Lockdowns Did Not Work

[The Original Tree]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is science NOT opinion.


The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.

Open the country!

Trojan Horse

 

[Ame®icano]

Well, naturally, the thread title is wrong. But it seems we are not yet seeing good evidence that the lockdowns have affected the curve. This is an interesting topic that is going to require a lot more data and analysis (instead of apples to oranges comparisons between states so early on).

Ya good point - All the data we get is a snapshot from 2-3 weeks back. I'd still maintain that lockdowns ARE positively affecting the curve.

But hiding from the disease does nothing for us, since if a vaccine can be created it's still 6-10 months away. We cannot lock down for that long, we'd destroy our nation, and we'd have economic devastation, and about 40% unemployment.

The people in the 40 and under age groups are reportedly the most resistant, and need to get back to work, albeit still observing mitigation protocol. The rest of the people need to be very careful, and the elderly may need to keep sheltering at home, and being careful going to buy food, etc... But not everyone needs to keep staying locked up in home, it's just insane.

There are counties in my state that still have not had one person test positive, and yet my governor wants to extend the shelter at home, for the entire freaking state, until mid to late May.

What we can learn from history is that an epidemic has never been overcome by quarantines, but only by hygienic measures. Quarantines do not protect populations in which the disease is already present, they can only buy a little time, but it cannot defeat the disease itself.

Stay-at-home has been sold to the public on the basis of protecting us. After all, our leaders "care" about us. They have only "our" best interests at heart. Right? And what is more terrifying to anyone than their health? None of us want to put our loved ones lives in danger. And so we become even more compliant than normal.

Franklin said something like, “Those who would give up liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Considering the continuous fear coming from our leaders and especially media, I don't know if any of us could feel safe. And government totalitarian response to an invisible enemy should make all of us feel demonstrably less free.

In Michigan, stay-at-home order was extended by our bimbo governor until May 15th. We have feeling that they would like to extend it indefinitely, or at least until elections. By the number of surveys with loaded questions about "vote-by-mail" that seems to be their goal, so the fraud can continue.

 

[Ame®icano]

What nonsense would that be? Everything I cited is true.

looting the treasury, high on power, yadda, yadda, yadda. The high on power thing might be something with the odd politician. But looting the treasury? ppffttt..

What do you call it then, when Congress passes legislation to give away about $7 trillion dollars, and some members have suggested they want to crank that figure up to$10 trillion?

Stimulating the economy. The bailouts of 2008 did the same thing and the US then had 10 years of continuous growth, which started under Obama, and now Trump takes credit for.

What's the alternative? USA circa 1929?

We just passed the $2+ trillion stimulus, and we lost another 4.4 million jobs. Simply tossing money from a helicopter, is not going to create jobs, not if everyone is locked up in their homes, and business owners are going bankrupt.

In Michigan, the amount of unemployment is $362 per week, and with additional $600 from feds the amount is $962. In New York, that amount is, I think $946. So lets do the math...

If worker in New York who regularly earns $36,000 a year is now eligible for weekly unemployment benefits of $946. Annualized, that is equivalent to a roughly $49,000. Why would anyone who makes less than that be willing to return to work?

 

[Ame®icano]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is science NOT opinion.


The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.

Open the country!

Do you know how he defines "lockdown" as opposed to "social distancing?" Because every state that didn't "lockdown" DID follow social distancing measures, which to me is pretty much the same thing.

It's not the same.

Lockdown order forces businesses to close.

Social distancing separate people but they're still able to work, and earn their living.

 

[Ame®icano]

We just passed the $2+ trillion stimulus, and we lost another 4.4 million jobs. Simply tossing money from a helicopter, is not going to create jobs, not if everyone is locked up in their homes, and business owners are going bankrupt.

Yeah, but it is keeping people fed and clothed. And remember that stimulus money - the vast majority of it - is going straight back out into the economy as people buy essentials.

And whose to say that the job-loss figure wouldn't be six or seven million.

And let's not forget you called is 'looting the treasury'. I take looting to mean politicians are taking the money themselves for their own gain. Simply not true.

Wast? People were buying essentials before the stimulus too. They're actually spending less they they used to. Nobody's traveling, vacationing, going to restaurants, spending on stupid shit. I spend much less money now then before the lockdown, and stimulus didn't effected me at all. Since I am still working from home, and my wife works from office, we are actually saving much more than we used to.

Stimulus was huge mistake, mostly used to fill state's budget holes and union retirement funds. Businesses that don't have money saved for rainy days should fold, file Chapter 11, reorganize and start over. The sole purpose of lockdown was to close the economy and enforce vote by mail, to ensure Trump losing the election. Bad news for those who took the risk is, he won't lose.

 

[Ame®icano]

We just passed the $2+ trillion stimulus, and we lost another 4.4 million jobs. Simply tossing money from a helicopter, is not going to create jobs, not if everyone is locked up in their homes, and business owners are going bankrupt.

Yeah, but it is keeping people fed and clothed. And remember that stimulus money - the vast majority of it - is going straight back out into the economy as people buy essentials.

And whose to say that the job-loss figure wouldn't be six or seven million.

And let's not forget you called is 'looting the treasury'. I take looting to mean politicians are taking the money themselves for their own gain. Simply not true.

My point is that substituting money earned from having a job, with stimulus cash, is not going to work. We cannot continue to ask the entire nation to hide away in their homes, and it will be okay, cuz stimulus checks are in the mail.

As I've said, people under 40 years old should be going back to work, while observing mitigation protocol. It does not make sense for a governors all over this nation to order entire states to continue sheltering at home, when their are no infections in some of their counties.

This virus does not affect all age groups the same; providing they are healthy. The virus also has not infected all states, their cities or counties the same. So using a blanket policy for the entire nation, or even an entire state, is not logical.

I used "looting" because some politicians were looting the treasury to benefit their special interest groups. Where the hell did it make sense to give tens of millions to the Kennedy Center? It makes it look especially silly, when the Kennedy Center went ahead and furloughed hundreds of employees after getting their money.

 

[Ame®icano]

So you are saying that I have an equal chance of catching the virus if I'm at home alone or if I'm in a packed football stadium?

He’s saying you have an equal chance in a locked down state as with a free state

You will get this virus wherever you are. The whole point of locking down was to slow how fast it spread so that our hospitals were not overwhelmed with a massive influx. IT WORKED. Once we hit about 25% of the populace that has had and recovered from this virus we can slowly open up until it reaches around 40-50%. At that point you can open it totally up and run. The lock down served it purpose, now we have to slowly return to normal as people continue to get and recover from this virus.

Exactly.

Sheltering in home was not supposed to prevent you from ever getting the virus, was not supposed to do anything to control the virus, it was simply and only to reduce the initial impact we were going to have on hospitals and health care workers so that they were not overwhelmed.

Now we begin Phase 2, which is observing mitigation practices and get on with our lives.

Obviously if you are in the age group suseptible to this virus, and or you have these comorbidities, then you're going to have to be extra careful.

But the average American can observe mitigation practices and go about their lives until we find a vaccine.

Either we do this, or we destroy our nation from within.

There is a group that does want to destroy the country. They are called “liberals”.

So you are saying that I have an equal chance of catching the virus if I'm at home alone or if I'm in a packed football stadium?

He’s saying you have an equal chance in a locked down state as with a free state

You will get this virus wherever you are. The whole point of locking down was to slow how fast it spread so that our hospitals were not overwhelmed with a massive influx. IT WORKED. Once we hit about 25% of the populace that has had and recovered from this virus we can slowly open up until it reaches around 40-50%. At that point you can open it totally up and run. The lock down served it purpose, now we have to slowly return to normal as people continue to get and recover from this virus.

Exactly.

Sheltering in home was not supposed to prevent you from ever getting the virus, was not supposed to do anything to control the virus, it was simply and only to reduce the initial impact we were going to have on hospitals and health care workers so that they were not overwhelmed.

Now we begin Phase 2, which is observing mitigation practices and get on with our lives.

Obviously if you are in the age group suseptible to this virus, and or you have these comorbidities, then you're going to have to be extra careful.

But the average American can observe mitigation practices and go about their lives until we find a vaccine.

Either we do this, or we destroy our nation from within.

There is a group that does want to destroy the country. They are called “liberals”.

Isn't it curious that the same Democrats and left-wing news media who were screaming bloody murder about how damaging a federal government shutdown was going to be, are now cheerleading for a shutdown of the private sector?

Even when they were screaming about the government shutdown, they weren't talking about the shutdown was going to cause 30 million unemployed and trillions added to our annual deficit. And yet here they are... cheerleading for another month with everyone being locked down, millions more unemployed, and thousands more business owners going bankrupt. Just more proof of the insaity on the left.

Except, federal government did not impose shutdown of the states. Governors did.

At first they blamed Trump for travel ban, while encouraging people to go out, just to turn 180 and blame him for not imposing travel ban earlier. My question is, if they were able to issue orders to lockdown states, what was preventing them for doing it a month, or weeks earlier?

 

[Thunk]

Packed...how many of those 75k do you interact with?

3,500 if I don't use the shitter...7,500 if I do.

3,500? Stop it.

Do you know how many people you are exposed to when you touch a door knob or a gas pump?

Do you care if you wear gloves?

No.

You get infected when you touch your eyes nose or mouth with virus on your hand.

That will happen if you are wearing gloves or not.

 

[Dr Grump]

The sole purpose of lockdown was to close the economy and enforce vote by mail, to ensure Trump losing the election. Bad news for those who took the risk is, he won't lose.

Oh god.
I'm thinking "interesting post"...and then you add this on the end.

Seriously....****'n hell...

 

[Ame®icano]

A number of doctors have said that keeping people cooped up indoors has only prolonged this whole thing or made it worse. But of course one of the agendas is to get the whole world to take the vaccine which will make the main crooks behind this whole thing a massive fortune.

Everyone should watch this. It's coming from a very different perspective. She is Australian, a vegan and lives off grid.

That is true, at least to some extent. Isolation of a population reduces the spread of the virus. If you could totally isolation ever person, the virus would cease to exist because it can not continue to exist without new hosts. Stay at home orders do not create total isolation because people have to leave their homes for various reasons and thus the virus spreads but at a slower rate.

Now, let's suppose we do the very opposite and carry on business as usually and the virus spreads rapidly until the vast majority of the people have been infected. At an infection rate of 60% to 80% of the population, the immunity from being infected reduces the potential hosts for the virus and it will die out (herd immunity). In the US, achieving herd immunity would cost the lives of millions of people.

Before modern medical science, herd immunity was often the only way of ending an epidemic. The reason we prolong the epidemic is not really to reach herd immunity but to allow time for our health system to prepare for outbreaks and for medical researchers to develop new treatments and preventive measures such as vaccines.

I don't know where did you get that "would cost the lives of millions of people", but that is the reason we have a lockdown, which based on current numbers was completely unnecessary. Initial "millions will die" was based on models that used Chinese and some European data, and it worked... it scared shit out of everyone enough to close down the country, lock healthy people in their homes, and destroy small businesses, while politicians did what they do the best, spend money and pad each other backs for doing a great job, and "prevention millions from dying".

 

[Ame®icano]

So you are saying that I have an equal chance of catching the virus if I'm at home alone or if I'm in a packed football stadium?

He’s saying you have an equal chance in a locked down state as with a free state

You will get this virus wherever you are. The whole point of locking down was to slow how fast it spread so that our hospitals were not overwhelmed with a massive influx. IT WORKED. Once we hit about 25% of the populace that has had and recovered from this virus we can slowly open up until it reaches around 40-50%. At that point you can open it totally up and run. The lock down served it purpose, now we have to slowly return to normal as people continue to get and recover from this virus.

We might see some reduction in new cases at 25% but to stop the spread of the virus we will need an immunity of a majority of the population. However, most of what we are calling information is nothing educated guesses. We don't know how long immunity lasts. It could be as short as a few months or it could be a lifetime. We don't know what percent of the population being immune we stop the virus. We don't know of any effective treatment for Covid 19; that is unless you consider the Trump treatment, injecting yourself with disinfectants.

I'm taking your "stop the spread of the virus" with reserve. Stopping the spread is impossible while you have public transport, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, deliveries still working. Italy and Croatia did study where they find out that most infected groups are in service industries, medical services, and retirees, while least infected were unemployed and school aged kids.

Given that, we are all going to get infected sooner or later as long we're buying groceries, getting our deliveries and going to hospitals. The question is, why prolong it and why not sooner? By following "logistic function", rate of spread will continue as long there are hosts available to be infected, and will slows down as the number of individuals left to infect declines. Again, if we are all gonna get it, why prolong it?

 

[Ame®icano]

So you are saying that I have an equal chance of catching the virus if I'm at home alone or if I'm in a packed football stadium?

He’s saying you have an equal chance in a locked down state as with a free state

You will get this virus wherever you are. The whole point of locking down was to slow how fast it spread so that our hospitals were not overwhelmed with a massive influx. IT WORKED. Once we hit about 25% of the populace that has had and recovered from this virus we can slowly open up until it reaches around 40-50%. At that point you can open it totally up and run. The lock down served it purpose, now we have to slowly return to normal as people continue to get and recover from this virus.

Exactly.

Sheltering in home was not supposed to prevent you from ever getting the virus, was not supposed to do anything to control the virus, it was simply and only to reduce the initial impact we were going to have on hospitals and health care workers so that they were not overwhelmed.

Now we begin Phase 2, which is observing mitigation practices and get on with our lives.

Obviously if you are in the age group suseptible to this virus, and or you have these comorbidities, then you're going to have to be extra careful.

But the average American can observe mitigation practices and go about their lives until we find a vaccine.

Either we do this, or we destroy our nation from within.

SOOO .. Does "Getting on with our lives" mean going to salons, tattoo & massage parlors & restaurants at present?
Like SERIOUS?
Even your Donald told his puppet Govs in Texas, Florida and South Dakota NOT to do that!
You suffer from Corona idiocy

Yes.

Nobody but you, is responsible for your own safety. If you disagree, you are placing too much faith in nanny state. In other words, government is not responsible for your well being and safety. If you don't want to go to restaurants, that's fine, you're free to chose so. But insisting that everyone else does it, because you don't wanna go, is idiotic.

 

[Ame®icano]

You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.

The problem is Azog, your God is the almighty dollar. Some of us just aren't into it as much as you. shrug...

Nope. It’s freedom!

Sincere question for my friend AtD:

Q: What is "Freedom" without health?
A: Precarious at best

Would you disagree?

That is up to those who choose to take that risk. COVID-19 impacts a tiny percentage severely. I do not believe I should be under the same restriction as someone who is less healthy.

I just tested positive for antibodies AtD. IOW I HAD it somewhere around mid January shortly after returning from Hawaii and the morning of another Vacay to San Diego mid-January which I cancelled the morning of. You should know what I hope that YOUR health pros SHOULD be telling you:

We do not yet know yet whether antibodies mean that you're safe and that it won't come around to bite you again in the Fall.

According to WHO...

However, they removed that tweet, soon after.

Knowing that they're the one who said that there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission, can you trust them at all?

Now, let's say you can get re-infected (just like you can get re-infected with flu), does that mean we should kill economy in the fall again for three months?

 

[Ame®icano]

You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.

The problem is Azog, your God is the almighty dollar. Some of us just aren't into it as much as you. shrug...

Nope. It’s freedom!

Sincere question for my friend AtD:

Q: What is "Freedom" without health?
A: Precarious at best

Would you disagree?

That is up to those who choose to take that risk. COVID-19 impacts a tiny percentage severely. I do not believe I should be under the same restriction as someone who is less healthy.

I just tested positive for antibodies AtD. IOW I HAD it somewhere around mid January shortly after returning from Hawaii and the morning of another Vacay to San Diego mid-January which I cancelled the morning of. You should know what I hope that YOUR health pros SHOULD be telling you:

We do not yet know yet whether antibodies mean that you're safe and that it won't come around to bite you again in the Fall.

That should be my choice, not the choice of some scientists who seem to be more or less guessing.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

lol... coward closed off his profile.

View attachment 327475

i'm still gonna get 'er done.... & you'll still see 'em.

Only to Leftist losers! Ha ha ha...why are you checking me out loser.

You never know with these leftist faggots. I would keep my ass against the wall with them around.

 

[Ame®icano]

You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.

The problem is Azog, your God is the almighty dollar. Some of us just aren't into it as much as you. shrug...

Nope. It’s freedom!

Sincere question for my friend AtD:

Q: What is "Freedom" without health?
A: Precarious at best

Would you disagree?

That is up to those who choose to take that risk. COVID-19 impacts a tiny percentage severely. I do not believe I should be under the same restriction as someone who is less healthy.

I just tested positive for antibodies AtD. IOW I HAD it somewhere around mid January shortly after returning from Hawaii and the morning of another Vacay to San Diego mid-January which I cancelled the morning of. You should know what I hope that YOUR health pros SHOULD be telling you:

We do not yet know yet whether antibodies mean that you're safe and that it won't come around to bite you again in the Fall.

That should be my choice, not the choice of some scientists who seem to be more or less guessing.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

C'mon man - You're gonna be like Trump and disregard medical and science professionals - REALLY??

Which should I believe and which should I disregard? They cannot seem to agree.

All agree that AIDS and Cancer kill people. Here we have disparate opinions all over the place. Why do you always bring it back to Trump? Can we not have a conversation without you bringing him into it? Don't be like that deranged drunk, playtime, and obsess over her "donny".

The TDS afflicted cannot be reasoned with, since reason has left them.

Right? Everything comes back to Trump.

Me: It is raining outside.

Them: Trump is an asshole who doesn't care about the environment...

Me: Yeah....get some help.

Trump: "Drink a lot of water."
Leftists: "He wants us to drown!!!"

 

[Indeependent]

I don't know what Trump is going to do a minute from now but I know i'm not going to like it!

 

[Ame®icano]

First off, for those who are saying only old people die, that is false. You can google "youngest US covid 19 death", and you will find that it was an infant. Just the other day, a firefighter and police officer lost their 5 year old daughter to this disease. So no, this virus isn't "safer" in young people.

As far as saying that the percentage of deaths isn't any worse than the flu? Remember how they taught you how to find percentages in math class? You take the smaller number and divide it by the larger number, and the result is the percentage. Example: you want to find what percent of 100 that 40 is, so you divide 40 by 100, which results in a figure of 0.4, which is 40 percent.

Okay, now that the basic math lesson is over, lets see what the REAL mortality rate for this disease is......................................

Today, there were 911,000 reported cases in the USA, resulting in 51,516 deaths as of today. Divide 911,000 by 51,516, and you end up with a result of 0.056548 (only went out to 6 digits), meaning that the mortality rate for this particular disease is 5.56 percent.

The death rate from the flu is only 0.1 percent. Sorry, but this virus is more deadly than the flu.

Matter of fact, it's fast approaching the death toll of the Spanish flu.

Not so fast with that percentage.

Many deaths are counted as COVID-19 without testing, solely based on symptoms that are similar to other illnesses. Numbers are not adding up.

Check these links.

Where Have All the Heart Attacks Gone? - NYT
Patients with heart attacks, strokes and even appendicitis vanish from hospitals - WaPo

And here is another one that can give you an idea why.

Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators

 

[Ame®icano]

Right? Everything comes back to Trump.

Me: It is raining outside.
Them: Trump is an asshole who doesn't care about the environment...

Me: Yeah....get some help.

I thought you were all about personal responsibility.
Giving exaggerated, hyperbolic examples doesn't take away from the fact that Trump is an incompetent idiot.

You need a more apt comparison.

Thing is George Bush senior was an okay president at best, but nothing like this vitriol was aimed at him compared to Trump. Why is that? Maybe, just maybe, Bush snr wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but he had peoples' respect. Ditto Ronnie Raygun. Thought he was a shit president. But I respected his opinion and what he was trying to do. Nobody on the other side respects Trump. NOBODY...

Bush was the worst president of all time. You really need to learn history. I respect Trump as did 62mil or so other people. Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re not even an American.

That's your opinion. I don't want to drag the discussion away from topic, but FDR was for me the worst one, by far.

 

[Ame®icano]

You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.

The problem is Azog, your God is the almighty dollar. Some of us just aren't into it as much as you. shrug...

Nope. It’s freedom!

Sincere question for my friend AtD:

Q: What is "Freedom" without health?
A: Precarious at best

Would you disagree?

That is up to those who choose to take that risk. COVID-19 impacts a tiny percentage severely. I do not believe I should be under the same restriction as someone who is less healthy.

I just tested positive for antibodies AtD. IOW I HAD it somewhere around mid January shortly after returning from Hawaii and the morning of another Vacay to San Diego mid-January which I cancelled the morning of. You should know what I hope that YOUR health pros SHOULD be telling you:

We do not yet know yet whether antibodies mean that you're safe and that it won't come around to bite you again in the Fall.

That should be my choice, not the choice of some scientists who seem to be more or less guessing.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

C'mon man - You're gonna be like Trump and disregard medical and science professionals - REALLY??

Which should I believe and which should I disregard? They cannot seem to agree.

All agree that AIDS and Cancer kill people. Here we have disparate opinions all over the place. Why do you always bring it back to Trump? Can we not have a conversation without you bringing him into it? Don't be like that deranged drunk, playtime, and obsess over her "donny".

The only "disparate opinions" I'm seeing is between the quacks like Dr Oz and Dr Phil and REAL doctors and scientists who all seem to agree.

BOX IT IN!! - It's the ONLY way we can avoid a relapse and an even longer shutdown.

What you do with healthy people?

 

[Ame®icano]

Appears all it did was saddle the taxpayer with a couple of trillion dollars more debt. ...

there’s that. I do believe it helped the medical community out, but that reasoning is fast becoming obsolete with each passing day.

Exactly, and I don't see how locking down States, producing another 10 million or more unemployed, and causing thousands more business to go bankrupt, and States governments themselves going bankrupt, is going to help the nation.

We could probably do almost the same thing in this shelter-in-place lockdown, if we just went out and did our business in public, as long as we observe mitigation practices. Sheltering in-house is nothing but a mitigation practice. It does nothing to cure the virus it does nothing to end virus it does nothing but prolong the effects of the virus

FALSE! lockdowns deprive the virus of its resources or oxygen. The virus is like a fire, it needs oxygen to keep burning. In this case oxygen is people. So when you isolate healthy people from those that have the virus, the virus dies. The virus needs human hosts to survive. Deprive it of human hosts, it dies.

The damage to the economy is minimal given that 37% of the labor force can work from home and another 25% are involved in essential services. The economy will take a hit, but it can be rebuilt. Even Hiroshima that was nuked on August 6, 1945 was fully rebuilt and had a larger population by 1958. If Hiroshima can recover from being nuked, the United States can recover from 30 million people being jobless for a few years.