Jump to content
BANGKOK
Logosone

JP Morgan study shows lockdowns did not alter course of pandemic

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Lol, no it doesn't infection rates did not fall because of lockdowns, that's foolish nonsense. Lockdowns just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc for a short time, how could that possibly stop a virus pandemic? Don't be ridiculous, once contact resumed in stores and hair salons the virus should have continued to spread if the lockdown theory was correct. It was of course testing and isolating the infected that stopped the spread, or perhaps the inherent dynamics of the virus, who knows, but it was definitely not lockdown.

Foolish nonsense that lockdowns don't work? You forget the incubation period of 14 days, any strict lockdowns do not just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc, they reduce all contact with stay at home orders aside from essential trips. This done over a 14 day period or more will work to reduce the virus considerably, thats logic and fact.

Edited by Bkk Brian
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Foolish nonsense that lockdowns don't work? You forget the incubation period of 14 days, any strict lockdowns do not just reduce contact in stores, hair salons etc, they reduce all contact with stay at home orders aside from essential trips. This done over a 14 day period or more will work to reduce the virus considerably, thats logic and fact.

The incubation period between infection and onset of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 is approximately 5 days, not 14 days.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/11/15/18/the-incubation-period-of-coronavirus-disease

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The incubation period between infection and onset of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 is approximately 5 days, not 14 days.

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/11/15/18/the-incubation-period-of-coronavirus-disease

 

 

5 days Median

 

Quick Takes

The median incubation period from infection with SARS-CoV-2 to onset of symptoms is approximately 5 days.

 

97.5% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will exhibit symptoms by 11.5 days.

 

Monitoring people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 for 14 days for development of symptoms should be sufficient to identify 99% of cases or more.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

Hmm, not sure Gov Cuomo agrees with your logic.

 

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-coronavirus-stats-20200506-eyqui4b5lfdn7g6cqswkf6otly-story.html

Well it stands to reason that if the virus is not flying about freely without a host targeting people at will then the only other alternative was that they received it from another person who entered their home, object or surface or they went on an essential trip and received it. It leads one to conclude that if a lockdown is in place then how strict it is and how that is monitored is essential otherwise it can be a severe pill with little benefit.

Edited by Bkk Brian
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It leads one to conclude that if a lockdown is in place then how strict it is and how that is monitored is essential otherwise it can be a severe remedy with little benefit.

To say it has been a "severe" remedy with little benefit is understating and misstating it. Lockdowns have been more than "severe". They have separated husband and wife, destroyed well run businesses, ruined careers, stopped people having operations and seeing doctors, and most likely will cause a GDP contraction of around 30% in the US and the UK.

 

Lockdowns have been no remedy at all, because the evidence shows they did not alter the pandemic parametres.

 

It is conceivable that lockdowns at the very start, before the virus had spread massively could have had an effect. However, once the virus had spread widely, imposing the lockdowns was useless from a pandemic stopping perspective.

 

 

Edited by Logosone
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

To say it has been a "severe" remedy with little benefit is understating and misstating it. Lockdowns have been more than "severe". They have separated husband and wife, destroyed well run businesses, ruined careers, stopped people having operations and seeing doctors, and most likely will cause a GDP contraction of around 30% in the US and the UK.

 

Lockdowns have been no remedy at all, because the evidence shows they did not alter the pandemic parametres.

 

It is conceivable that lockdowns at the very start, before the virus had spread massively could have had an effect. However, once the virus had spread widely, imposing the lockdowns was useless from a pandemic stopping perspective.

 

 

Lockdowns are a tool, it works. Social distancing works another tool. Washing hands and hygiene works, another tool. Masks work, another tool. Herd immunity works, another tool. Wearing a hazmat suit works, another tool.

 

Debates about how, when, if, side effects or under what circumstances were not part of my response because I was responding to one particular statement as you well know. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Lockdowns have not worked, the evidence is clear.

 

 

Yes your version of clear is not credible sorry as there are circumstances where they do work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

As usual, you are not well informed. These travel bans was to slow down travelling for the Khmer New Year celebration (same time and roots as in Thailand Songkran). And the district travel ban was never executed but cancelled immediately. All what was there was for the few days of the celebrations some checkpoints between Phnom Penh and the provinces. These were useless though, the ones wanting to travel home for Khmer New Year did so the days before already. 
Sorry, this does not qualify as a lockdown, not at all.
Please research better before making false statements.

 

State of emergency does not mean lockdown. 
Please research better before making false statements.

 

Both examples do not constitute a lockdown, whatever you say.

 

All depends on your definition of "lockdown" innit? If I can't travel freely I would consider myself under some form of lockdown.  Cambodia lasted a week but it was not stopped immediately. Japan was forced to "request" forms of restrictions and lockdowns as its own laws do not allow anything else - after the second rise of Covid infections in Hokkaido, most Japanese complied anyway. Like it or not, both examples are forms of lockdown. 

Edited by nauseus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Excellent idea, read the report. 

 

You will see that it says:

 

"First let’s see how the economic lockdowns evolved. At first, flawed scientific papers predicted several million virus deaths im the west. This on its own was odd, given that in China there were only several thousand deaths, and the mortality rate outside of Wuhan was very low. In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially. Nonetheless, many of these efforts were inefficient or late. Indeed, recent studies indicate that full lockdown policies in some European countries did not produce any change in pandemic parametres (such as growth rates RO) and hence might not have yielded additional benefits vs less restrictive social distancing measures. Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself."

 

While we often hear that lockdowns are driven by scientific models and that there is an exact relationship between the level of economic activity and spread of virus this is not supported by the data. Figure 2 below show virus spread rates before and after lockdown for different countries around the world, and Figure 1 shows the spread for US states that have re-opened. In particular, regression shows that infection rates declined, not increased, after lockdowns ended.  For example, the data im Figure 2 shows a decrease im infection rates after countries eased national lockdowns with =99% statistical significance. Indeed, virtually everywhere infection rates have declined even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag. This means that the pandemic and Covid-19 likely have its own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented.

 

The fact that re-opening did not change the course of the pandemic is consistent with mentioned studies showing that initiations of full lockdowns did not alter the course of the pandemic either."

https://imgcdn.larepublica.co/cms/2020/05/21180548/JP-Morgan.pdf

 

So who is trying to manipulate and twist the analysis out of context? Look at my thread title and compare it to the article. Then look at gerik's post. What is he actually saying?

 

He's trying to discredit the mathematical modelling of one of the world's premier investment banks, whose bread and butter is mathematical modelling on an every day basis.

 

He tried to portray Dr Kolanovic as a "salesman", when he is in fact not in sales at all but an analyst. Dr Kolanovic graduated from New York University with a PhD in theoretical high-energy physics. He has developed a number of scientific theories/models, and has authored top-cited research publications. He is "the Global Head of Macro Quantitative and Derivatives Strategy team at J.P. Morgan. His team is responsible for developing macro, derivatives and quantitative equity strategies, as well as systematic cross-asset portfolios for clients. His team currently holds 5 top rankings in the Institutional Investor surveys in the US, Asia and Europe, and Marko individually ranks #1 in the category of Americas Equity Derivatives. Prior to joining J.P. Morgan, Dr. Kolanovic was Global Head of Derivatives and Quantitative Equity Strategies at Bear Stearns and a derivatives research analyst at Merrill Lynch. His trading methods have been implemented by major hedge funds and investment offices around the world. Dr. Kolanovic’s work is frequently quoted in financial press, and for his timely and accurate short term forecasts of stock market returns, the media dubbed him ‘The Man who moves Markets’ (CNBC) and ‘Gandalf’ (Bloomberg). "

https://www.globalvolatilitysummit.com/speaker/marko-kolanovic/

 

A mere salesman? Not really.

 

And finally gerik wants to twist the actual finding of the report itself. Remember the report clearly says that lockdowns "did not produce any change in pandemic parametres". 

 

However, gerik would have you believe that the report actually says that lockdowns worked. It says the exact opposite.

 

By way of reminder gerik helpfully downsplains what lockdowns entailed, cause you know we don't know this, "As a reminder, social distancing limits the number of people in stores, it imposes reduced capacity in restaurants and limits the number of customers in hair salons etc."

 

So, if this measure had such a crucial effect on the pandemic parametres, something studies now show is not the case, once this measure was lifted, and the number of people in stores, restaurants, hair salons, etc spiked up suddenly, by the social distancing theorists' own logic the R number should have gone up. But what this report says is that it didn't.

 

So who is trying to manipulate the analysis by JP Morgan, twist it, and attack its authors? Who is doing that? Those lockdown believers who realise that the JP Morgan study does not fit into their narrative.

 

Even more unbelievably, not only are they refusing to accept that the evidence now clearly shows their lockdown theory was wrong, they're actually taking the credit from mass testing and isolating the infected and suggesting it was lockdowns that ended the virus. Think about this, a temporary reduction in contact ends the pandemic? Really? Once contact resumes why would the virus not spread again? Because testing and isolating the infected was done on a mass scale by most countries, taking the infected out of social interaction has that effect. The healthy stopping contact with each other has no effect.

 

All theory then. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes your version of clear is not credible sorry as there are circumstances where they do work.

Okay, post your instance where lockdown worked.

 

Let's look at it.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no evidence that locking down and quarantining healthy people has had any positive effect. The virus spreads naturally regardless what you do (masks can't catch it, testing can't catch it. Only  government with their archaic and draconian protocols have spread death and destruction to levels never even imagined before, and oh what about influenza ? If lockdowns were effective then flu infections should have dropped as well but in fact they've increased. 

Back on the road again...

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Read the stupid paper, he gives a menu of figures for every possible eventuality, all of them wrong.

 

You don't get it. Ferguson is totally discredited. His work is exposed as fatally flawed and worthless.

Done. Again. No change. The paper is still published and available at Imperial College. Now that there has already been 2 months of a type of "lockdown", then neither you nor anyone can prove the estimates given in the paper to be false.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steelepulse said:

Hmm, not sure Gov Cuomo agrees with your logic.

 

'Shocking’: 66% of new coronavirus patients in N.Y. stayed home: Cuomo

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-coronavirus-stats-20200506-eyqui4b5lfdn7g6cqswkf6otly-story.html

Sounds like they must have had a lot of visitors then. Different Pizza boys every day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...