Lock Down Can't Possibly Ever Help

Rigby5

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2017
31,551
10,627
1,315
New Mexico

The author does comparisons between places with lock downs and without.
But it is much simpler to me.
If you wanted to make any epidemic last forever, just think about what you would have to do?
Since epidemics only end when the pathogen runs out of easy local hosts, in order to make an epidemic last forever, you would have to artificially conserve easy local hosts, so that the pathogen did not waste them up too quickly.
And that is exactly what the effect of "flattening the curve" must always have.
It guarantees an epidemic lasts as long as possible, possibly forever.

While the idea of "flattening the curve" naturally appeals people in the fact that reducing an infection rate sounds good, that actually is counter to science, which tells us that actually infection rate is irrelevant, and the only things that matters is time and how wide the infection has spread geographically.

The last thing you actually should ever want to give any epidemic is more time.
That ensures the greatest death toll eventually.
Flattening the curve is actually the single worst possible strategy anyone could ever have come up with, we have to learn from this to NEVER ever do such a foolish thing again.

Here is a graph comparing the UK with a lock down and Sweden without one.
uk-sweden-graph.jpg

Not a totally fair comparison exactly since Sweden actually did lock down as well, but just voluntarily.

This graph compares FL and CA, no lock down to lock down.
florida-california.jpg
 

The author does comparisons between places with lock downs and without.
But it is much simpler to me.
If you wanted to make any epidemic last forever, just think about what you would have to do?
Since epidemics only end when the pathogen runs out of easy local hosts, in order to make an epidemic last forever, you would have to artificially conserve easy local hosts, so that the pathogen did not waste them up too quickly.
And that is exactly what the effect of "flattening the curve" must always have.
It guarantees an epidemic lasts as long as possible, possibly forever.

While the idea of "flattening the curve" naturally appeals people in the fact that reducing an infection rate sounds good, that actually is counter to science, which tells us that actually infection rate is irrelevant, and the only things that matters is time and how wide the infection has spread geographically.

The last thing you actually should ever want to give any epidemic is more time.
That ensures the greatest death toll eventually.
Flattening the curve is actually the single worst possible strategy anyone could ever have come up with, we have to learn from this to NEVER ever do such a foolish thing again.

Here is a graph comparing the UK with a lock down and Sweden without one.
uk-sweden-graph.jpg

Not a totally fair comparison exactly since Sweden actually did lock down as well, but just voluntarily.

This graph compares FL and CA, no lock down to lock down.
florida-california.jpg
The purpose of the lock down was to give the virus as few opportunities as possible to spread before vaccines became available. NO, the effect IS NOT to make the pandemic last forever.,
 

The author does comparisons between places with lock downs and without.
But it is much simpler to me.
If you wanted to make any epidemic last forever, just think about what you would have to do?
Since epidemics only end when the pathogen runs out of easy local hosts, in order to make an epidemic last forever, you would have to artificially conserve easy local hosts, so that the pathogen did not waste them up too quickly.
And that is exactly what the effect of "flattening the curve" must always have.
It guarantees an epidemic lasts as long as possible, possibly forever.

While the idea of "flattening the curve" naturally appeals people in the fact that reducing an infection rate sounds good, that actually is counter to science, which tells us that actually infection rate is irrelevant, and the only things that matters is time and how wide the infection has spread geographically.

The last thing you actually should ever want to give any epidemic is more time.
That ensures the greatest death toll eventually.
Flattening the curve is actually the single worst possible strategy anyone could ever have come up with, we have to learn from this to NEVER ever do such a foolish thing again.

Here is a graph comparing the UK with a lock down and Sweden without one.
uk-sweden-graph.jpg

Not a totally fair comparison exactly since Sweden actually did lock down as well, but just voluntarily.

This graph compares FL and CA, no lock down to lock down.
florida-california.jpg
The purpose of the lock down was to give the virus as few opportunities as possible to spread before vaccines became available. NO, the effect IS NOT to make the pandemic last forever.,

Wrong.
Reducing the infection rate gives the virus more time, which ensures the greatest possible spread.
Normally vaccines take over 6 years, so it is irrational to ever try to wait for a vaccine.
We were lucky the 2009 SARs vaccine was so easy to modify for covid-19, but even the year that took was not worth it, and we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if we had NOT tried to "flatten the curve".

Flattening the curve never has and never can reduce the totally deaths caused, and always increases it.
It should never be done except perhaps in the first week or so, in order to determine the R0 and lethality rates, so we can decide how strict of quarantine measures we should consider.

In the case of covid-19, variolation of young volunteers would have reduced the death toll by a factor of 40, and obviously could have shortened the epidemic to only about a month, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
 
The purpose of the lock down was to give the virus as few opportunities as possible to spread before vaccines became available.

Seriously? So we should have lockdowns when it comes to the Flu season? Which we have it every year around the Fall. That's absurd to even stating it. You know, as well, as everyone on here, that the lockdown was all political. It was just a way, to say to the American people:

"You are to stay home and don't bother to return to work. Matter of fact, don't even bother to go to see a movie, or eat at a restaurant. Because, they will have to be closed (possibly go out of business. It's our way of telling the American people also, we're in control here now - and for the unforseeable future."

So, every time we hit the Flu season, make sure you stay in your home, and wear your mask. Even when you are napping! But the rest of the world, will go about their business. :auiqs.jpg:

1616697989069.png
 
The normal way epidemics end is with a spike that uses up so many of the local hosts, that the virus dies out.
We prevented that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top