Jump to content
BANGKOK
CanadaSam

It's proven.... lockdown does not work!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, impulse said:

But the point of the linked opinion piece is that the total deaths will be the same, regardless of whether you have 30,000 a month dying for 6 months or 15,000 a month dying for 12 months.  The lockdown just spreads them out over a slightly longer period.  While decimating the economy.

Without a lockdown, health systems would probably have been overburdened (some countries were overburdened even with a lockdown), which would have resulted in a higher number of deaths. The US and the UK are good examples of this (and they both eventually did do a lockdown, with the UK initially aiming for herd immunity and the US because Trump, now with 109,000 deaths). Also, health procedures, the manufacturing of equipment (such as ventilators), medications (and after some time a vaccine), can be put into effect, which reduces the number of deaths.

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent the author is as a scientist.

 

Edited by ThLT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Well, if there are lockdowns, this helps to not have health systems be overburdened. Had there been no lockdowns at all, many countries would probably have had overburdened hospitals/systems.

You can't ask me to prove something based on something that didn't happen.
 


Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent he is as a scientist.

 

Do a little diligence on the author and on Lancet.  He's a lot more qualified than you or I will ever be (co-authored 183 papers listed on pubmed.gov), and the article wouldn't have made it into Lancet without some serious vetting.

 

Edited by impulse
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:


Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

 

Correct it didn't happen, but what is happening is mass unemployment, civil unrest, mental health issues and people wanting this to end quickly.

 

I know these protests are about George Floyd, but something was going to happen anyway and this is the spark for it. I might even go and join them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

There were lockdowns. You can't predict what would have happened if there hadn't been any lockdowns. 

 

You're just making stuff up. 

 

19 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

So you're an expert epidemiologist, and you can predict the outcome of events that never happened? ...is what I'm saying.
 

Edited by ThLT
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Do a little diligence on the author and on Lancet.  He's a lot more qualified than you or I will ever be, and the article wouldn't have made it into Lancet without some vetting.

 

Credentials don't make something to be true. Speculating that a worldwide event would have turned out the same in 12 months is just pure non-sense, even more so for a scientist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

Correct it didn't happen, but what is happening is mass unemployment, civil unrest, mental health issues and people wanting this to end quickly.

It was botched (no country was correctly prepared for this). Some countries were far too lax about it, other countries too excessive (the US/Trump did both).

Still, zero lockdown would have been completely stupid (which is what the author of the paper is partly suggesting).
 

Edited by ThLT
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Without a lockdown, health systems would probably have been overburdened (some countries were overburdened even with a lockdown), which would have resulted in a higher number of deaths. The US and the UK are good examples of this (and they both eventually did do a lockdown, with the UK initially aiming for herd immunity and the US because Trump, now with 109,000 deaths). Also, health procedures, the manufacturing of equipment (such as ventilators), medications (and after some time a vaccine), can be put into effect, which reduces the number of deaths.

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent the author is as a scientist.

 

 

Total deaths is equivalent to the area under the curve. It doesn't matter whether you have a big early peak with a quick decline to zero, or a squashed out flatter curve with a long tail. Only the total area under the curve is relevant. Thus you can't know until the very end how things turn out.

 

And scientists don't predict things. They set up models using assumptions. In this case, without good assumptions, all "experts" are simply voicing their opinions. Which is why I have been trying to explain to everyone from the beginning this is cargo cult science and not genuine science. Expert opinion does not mean correct opinion.

 

We won't know the answer for a decade when we have had a chance to study the data in minute detail. For now, *EVERYONE* is guessing.  It is time we admit that these lockdowns are nothing but a very risky gamble taken on the personal opinion and value choices of a few people.

 

What is certain however, is that these choices have decimated the economy and are going to lead to millions of collateral deaths due to extreme poverty and psychological issues that would not have occurred without lockdowns.

 

Whether the direct death total, also known as area under the curve, is changed or not is simply a matter of opinion and guesswork at this point. In my expert opinion, nothing justifies what has been done to our global economy, and the people who have supported impoverishing billions through these lockdowns have much to answer for,.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

Edited by ThLT
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

But where's the balance?  Health care resources aren't overburdened.  Of course, they couldn't predict that when the lockdowns were implemented.  So the lockdowns were probably prudent.  But no longer, given the data we have today that we didn't have in January.

 

In the meantime, factories, restaurants, airlines, hotels and theaters are closing down, companies are going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs and their homes.  Millions are going hungry.  The effects of the depression are getting worse by the day and will far exceed the damage done by the Covid itself

 

Sweden at 404 deaths per 100,000 is 0.4% of the population.  Most of them in bad health to start with.  If a tiny percentage of the population needs protecting, by all means... let them stay home.  Restrict their contact with others.  

 

The other 99% of us need to go to work and live our lives.

 

You don't do Sweden justice. They are running at 450 per 1million of the population, 0.045%

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si%23countries


They adopted the approach of closing certain sectors down bit by bit rather than go total lockdown

Time will tell if their strategy works or not but where countries are starting to open up again, Sweden is going the other way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThLT said:

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

It's only disastrous in the UK if you are one of the 40,000 dead, for the other 66.65 million it's disastrous in other ways having the lockdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

You don't do Sweden justice. They are running at 450 per 1million of the population, 0.045%

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si%23countries


They adopted the approach of closing certain sectors down bit by bit rather than go total lockdown

Time will tell if their strategy works or not but where countries are starting to open up again, Sweden is going the other way.

 

You are correct.  Looks like the number I was quoting was total cases, not deaths...  My bad.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

It's only disastrous in the UK if you are one of the 40,000 dead, for the other 66.65 million it's disastrous in other ways having the lockdown.

For sure. But the dead can't present their case. 

Lockdown was also implemented way too late, since UK was initially aiming for herd immunity. We'll never know for sure, but maybe there would have been 10,000, instead of 40,000 deaths (585/1M) if their lockdown would have been implemented correctly.

South Korea has 273 deaths total—5 deaths/1M citizens in comparison...

 

Edited by ThLT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ThLT said:

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

You say "disastrous" based on hindsight and with a lot more data than was available in Feb/March.

Should we have locked down earlier? Perhaps. But with death-rates at that stage relatively low, that would have been a huge call by the Government.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spiekerjozef said:

Where in the UK? No it doesn't work there.

Everywhere else it works fine.

It works at killing the economies yes. Mass unemployment. No way they will repeat lockdowns in the future just too costly

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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...