. That’s A nice trick luciom uses .
He take an event like 80 years ago but he restricted you in choosing a much shorter time frame to find comparable or worst policies ….


But taking the same time frame , obv force Vietnam draft was far more problematic on freedom of rights than the mask wearing and lockdown .

Holocaust is so hilarious ….

But lockdown did prevent life loss due to less road accidents
So u had some positive in lockdown .

What kind of facking thing u can find with holocaust i wonder …

And this was all known March through May 2020?

If you believe the Italian government had all the information AT THE TIME of the lockdowns.... you are very deluded.

Yes which is why like the German case, the government lied about the scientifical expertise which clearly was against full lockdowns, and we learnt that more than one year after the fact (again thanks to a FOIA initiative).

Problem is at least in Italy , the day After the government lied and instantiated lockdowns, against the totality of accumulated scientifical knowledge as we all know, "experts" started to craft narratives justifying it, instead of saying the obvious, which was that the initiative run contrary to everything we knew and was a clear case of a crime against humanity.

In Bergamo not a single person under 50 died in excess. And we knew that BEFORE we locked down.

This is the dumbest post written here since I joined 2+2. Lozen, BJ and Washoe should bow to the king and accept complete and utter defeat

1) There is no scientific consensus now or then that lockdowns were useless. Quite the opposite.

2) Is it your contention that people 50 years old and up don't matter?

April 2020
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time..._in_April_2020

Yup they knew everything all right .
A death rates at 10% for infects cases but only 110k infected people on 59 millions citizens…

So yeah they could have known everything about covid with a sample size of 0.0019% of the population dying at a 10% rate.

Luciom science is A+ …..

Ps: 10th of April 2020, italy reported 100 death of doctors!
Everything’s was A1 , regardless of what happened from Luciom …

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2...of-coronavirus



But luciom knew better !

No Luc, you are incorrect about the extent of the Italian govt's knowledge of C19 in March 2020.

No country had a true grasp of the situation.

we already knew it was less dangerous than the spanish flu and certainly so, given the spanish flu lethality had been around 2% across all age brackets (including young healthy adults, the most valuable individuals in society) . In YLL per infection terms we already all knew covid was significantly less dangerous than that, and that was BEFORE any treatment and so on (so we knew as a full certainty things could only get better from there).

And given plans were written with airborne viruses with lethality up to and including the spanish flu one, and the totality of worldwide accumulated literature for 50+ years did not suggest locking down (house arrest style, schools closures were suggested up to a couple of weeks) if that kind of virus came back , i am not incorrect in saying that it was adamantly clear we shouldn't have locked down and that everything we knew about airborne viruses didn't even vaguely suggest lockdown could ever have been an option at all, and it was incredible even to just discuss the option nevermind implementing it *against the explicit counsel of experts*, which is what the italian government did.

Keep in mind that the state of literature on the topic up to the end of 2019 was that it was unclear, if a 1-3% lethality airborne virus came around again, if it made sense to quarantine direct contacts of infected individuals or not. That was the gray area, the discussed/controversial one, with the WHO having published "both sides" opinions and unclear about it.

No country health body, nor the WHO, even vaguely suggested to quarantine anyone else at all, nor to order to stay at home, nor to be going to other people houses and so on.

That again in case of an incredibly more dangerous virus, one which would have killed tons of kids and young adults.

As for the extent of the lethality everybody knew in Bergamo the totality of the population had been exposed to the virus, there was no doubt about that. Whether actually developing an infection or not, that everyone had repeatedly come in contact with it was well known. So it literally couldn't be worse than that at no lockdown. And 1% of the population died in excess, with no excess deaths up to 50 and very few 50 to 65, and the vast majority of the excess death in over 65 with 3 comorbidities (this was *already known* when we locked down).

So we were already absolutely certain the virus was VERY significantly less dangerous than the spanish flu. How much so depends on the value-weighting of having nursing home residents dying a lot today instead than in the next 2-4 years, and similar things for ultra-chronically-co-morbid people outside of nursing homes.

Given we are talking something VERY less dangerous than something else against which we had planned NOT to lock down...

it's a big lie to claim "we didn't know enough", an enormous lie, we had all elements to be absolutely certain locking down made no sense at all.

Not that there is any model where lock down ever makes sense for ethical reasons, but that's another topic.

Even under a violent, fascist model where you can house arrest innocents to try to help others (it's truly incredible that's even an option in our western constitutions, truly incredible), locking down made no sense and we had enough data to claim that.

*and scientific bodies apparently did claim that* , then government LIED , redacted the reports, hid them, and we only knew 12-24-36 months later depending on the country.

King you realize we are talking the fact that scientific bodies rejected the option of lockdowns right?

Do you think the only measure of danger for a virus is lethality?

Which is more dangerous, a virus with an R of 0.2 that kills 99%, or one with an R of 10 that kills 1%?

It should be pretty simple to understand that lockdowns keep people separated, and separating people reduces the spread of respiratory viruses. You shouldn't need to go hunting papers to confirm this.

That might be because the lethality of a virus has nothing to do with its contagiousness.

You repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that CFR is the only measure of danger in a virus. This is why you should leave these kinds of issues to those with training. You don't even know what you don't know. The rest of your post is just riffing on your fundamental misunderstanding of how to assess danger. It can be ignored.

jfc gorgonian in case of an airborne epidemy you know to begin with the totality of the population will get exposed regardlessly, if R is >1 that's what happens anyway, unless you can eradicate worldwide, which you can't after the virus is seeded enough which obviously already was in march 2020.

At most in case you DO NOT have the virus seeded in an area you can make an argument for ultra-strict border controls for the area, which, btw, is what literature said! "cordon sanitaire" options were on the table and were in literature, they aren't lockdowns though.

If italy had forced people in the bergamo area (and other affected areas) to stay in those areas and/or viceversa, sealed off southern regions completly from domestic travel, that would have been historically unprecedented, but predicated on some actual science, and i wouldn't have commented that as fascist, or anti-science.

There is no case reduction in any way or form no matter what you do, there is at most a DELAY in the inevitability of 100% of the population getting exposed to the pathogen.

And yes given health is made up of a ton of things not only about avoiding a specific encounter with a specific pathogen, you do need literature to prove that stay at home orders during a pandemic improves health outcome, given *all the other effects on health of such provisions*. How monstrous of a person can you be to say that you don't need papers to assess the totality of the damage to health (physical and mental) of a policy before being able to claim that a policy is good for society health?

And yes given you know as an absolute certainty everyone will get exposed (not necessarily infected , because the immunitary system can and will make it so that exposure doesn't necessarily become infection) repeatedly no matter what you do, lethality is the only thing that matters, for airborne pandemics with natural R > 1.

Again we are comparing to the spanish flu, which is what pandemic plans modelled, what to do if a virus that will reach everyone and kills 2% across age brackets appears again.

And again, and i answer only because i am interested in what others think given your total bad faith has been clear for a while, "we should leave these kinds of issues to those with training" is NOT what politicians in Italy, UK and Germany did: the people with training told them not to lockdown, and the politicians lied to the public, redacted the reports and hid them from the public, and it took years of lawyering to get access to the fact that the politicians were told by people who spent their whole life studying these things, not to lock down in those 3 countries.

You keep talking as if science, and scientific opinion, backed lockdowns which it literally didn't, You guys were the anti-scientific ones against accumulated knowledge, acting in bad faith AND lying incessantly to the public about a purported consensus favouring your preferences.

And you should pay for it.

Incorrect, and ignores that multiple infections are more dangerous than a single one, and ignores mutation and improvements in treatment/prevention over time. Again, you don't even know what you don't know.

So what was your answer to the question I asked? I see you ignored it completely.

I didn't read the rest of your post because you 1) were factually wrong on your very first point, and 2) ignored my question.

Some follow-up questions for your consideration.

What was the R(0) of polio? Could it spread through the same mechanisms covid could? What was the lethality rate of polio? Did the totality of the population become infected with polio? Were there other severe outcomes of polio infection to consider besides death?

I look forward to your answers.

It was possible to avoid gettign covid before the vaccine was available. I did it, so did many other other people

One big uncertainty was when a vaccine would emerge. Under the assumption it would (which was a fair bet) then avoiding getting covid was a great idea.

In fact, most people avoided it before the vaccine was available. In the US, there were only 14 million cases at the start of December 2020, which is less than 5% of the population. Had people just carried on without any mitigations at all, then sure, nearly all or almost all of the population would've been infected by then. It's almost like staying home has an effect.

Unless you tested every week (and even in that case it's not certain) you don't know if you actually avoided sarscov2 entirely.

It's very hard to claim you have never been exposed to the virus until vaccination became available because the vast majority of exposures have no effect on you.

Btw the assumption about a fairly efficacious vaccine coming that quick would have been a wrong one, given we never had one quicker than in 4 years in world history (afaik), and the median time was more like 8-10.

And we had never vaccinated against coronaviridae for humans in world history before.

Oh ant btw, that still doesn't answer any question about lockdown efficacy.

You are in the UK iirc, do you realize that even if you believe lockdowns saved a lot of lives, they still killed many more because of disruptions to the NHS? how do you account for the unprecedented spike in mental illness caused by lockdowns? or that part of health disappears from computations and you only measure lockdowns for their purported efficacy vs covid? even if they affected health negatively in a thousands ways?

That wasn't the claim.

No. 1) the vaccines were almost immediately ready. March 17th was the first date of the first Moderna trial. 2) These vaccines had been in development for over a decade for SARS/MERS. The tech was merely pivoted to SARS-Cov2. 3) During a pandemic, trials go by MUCH faster since you don't have to wait very long to get the required number of exposures.

Anyone paying attention knew the vaccines were moving very quickly.

Again, a vaccine for SARS had been in development for over a decade at that point.

Because there are none. Literally no one with sense has ever questioned that separating people slows the spread of viruses.

Are you going to try to answer my questions about polio, or should I just give you the answers?

The disruption to the NHS was caused by the pandemic. The lockdown helped very significantly which was in part udone when they relaxed it too early. Being better prepared would have made a massive difference but it was too late for that.

It's true that we can't be certain we didn't get covid pre-vaccine. No symptoms and avoiding exposure make it very likely though. Those I know who took less precautions (either willingly or because of circumstances) all got covid pre vaccine - at least I can't think of any who didn't

No this is a lie that politicians peddled a lot to justify the lockdowns. If lockdowns delayed cases , then they prolonged the pandemic!

if you let everything open, everyone catches the virus, everyone who has to die from it does die quickly, then you are back at full efficiency NHS fairly soon.

Which btw is why sweden had no disruptions to health services after may 2020 to be clear, it's not like we are discussing hypotheticals.

Instead of 2+ years of vastly reduced efficacy of the NHS for the totality of all other health need, CAUSED by the delay in cases of lockdowns.

That does'nt hold water.

It's possible that with no chance of a vaccine it could make a sort of sense but even then a large part of the aim of the lockdown was to avoid maximal cases in the winter.

(btw I had and have no interest at all in what the politicians said)

Oh lord. Your proposed solution to a deadly contagious virus is infect everyone at the same time while we have no immunity and no knowledge of how to treat it and limited resources to care for the ill?

I responded to that first sentence without reading the next one. Please just stop talking about this subject. This is painful to read. I would say it's the dumbest, most offensive thing I've read in a long time, but I did read your holocaust comparisons earlier. Ironically, this would approach holocaust level disaster.

So since you are just ignoring me now, I'll fill you in. Here are the answers to all of my questions that you ignored because they expose your absolute lack of knowledge and horrific bias:

1) The more dangerous virus is the one with an R of 10 and a lethality of 1%. It will kill far more people. The first virus will not spread beyond a small outbreak.
2) The R of polio is 5-7 (definitely higher than 1)
3) Polio spreads through the same mechanisms as COVID-19
4) Less than 1% of all polio infections progress to acute paralytic polio, and 5-15% of those are lethal. So something like 0.02 to 0.06% lethality rate
5) No, the entire population did not become infected with polio.
6) Yes, there are many complications of polio infections beyond death.

So, no. None of what you said is correct. None at all.

No they weren't.


They had zero positive effects for anybody under 55 and healthy. Globally we wasted a few trillion dollars as a result with lockdowns for that population demographic.


Team lockdown can never explain why we couldn't just have locked down the olds and let everyone else burn through.


The default response today is "muh muh muh long covid" which is a complete absolute nothing burger amongst under 55 and healthy. You have people still arguing today that millions upon millions of sample sizes by mid April 2020 wasn't enough to know anything about covid. This denial of scientific evidence amongst team lockdown is due to the fact that they are incapable of admitting they are wrong.



Masks are just a red herring in this entire debate. Mask mandates were absolutely, provably useless in aggregate (when comparing # of infections in mask mandate states vs non mask mandate states). The only thing worth arguing about the entire mask mandate era was whether producing billions of face diapers was a good idea or not. In the grand scheme of things, nothing worth talking about seriously. The lockdowns is where all the damage was done.

A lot of wrong in this post, but I'm just going to pull this little tidbit out. It's because the old people will still get it from the people that have to take care of them. The only way to stop it spreading is for everyone to reduce contact. Just some people is completely ineffective.

This also ignores that it would still kill a huge number of "non-olds," overwhelmed health care resources, and sped up mutations. On and on.

Rest assured the rest of the post is just as wrong as this, but someone else can deal with that if they want

People can't really comprehend the magnitude of lighting trillions of dollars on fire and getting ZERO in return for it.


What humanity could have done with those trillions...

Lock down olds and put all caretakers in strict protocol and print money to alleviate their incomes. Does everything have to be spoon fed to you?


Huge number of non-olds, I count a little over 1000 in Canada for the entire pandemic for everyone under 50. "Huge numbers" of non olds is laughable.