Quote:
Originally Posted by PuttingInTheGrind
The Nobel laureate Michael Levitt (a British-American-Israeli) made some good points on this.
The lockdown quite possibly could have cost even more lives than not having one (I personally am not sure on this). Other precautions such as making people wear masks and social distancing might possibly be more effective at saving total number of lives.
Levitt has analyzed plenty of data of 78 nations and belives his investigations proves that the virus was never going to grow exponentially. You actually see from the first case in China that any exponential growth slows down dramatically.
Look at the predicted deaths from people who were saying that maybe millions in the UK for example will die. Epidemiologists will then like to claim success when say only 40k and claim it is due to the lockdown. We are not seeing even hundreds of thousands dying in places like Sweden.
The same happened with Ebola and bird flu.
Oh come on, are people still spouting this crap?
1/ Chinese data is obviously fake. We cannot yield any conclusions from it. Or do you believe Wuhan got hit by something new, and was able to get a fraction of the deaths of regions like NY, Lombardy, Madrid?
2/ CV officially killed 350k while pretty much the whole world stayed the **** inside. Real death count is probably at least 2X that and before this wave is over we'll probably be over 600k official. Where is the proof of all these lockdown deaths? Can you point to some?
3/ Maybe people wearing masks & social distancing was enough, but maybe wasn't enough for where the world was at. We needed a "this is our best shot of stopping this thing"-reaction and that is what most of the world went for. And it was necessary. The large or wealthy economies can take it. Do you know many people who lost their jobs who don't work in a sector that would've gotten ****ed by CV regardless of lockdown or not?
4/ The million deaths was the herd immunity strategy. Sweden is not close to herd immunity and is doing 5-10x as bad as its peers. We'll also see where this puts Sweden going forward compared to the rest of EU. It is not even close to being guaranteed that Sweden followed the best economical strategy. Sweden had the luxury of various advantages (less initial spread from Italy, lower population density, first measures implemented when the infection was not that bad yet,...) which got it where it is today. Which is not ****ing good at all.