Lockdowns Did Not Work

[MarathonMike]

Guy thinks he's being clever. The death rate would naturally be fairly constant everywhere among positive cases. Only a disingenuous asshole would use that single factor to make such a broad declaration. Slowing the rate of spread is key.

Science says otherwise.

You say otherwise. I'm using science to critically examine the claim which is lacking the correct data points and proper statistical analysis. There's no way to even make that deterination until it's over and all the growth curves are lined up and adjusted for the incubation period of the virus plotted against when the various lockdown orders were implemented.

Herd immunity is the only way to ensure effective immunity for a population.
Not only will a population acquire immunity for this year but as the virus mutates and reappears in a slightly different form in subsequent seasons immune systems will still have resistance.
Through quarantines and lockdowns we achieve a partial immunity which will almost certainly ensure another outbreak in the fall...which is exactly what we will have.

The shutdown approach reminds me of our approach with wildfires. Don't let the natural process work itself out, let's intervene and set ourselves up for devastating consequences. We have been around corona viruses our whole lives. Protect the old and the weak. The rest of us need to work, live, and keep the country going.

 

[Fueri]

Swiss researchers show that COVID-19's curve broke before the shutdown; a similar result was found in Germany.

Sind wir tatsächlich im Blindflug? - infekt.ch

An der Pressekonferenz vom 16.4.20 hatte Bundesrat Berset mehrmals den Begriff „Blindflug“ verwendet. Wir würden nicht genau wissen, wo wir stehen und wir müssten noch gut beobachten, wie es um den Stand der Epidemie stehe. Methoden sind verfügbar So ganz ohne Instrumente ist unser Flugzeug aber...

infekt.ch

 

[XponentialChaos]

I read the link. I have some major issues with the methodology as far as I understand it. I'll explain why.

His response variables are the number of deaths and the number of cases. He's using the response strategy as an independent binary variable to explain the number of deaths and number of cases. That doesn't make sense to me if I'm interpreting that correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. Here's the issue:

The number of deaths is one of the primary reasons states chose their Covid-19 response strategy. The seven states that did not adopt a shelter-in-place strategy are obviously not interested in doing so because they have a low death count. So if we consider the number of deaths that occur in a state with shelter-in-place, like Michigan, against a state without shelter-in-place, like Arkansas, we would see more deaths in Michigan. In his regression model, that is an indication that shelter-in-place doesn't work, because there are more deaths in Michigan than Arkansas.

That makes no sense.

Michigan is implementing shelter-in-place because of the number of deaths while Arkansas is lax about this because of their lack of number of deaths. The same goes for cases. That doesn't show whether the strategy is working so much as it indicates prior history of how badly covid-19 has affected that state.

Furthermore, he still gets a high p-value because several states are taking proactive approaches to these strict measures despite not having the high number of cases or deaths. States like Alaska and Hawaii (not verified but implied by the words of the writer).

"As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders...Those seven states are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming."

It would be nice if he posted the data he's using instead of asking people to request it from him. He should post the regression model that he's generating from running these numbers as well, not just the p-values.

Population showed up as significant in his model, which leads me to believe that I'm interpreting this correctly, that his response variables are the number of deaths and cases. Which, again, doesn't make sense.

That's not how I would have ran this regression model. Looking into his background further, I noticed that he's a political scientist, not a statistician.

My $0.02.

 

[Obiwan]

Guy thinks he's being clever. The death rate would naturally be fairly constant everywhere among positive cases. Only a disingenuous asshole would use that single factor to make such a broad declaration. Slowing the rate of spread is key.

This disease is damn near as bad as liberalism.

Actually, it may be worse...

According to NY, 80-85% of the people it kills don't even have it...

After Deaths At Home Spike In NYC, Officials Plan To Count Many As COVID-19

Officials say a sudden upsurge in deaths at home is likely due to COVID-19 and they are planning to add many of them to New York's death toll, even without confirmation by a laboratory.

www.npr.org

U.S. COVID-19 Tests per Day with Percent of Positive Cases | ABI

www.abi.org

 

[SweetSue92]

Guy thinks he's being clever. The death rate would naturally be fairly constant everywhere among positive cases. Only a disingenuous asshole would use that single factor to make such a broad declaration. Slowing the rate of spread is key.

I got big news for ya. That "rate of spread" is about to be all busted up when these tremendous new numbers come out and we discover this virus is widespread and lots of us have already been exposed.

We're gonna love feeding you all these words one at a time then

 

[SweetSue92]

I read the link. I have some major issues with the methodology as far as I understand it. I'll explain why.

His response variables are the number of deaths and the number of cases. He's using the response strategy as an independent binary variable to explain the number of deaths and number of cases. That doesn't make sense to me if I'm interpreting that correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. Here's the issue:

The number of deaths is one of the primary reasons states chose their Covid-19 response strategy. The seven states that did not adopt a shelter-in-place strategy are obviously not interested in doing so because they have a low death count. So if we consider the number of deaths that occur in a state with shelter-in-place, like Michigan, against a state without shelter-in-place, like Arkansas, we would see more deaths in Michigan. In his regression model, that is an indication that shelter-in-place doesn't work, because there are more deaths in Michigan than Arkansas.

That makes no sense.

Michigan is implementing shelter-in-place because of the number of deaths while Arkansas is lax about this because of their lack of number of deaths. The same goes for cases. That doesn't show whether the strategy is working so much as it indicates prior history of how badly covid-19 has affected that state.

Furthermore, he still gets a high p-value because several states are taking proactive approaches to these strict measures despite not having the high number of cases or deaths. States like Alaska and Hawaii (not verified but implied by the words of the writer).

"As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders...Those seven states are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming."

It would be nice if he posted the data he's using instead of asking people to request it from him. He should post the regression model that he's generating from running these numbers as well, not just the p-values.

Population showed up as significant in his model, which leads me to believe that I'm interpreting this correctly, that his response variables are the number of deaths and cases. Which, again, doesn't make sense.

That's not how I would have ran this regression model. Looking into his background further, I noticed that he's a political scientist, not a statistician.

My $0.02.

I can tell you something about Detroit and Wayne Co. Once this virus hit those areas, no amount of shelter or no-shelter was going to help and that's the truth. In fact, to be honest, shelter might have been a problem. You have multi-generational families living in close contact and now you're forcing them all together in close quarters. Problem no one. Number two, the virus is hitting a population already in remarkably poor health, overset with high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, respiratory problems, etc. What is a lockdown going to do about that?

Nothing. Oh, wreck the economy, absolutely. It WILL do that. It HAS done that.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

You don't go outside to get mail, to get groceries, to put out the trash? Evidence shows not for everyone but for most, lockdowns don't change your odds. Don't kill the messenger.

Interacting with a lot of people when you put out the trash do you? Moron, it's the contact and interactions with...PEOPLE that spreads the virus, not merely appearing on the surface of the planet! Oh, what's the use of trying to convince the irreparably stupid? You'll believe anything as long as it doesn't appear in a text book!

 

[SweetSue92]

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?

You don't go outside to get mail, to get groceries, to put out the trash? Evidence shows not for everyone but for most, lockdowns don't change your odds. Don't kill the messenger.

Interacting with a lot of people when you put out the trash do you? Moron, it's the contact and interactions with...PEOPLE that spreads the virus, not merely appearing on the surface of the planet! Oh, what's the use of trying to convince the irreparably stupid? You'll believe anything as long as it doesn't appear in a text book!

If there's on thing Nosmo King can be counted on, it's just repeating whatever Party Line he's heard and then chastising the rest of us with it like some menopausal Karen off her meds.

"You're all Terrible People because you don't believe your Betters!!"

 

[cnm]

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!

Working in NZ and Australia. Curve is bottoming out...

The problem is that you are driven by money, not moral fortitude...

That is a straw man argument and a method of deflection in order to avoid having to address the evidence presented because you don’t want to accept the fact that you could possibly be wrong

The empirical evidence presented is that where lockdowns are properly implemented, they work. Woo hoo, no new cases for the first time.

New confirmed and probable cases over time, as at 9.00 am, 23 April 2020
COVID-19 - current cases

 

[U2Edge]

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!

Those seven states that did not adopt stay at home policies are more rural and more isolated. Had they adopted the same policies as California and Washington State early on, its likely several of these states would have suffered no deaths at all to coronavirus.

You want a real example about how travel bans and proper testing, contact tracing and isolation policies work, look at TAIWAN!

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people more exposed to China than any other country in the world. John Hopkins University predicted TAIWAN would have a higher infection rate and death rate than any country in the world. Instead this is what happened thanks to TAIWAN's anti-pandemic policies:

TAIWAN total infections: 429
TAIWAN total deaths: 6

Now compare that to the United States:

UNITED STATES total infections: 849,092
UNITED STATES total deaths: 47,681

Taiwan proves that early travel bans, testing, contact tracing, and isolation when needed works. TAIWAN successfully protected its population, while the United States remains in an ongoing national crises it has never seen before with human health and economic side effects on a massive scale. TRUMP failed and the scale of Trump's failure is reflected In the difference between the number of deaths in TAIWAN from coronavirus vs. the number of deaths in the United States from coronavirus.

 

[SweetSue92]

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!

Those seven states that did not adopt stay at home policies are more rural and more isolated. Had they adopted the same policies as California and Washington State early on, its likely several of these states would have suffered no deaths at all to coronavirus.

You want a real example about how travel bans and proper testing, contact tracing and isolation policies work, look at TAIWAN!

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people more exposed to China than any other country in the world. John Hopkins University predicted TAIWAN would have a higher infection rate and death rate than any country in the world. Instead this is what happened thanks to TAIWAN's anti-pandemic policies:

TAIWAN total infections: 429
TAIWAN total deaths: 6

Now compare that to the United States:

UNITED STATES total infections: 849,092
UNITED STATES total deaths: 47,681

Taiwan proves that early travel bans, testing, contact tracing, and isolation when needed works. TAIWAN successfully protected its population, while the United States remains in an ongoing national crises it has never seen before with human health and economic side effects on a massive scale. TRUMP failed and the scale of Trump's failure is reflected In the difference between the number of deaths in TAIWAN from coronavirus vs. the number of deaths in the United States from coronavirus.

Where you living Edge, and let's face it you want to use COVID to get to Trump right? TDS

 

[Fueri]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I can tell you something about Detroit and Wayne Co. Once this virus hit those areas, no amount of shelter or no-shelter was going to help and that's the truth.

Sorry, but you don't know shit.

Unsubstantiated opinions are just that.

 

[cnm]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

 

[SweetSue92]

I can tell you something about Detroit and Wayne Co. Once this virus hit those areas, no amount of shelter or no-shelter was going to help and that's the truth.

Sorry, but you don't know shit.

Unsubstantiated opinions are just that.

So nothing to counter, just name-calling.

Fellow conservatives, we're winning.

But we knew that

 

[XponentialChaos]

I can tell you something about Detroit and Wayne Co. Once this virus hit those areas, no amount of shelter or no-shelter was going to help and that's the truth.

Sorry, but you don't know shit.

Unsubstantiated opinions are just that.

So nothing to counter, just name-calling.

Fellow conservatives, we're winning.

But we knew that

What name did I call you?

 

[Care4all]

Guy thinks he's being clever. The death rate would naturally be fairly constant everywhere among positive cases. Only a disingenuous asshole would use that single factor to make such a broad declaration. Slowing the rate of spread is key.

Science says otherwise.

You say otherwise. I'm using science to critically examine the claim which is lacking the correct data points and proper statistical analysis. There's no way to even make that deterination until it's over and all the growth curves are lined up and adjusted for the incubation period of the virus plotted against when the various lockdown orders were implemented.

Herd immunity is the only way to ensure effective immunity for a population.
Not only will a population acquire immunity for this year but as the virus mutates and reappears in a slightly different form in subsequent seasons immune systems will still have resistance.
Through quarantines and lockdowns we achieve a partial immunity which will almost certainly ensure another outbreak in the fall...which is exactly what we will have.

So True, if we had just not done a thing we would have 100,000 deaths in one month instead of 50,000 deaths, and another 100k deaths the following month, and a Hundred thousand the third month too...etc.

THEN we could have acquired herd immunity.... Why oh why didn't we do that...?

 

[Fueri]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

 

[cnm]

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions.

You are, Shirley, if you insist precautions are silly to prevent inevitable herd immunity. Please spare me the equivocating bullshit where you're not happy to live with the implications of your advocacy.

 

[cnm]

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

So why not jump in and get infected? I don't understand how you can advocate that strategy yet be unwilling to take part. Do you just hope it will happen to others?

Hoho, at least Bojo had the courage of his delusions...