like a charm in theory.

What's not working is lockdowns with too many factors that do not play along.

What good does it do when you are in lockdown/quarantine and a bunch of idiots are partying in the streets? Well you might save you and you're family from covid, but have the next lockdown coming soon because the lockdown wasn't as effective as it was supposed to be.

Lockdowns are working just fine, just the results of our half assed politicians/lockdowns and people created a jojo like like effect. Bouncing back and forth with no real solution on sight. That's what makes it frustrating.

Half assed lockdown - open up - half assed lockdown- open up. Yes the lockdown do work. But how many times do we have to rinse repeat? It seems endless.
I would bet with you that we will have another 100 lockdowns coming if we continue like this.

Well lets see if he acknowledges that as you won't get that admission from a lot of people who sit on the Let it Rip side of this discussion. Heck go post 'of course Lockdowns work' in the BFI Coronavirus thread and you will be attacked as if a heretic because most of them seem to be on the Let it Rip side.

So once we agree Lockdown do Work, then the discussion should shift to, can we get varying degrees of 'Work' that benefit a society?

And 'Lockdowns' is used generally as a catch all term for any forced measures which even include masks and social distancing, as all are seen as wrong if forced, during any form of 'lockdown' provisions.

Great, I agree few can repeat what China did so the question than that should be debated is can societies user 'lesser lockdowns' (restrictions) such as toggling up and down restrictions on things like indoor dining, mask wearing, distancing, etc, to get improved results (flattening the curve) and should society be able to pursue such strategies or is that wrong and freedum should prevail?

Why does this matter?

People argue these restrictions and the toggling of them up and down do nothing to alleviate stresses (flatten the curve) to help lower IFR because 'lockups don't work'.

If they acknowledge they can and do work, even if in limited capacity (just flattening the curve) then the arguments against closures becomes more difficult.

Ironically it is the Muh Freedums crowd that is most likely to doom us to endless Variants requiring endless toggling of measures to control the impact.

This vaccine resisting, mask and distancing resisting incubator group, provides the best conditions for variants to emerge that then produce the types of numbers that society says 'ok we need to take action'.

As I say 'society is being trapped by the dumbest amongst us dictating what we can do to, as a base level to protect ourselves'.

China or any rogue nation certainly now knows the way to wipe out the US. Engineer a pathogen that will kill everyone if the dumbest amongst us are allowed to set the risk bar and measures for everyone else.

I mean the blue print is abundantly clear. China would survive and thrive. The US would be destroyed.

I just read an article on this. The "leftist" data protectors did sabotage and did not allow the necessary covid apps. I thought i was leftist myself but these guys are way out of line.They argued it's not about where you get infected it's about who gets infected. The expert says it's all about where you get infected.

So gps apps used by Korea is the only way I have to say all things considered.

Of course you can't implement because of so many idiots speaking against it. You give way more data and gps to other apps. Microsoft, Apple, Google but not for the health of others??

We just have to do as the other nations do if we want good results. Plain and simple.

Yes. In some ways it shows how dumb and entitled the western world is. They are taking a big hit by the covid and don't even change their losing strategies.

We wont have many more. Lockdowns would have worked far better if they havn't been so stupidlty half-arsed. It wasn't people ignoring them - our moronic government encouraged people to open up - they even paid people to go to lunch! Then they decided xmas was so important that covid would keep away for the seasonal joy. ****ing idiots.

One of the things the crises had demonstrated is how desperately woeful our leaders are. There's a saying 'cometh the crises, cometh the man' but sadly that's romantic bollocks.

I strongly disagree. You may have not read my post where i link to what i believe is now up to 37 scientific papers from reputable sources concluding lockdowns when analysed on stringency of lockdowns, one from the lancet which it did for over 50 countries showing no correlation in terms of deaths per million.

There is correlation in the US states. Or Europe. Did you see Fauci unable to provide a real answer the other day of why certain unlocked down states are doing better in cases than locked down ones,better than states right next door. Lockdowns are based on medieval superstition, not science. They seem intuitive of course. But they were a mistake.

You say, bouncing between lockdowns and not. That is precisely the problem. And the reason Sweden didn't lockdown. One of many. Science was the other. This time politicians got lucky in a sense. They didn't really but a vaccine came in record breaking time. Mind you, the trials should be run until about 2023 but in any case a vaccine may have never came. It provided hope just at or before breaking point of people's cooperation.

So it absolutely is debateble and debated everyday. And the experts, or so called experts get wrecked every day because they misinterpret data on twitter. I just watch them. Actually there no experts on the pro lockdown side. There is no credible science showing lockdowns work.

My own govt are crediting lockdowns in december which havent still being eased for a plummet of cases the last two weeks. What is really going on is seasonality. Coranaviruses are seasonal, in tempetate climates such as mine. We know this for a fact. And this one is now clearly not different. They are either lying or ignorant.

It was Michael Levitt who convinced desantis in florida to open up the state. Being a republican governer, i suppose he was perhaps biased in that direction, its neither here nor there. American politics doesnt particurlarly interest me. Its a scientific question.
Bill Maher recocnises this apparently above.

I should not be arguing for other countries but the Americans here who are pro lockdown. Did this not even make you think? And if not what is this Mr. Jordan fellow missing?



https://twitter.com/bergerbell/statu...128696321?s=19

Doug Ford recognizing his mistake of draconcian measures. And crying. Wont be seeing this from our politicians. They have to keep the narrative going.
https://gript.ie/we-got-it-wrong-can...-restrictions/

Ukers still in doubt, tune in for this please. Professor John lee has it right.
https://twitter.com/Unlocked_UK_/sta...924641294?s=19

I dont like to be sayed this way but it's very hard not to be less convinced by your case when you link this pathologist who appears to know nothing (being kind) as some sort of authority.

From your long list of links can you tell us which is most authorative/convincing? There are arguments against the lockdown appraoch but the best I've seen have raised questions that are tough to answer. I haven't seen anything that makes a strong case that lockdowns are definitly bad.

Ww are going to agree a lot more if the case is that lockdowns have been implemented very badly.

Just on prof john lee, From full fact

There's a lot more detail in the link.

https://fullfact.org/health/covid-de...020-talkradio/

India may have something to say about this.

I's staggering to me that anyone could argue that lockdowns in the UK haven't reduced cases dramatically - spectacually even. The argument against lockdowns is that cases then go straight back up when the lockdowns are released.

It's all about the R and it's not exactly complicated. Lockdowns reduce R dramatically but R goes back up as soon as the lockdown is released. It's the overall impact that is somewhat questionable.

India needs something close to a functional health care system.

If i ask you to back up those claims how do you go about it. It just takes going back to march of last year. Looking at deaths and looking along the axis pointing to when all non pharmaceutical interventions were introduced, such as lockdowns, mask mandates, when kids were in school and when they weren't, top it off with seasonality and you'll end up arguing my point for me.

I wont show you a video which does this because as you say you do not like the guy.

Chez, how do you lockdown correctly? And how long? And what is the cost to benefit ratio? What is the end game?