COVID-19 / Coronavirus

Remove this Banner Ad

HODGEYROAD said:
I'm 5 days post Covid quarantine now and still feel as if I'd never had it. My experience is one that I'd wish for all people.
Click to expand...
Sadly there are 6 million people no longer with us at all to tell us there story. For most it's a nothing thing, but there are so many people who've had their lives ended or turned upside down by this and that needs to be kept in perspective.
 
It would appear that history is already beginning to analyze our various responses to the pandemic.
 
Nathan Detroit said:
It would appear that history is already beginning to analyze our various responses to the pandemic.
Click to expand...
There are a bunch of versions of that article with that misleading headline and no mention of the fact the study was done by economists

www.truthorfiction.com

‘Lockdowns Had Little To No Effect On COVID-19 Mortality But Had...

A February 2022 DailyWire.com article claimed that new research had cast doubt on the effects of "lockdowns," also known as "shelter-in-place" directives.
www.truthorfiction.com www.truthorfiction.com

The study also doesn't say lockdowns had no impact on mortality and the headline fails to mention any form of restriction was classes as a lockdown in some of the studies use for the meta analysis

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gralin said:
There are a bunch of versions of that article with that misleading headline and no mention of the fact the study was done by economists

www.truthorfiction.com

‘Lockdowns Had Little To No Effect On COVID-19 Mortality But Had...

A February 2022 DailyWire.com article claimed that new research had cast doubt on the effects of "lockdowns," also known as "shelter-in-place" directives.
www.truthorfiction.com www.truthorfiction.com

The study also doesn't say lockdowns had no impact on mortality and the headline fails to mention any form of restriction was classes as a lockdown in some of the studies use for the meta analysis

Click to expand...
The reason I posted that particular article was its inclusion of the actual study. Any doubts regarding the study's methods or the credentials of the authors are right there for anyone to make their own judgement. IMO, the authors were attempting to establish a way to measure the cost/benefits of government responses. It would be pretty difficult to argue that Johns Hopkins would somehow allow their name to be attached to research that was not vetted for accuracy, and based on their Medical research I doubt they are overly political. If you have evidence to the contrary, I stand corrected. Cheers!
 
Nathan Detroit said:
The reason I posted that particular article was its inclusion of the actual study. Any doubts regarding the study's methods or the credentials of the authors are right there for anyone to make their own judgement. IMO, the authors were attempting to establish a way to measure the cost/benefits of government responses. It would be pretty difficult to argue that Johns Hopkins would somehow allow their name to be attached to research that was not vetted for accuracy, and based on their Medical research I doubt they are overly political. If you have evidence to the contrary, I stand corrected. Cheers!
Click to expand...

the issue with the premise in my opinion is that the point of lockdowns was not solely to prevent mortality from Covid – they were mostly an attempt to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed and a resultant sharp uptick in all-cause mortality. i wonder, for example, if we just let it run its course from day dot and we're getting these 50k+ cases a day during the first wave (without vaccinations) that there'd be a similar death count. it's hard to say there would be tbh

it's also pretty clear that Hanke is very politically biased given his tweets and the particular language he uses (fascist, praising Trump etc.).

that said, i don't disagree that lockdowns may not have been the most optimal response to the pandemic. the problem i have with this study and how it's framed that it's so loaded and is gonna be used as a 'gotcha' catchphrase instead of an open discussion about the merits of different responses that we can learn from.

i'd be curious to see what advantages of just letting it happen would be on economy. shutdowns are going to be more impactful but you can't look at the current supply chain and economic issues going on right now while we ARE open and say it would've been business as usual too. i know a lot of ppl who've had their mental health ****ed up by lockdowns, but plenty that have also had it ****ed by covid spreading while open. it's different now that we've been with it for a few years and people are a bit over it, but during the initial wave you'd have to think consumer confidence would be extremely low.

****ed if i know the solution but the goal has to be to learn and better prepare for a repeat of this situation, instead of this *ing annoying political shitfight these kinds of things invariably become

i mean i think the most simple answer is better funding for pandemic disaster preparation as well as greater flexibility for employees to WFH are two things we can take away from the past couple of years. as well as better vaccine development, which i suppose comes through funding too. but yeah, wtf do i know?
 
darthmann said:
the issue with the premise in my opinion is that the point of lockdowns was not solely to prevent mortality from Covid – they were mostly an attempt to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed and a resultant sharp uptick in all-cause mortality. i wonder, for example, if we just let it run its course from day dot and we're getting these 50k+ cases a day during the first wave (without vaccinations) that there'd be a similar death count. it's hard to say there would be tbh

it's also pretty clear that Hanke is very politically biased given his tweets and the particular language he uses (fascist, praising Trump etc.).

that said, i don't disagree that lockdowns may not have been the most optimal response to the pandemic. the problem i have with this study and how it's framed that it's so loaded and is gonna be used as a 'gotcha' catchphrase instead of an open discussion about the merits of different responses that we can learn from.

i'd be curious to see what advantages of just letting it happen would be on economy. shutdowns are going to be more impactful but you can't look at the current supply chain and economic issues going on right now while we ARE open and say it would've been business as usual too. i know a lot of ppl who've had their mental health f’ed up by lockdowns, but plenty that have also had it f’ed by covid spreading while open. it's different now that we've been with it for a few years and people are a bit over it, but during the initial wave you'd have to think consumer confidence would be extremely low.

f’ed if i know the solution but the goal has to be to learn and better prepare for a repeat of this situation, instead of this f*n annoying political shitfight these kinds of things invariably become

i mean i think the most simple answer is better funding for pandemic disaster preparation as well as greater flexibility for employees to WFH are two things we can take away from the past couple of years. as well as better vaccine development, which i suppose comes through funding too. but yeah, wtf do i know?
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of what you say here. One of my disappointments with the response here was a seemingly dismissive attitude toward research of therapeutics. We pretty much bet the farm on vaccines and really haven't even now invested in treatment as I'd have thought would be beneficial. One of the directives we heard over here was to not seek treatment until you were ill enough to need to go to hospital. Some doctors were not even seeing patients with respiratory symptoms for fear of transmission. Would early treatment have helped? I don't know, but it seems logical. I double down on your last sentence, I don't think I "know" much either, hence my disclaimer below!
 
Nathan Detroit said:
The reason I posted that particular article was its inclusion of the actual study. Any doubts regarding the study's methods or the credentials of the authors are right there for anyone to make their own judgement. IMO, the authors were attempting to establish a way to measure the cost/benefits of government responses. It would be pretty difficult to argue that Johns Hopkins would somehow allow their name to be attached to research that was not vetted for accuracy, and based on their Medical research I doubt they are overly political. If you have evidence to the contrary, I stand corrected. Cheers!
Click to expand...
you could have just posted the study given the article misrepresents the study
 
Gralin said:
you could have just posted the study given the article misrepresents the study
Click to expand...
Being the link is to the University of South Florida National Public Radio station, I hardly thought it would be controversial.
 
Nathan Detroit said:
Being the link is to the University of South Florida National Public Radio station, I hardly thought it would be controversial.
Click to expand...
Have you read the paper or the link I posted or just read the link you posted about how lockdowns don't work?
 
Gralin said:
Have you read the paper or the link I posted or just read the link you posted about how lockdowns don't work?
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're getting wrapped around the axle here. The article I posted contains the entire report in a pdf. Why would the headline be remotely sequitur?
 
Nathan Detroit said:
Not sure why you're getting wrapped around the axle here. The article I posted contains the entire report in a pdf. Why would the headline be remotely sequitur?
Click to expand...
Why would a headline and synopsis that misrepresents the study it claims to report on be an issue?

Gee I wonder
 
Gralin said:
Why would a headline and synopsis that misrepresents the study it claims to report on be an issue?

Gee I wonder
Click to expand...
I guess I assumed intelligent people like to make up their own mind rather than having someone they already agree with feed them their opinion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Last edited:
Here is the first lot of PFIZER data released 1.03.2022 - The second lot is to be released 1.04.2022 - I'd bet my last dollar the data gets way worse.

Pfizer's Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

Documents with a large file size are provided in a .zip file and will need to be uncompressed after download.
phmpt.org phmpt.org

1200 Deaths in 90 Days!: Pfizer Safety Data Released Under Judge FOIA Enforcement, “And It’s Not Good”​

 
MrPremiership said:
So you caught a deadly disease, but because you were vaccinated you didn't die.

Sort of like it worked, right?
Click to expand...
Ol’mate seems to think that the vax was meant to stop the virus dead.
 
MrPremiership said:
So you caught a deadly disease, but because you were vaccinated you didn't die.

Sort of like it worked, right?
Click to expand...

How do you explain an unvaccinated asymptomatic infection ?

To answer your question though, if BurnaHawks example is of someone 80+ then yeah it probably did work. If it was of someone younger fit and healthy then the result would have pretty much been the same. Contracted the virus, illness was mild.
 
mount eerie said:
Y'all seem to be operating on the presumption that a virus is the cause and not the effect of disease.
What a waste of two years.
Click to expand...
Lol what
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top