Epidemiologist: Why Lockdowns Are The Wrong Policy

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors. Here's where it went wrong.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...erently-2020-4

Sweden — which has yet to order any lockdown amid the novel coronavirus pandemic — 15,322 cases and 1,765 deaths from the virus so far.
The virus has been nearly 10 times as deadly as in Sweden than in other Nordic countries.

Norway, which has half as many people as Sweden, has seen 7,191 cases and 182 deaths. Finland, which has a population similar to Norway's, has seen 4,014 COVID-19 cases and 141 deaths.


This side-by-side of Sweden versus Norway shows that Sweden may have made a mistake in taking a relaxed approach to lockdown. Ian Shepherdson / Pantheon Macroeconomics

How does locking down a country prevent deaths?

You yourself say Sweden is 2x larger population size than Norway. You then proceed to tell me Sweden has 2x more cases of Covid-19.....15.3k vs. 7.2k

What's the problem?

Would locking down the country prevented people from dying in Sweden? 2x the population, 2x the number of cases sounds perfectly reasonable.

The real question is WHY are there more deaths in Sweden?

Italy and Spain locked down and they got hammered.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Because if your point is Sweden not locking down was bad....you haven't made that case.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How does locking down a country prevent deaths?

You yourself say Sweden is 2x larger population size than Norway. You then proceed to tell me Sweden has 2x more cases of Covid-19.....15.3k vs. 7.2k

What's the problem?

Would locking down the country prevented people from dying in Sweden? 2x the population, 2x the number of cases sounds perfectly reasonable.

The real question is WHY are there more deaths in Sweden?

Italy and Spain locked down and they got hammered.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Because if your point is Sweden not locking down was bad....you haven't made that case.

Not sure why Finland is doing do much better. Perhaps cases were diagnosed earlier and treated better....

Finland, ‘Prepper Nation of the Nordics,’ Isn’t Worried About Masks

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/w...and-masks.html
Unlike their neighbors, the Finns never stopped stockpiling after the Cold War. Now Finland sits on an enviable supply of medical and survival gear in the Covid-19 era.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark had also amassed large stockpiles of medical and military equipment, fuel and food during the Cold War era. Later, most all but abandoned those stockpiles.

But not Finland. Its preparedness has cast a spotlight on national stockpiles and exposed the vulnerability of other Nordic nations.

There are all sorts of variations on fatalities. We do not know why there are so many variations from country to country. However, we do know what works to limit it's rapid spread. So for any situation with an unknown final death rate, the more it is contained, generally, the fewer deaths.

[hcap]

Here is what happens in terms of "critical care beds" needed as various forms of control or mitigation is used. The assumption is the fewer the ciritical care needed, the fewer the deaths..

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/u...ite-house.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I have posted two preliminary studies, one from the CDC.(leftist enough?) Doesn't matter anyway, you are just to dumb too understand this conversation.

There is no question having a pre existing condition makes contracting covid more dangerous., but that does not alter it's overall lethality or contagious rate as compared to previous flu pandemics. That awful comparison, that it is definitely worse, holds even if you think it is a hoax. like your unstable Moron-in-Chief did

Other than nursing homes or or other confined institutions like prisons, we can not segregate a given population by pre existing conditions, (many patients do not know as to whether they have on), and unless we are willing to accept a much more authoritarian government like China, or perhaps wear badges like these......Look familiar?

You still haven't answered my question in 62, Mr. Empty Suit. Don't you know what the objective of the medical science community is?

Also, there's this:

But in line with other studies, the researchers found that the majority of fatalities are among adults who were age 80 or older.

There might be outlying cases that get a lot of media attention, but our analysis very clearly shows that at aged 50 and over, hospitalization is much more likely than in those under 50, and a greater proportion of cases are likely to be fatal,” Azra Ghani, a professor at Imperial College London and an author of the study, said in a statement.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/31/covid-...eported-study/

Spin your lies somewhere else.

Also, very many people are quite aware of their medical condition and can segregate, isolate or quarantine themselves if they believe they are more vulnerable than the rest of the population.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You still haven't answered my question in 62, Mr. Empty Suit. Don't you know what the objective of the medical science community is?

Also, there's this:

But in line with other studies, the researchers found that the majority of fatalities are among adults who were age 80 or older.

There might be outlying cases that get a lot of media attention, but our analysis very clearly shows that at aged 50 and over, hospitalization is much more likely than in those under 50, and a greater proportion of cases are likely to be fatal,” Azra Ghani, a professor at Imperial College London and an author of the study, said in a statement.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/31/covid-...eported-study/

Spin your lies somewhere else.

Also, very many people are quite aware of their medical condition and can segregate, isolate or quarantine themselves if they believe they are more vulnerable than the rest of the population.

Your inane question..

I have a question for you Mr, Know-it-All: What is the primary objective this nation's lockdown: Is it to minimize fatalities or to minimize infections? Which is it?

Both, you dense dumb ass. I and others have told you dozens of times

Mr Lunatic, are you suggesting the elderly, asthmatics, lung cancer patients, heart disease sufferers and millions of others with significant pre existing conditions be shipped off to where, another planet? Exactly how do we segregate a good portion of the world's population? Does the covid-19 free diabetic mother or father get isolated from their kids? Where do we house them? Some old style institution, (debtor prison for insistence?) for exactly how long?


Randall's Island, New York City, 1870s.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your inane question.. Both, you dense dumb ass. I and others have told you dozens of times

Mr Lunatic, are you suggesting the elderly, asthmatics, lung cancer patients, heart disease sufferers and millions of others with significant pre existing conditions be shipped off to where, another planet? Exactly how do we segregate a good portion of the world's population? Does the covid-19 free diabetic mother or father get isolated from their kids? Where do we house them? Some old style institution, (debtor prison for insistence?) for exactly how long?


Randall's Island, New York City, 1870s.

How do we segregate? Do you live on a freakin' park bench somewhere?
Or under a bridge, perhaps in some tent city or under corrugated cardboard? Here's a clue for you: The vast majority of Americans live in houses or apartments. If some dumb-meathead dimwit governor can mandate what is for all practical intent and purposes HOUSE arrest to get people to quarantine themselves, why can't that be done on a voluntary basis? This ain't rocket science for those of us who have homes in which to live.

Now...as far as my question is concerned about the objective of the medical science community, you're lying again. You for sure have not answered that until now.

If the objective is "both" as you say, provide proof of that statement. for I keep hearing everywhere and reading everywhere about deaths, deaths, deaths....that everyone is concerned about preventing deaths. So, it seems to me that if the medical community's goal is to minimize the number of fatalities, they only need to quarantine the sick people -- not the entire freakin' country! They need to keep the infected covid-19 people away from the rest of the population. Elementary, Dr. Watson!

Secondly, people who are not infected but are vulnerable for whatever reason can self-quarantine, practice social distancing, don masks, wear gloves, etc. to protect themselves.. Again, the entire country doesn't have to be in lockdown mode.

Meanwhile, the healthy people who are not afraid of taking risks can go back to work. Some of these certainly will become infected, but that's where herd immunity kicks in. The real fatality rate has always been overblown and is nowhere near hype of 4 or 5%, as current discoveries are beginning to show. It's likely much more closer to 0.5%., since many more people are walking around testing positive, which lowers the death rate drastically. Bringing an entire nation to economic death for the sake of such a modest number is insane!

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your inane question.. Both, you dense dumb ass. I and others have told you dozens of times

Mr Lunatic, are you suggesting the elderly, asthmatics, lung cancer patients, heart disease sufferers and millions of others with significant pre existing conditions be shipped off to where, another planet? Exactly how do we segregate a good portion of the world's population? Does the covid-19 free diabetic mother or father get isolated from their kids? Where do we house them? Some old style institution, (debtor prison for insistence?) for exactly how long?


Randall's Island, New York City, 1870s.

Is it worth starting a worldwide depression ?

Is it worth the millions that will die in the next couple years because of the shutdown?

Is it worth the unnecessary starvation worldwide that will occur because of the shutdown?



Why don't we ban all personnel car travel? How many people die yearly because of this?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by davew

Is it worth starting a worldwide depression ?

Is it worth the millions that will die in the next couple years because of the shutdown?

Is it worth the unnecessary starvation worldwide that will occur because of the shutdown?



Why don't we ban all personnel car travel? How many people die yearly because of this?

Yeah...but you are overlooking the most important point to the lockdown: It's great for the environment. I mean...when you do stick your head outside your door, doesn't the air smell much sweeter?

[boxcar]

Stanford doctor explains why coronavirus lockdown policies need to end: 'Ignore the panic and rely on facts'

In an op-ed published in The Hill, Dr. Scott Atlas laid out some key facts he believes policymakers are ignoring about the pandemic, and called for leaders to "ignore the panic" when making decisions.

"Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts," Atlas wrote. "Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function."

Atlas wrote that because the overall mortality rate is increasingly looking to be 0.1%-0.5% based on antibody studies, and because that mortality rate is even lower among healthy adults under the age of 50, it makes no sense to continue requiring all of the population to isolate when such a small percentage of people are in real danger from COVID-19.

Instead, Atlas wrote, states should craft policies that focus on protecting the elderly and those with chronic underlying conditions. Targeting that segment of the population, although it's smaller, will have the greatest impact on minimizing hospitalizations (preventing the health care system from becoming overwhelmed) and reducing deaths.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/stanfo...reaking%20News

This just makes waaaaay too much sense, which is why the left will categorically reject this advice.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

YMr Lunatic, are you suggesting the elderly, asthmatics, lung cancer patients, heart disease sufferers and millions of others with significant pre existing conditions be shipped off to where, another planet? Exactly how do we segregate a good portion of the world's population? Does the covid-19 free diabetic mother or father get isolated from their kids? Where do we house them? Some old style institution, (debtor prison for insistence?) for exactly how long?

Why can't they just stay in their homes, just like they are doing now?

And those living with them and taking care of them can stay in their homes with them...JUST LIKE THEY ARE DOING NOW.

It's quite simple, actually.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How do we segregate? Do you live on a freakin' park bench somewhere?
Or under a bridge, perhaps in some tent city or under corrugated cardboard? Here's a clue for you: The vast majority of Americans live in houses or apartments. If some dumb-meathead dimwit governor can mandate what is for all practical intent and purposes HOUSE arrest to get people to quarantine themselves, why can't that be done on a voluntary basis? This ain't rocket science for those of us who have homes in which to live.

Now...as far as my question is concerned about the objective of the medical science community, you're lying again. You for sure have not answered that until now.

If the objective is "both" as you say, provide proof of that statement. for I keep hearing everywhere and reading everywhere about deaths, deaths, deaths....that everyone is concerned about preventing deaths. So, it seems to me that if the medical community's goal is to minimize the number of fatalities, they only need to quarantine the sick people -- not the entire freakin' country! They need to keep the infected covid-19 people away from the rest of the population. Elementary, Dr. Watson!

Secondly, people who are not infected but are vulnerable for whatever reason can self-quarantine, practice social distancing, don masks, wear gloves, etc. to protect themselves.. Again, the entire country doesn't have to be in lockdown mode.

Meanwhile, the healthy people who are not afraid of taking risks can go back to work. Some of these certainly will become infected, but that's where herd immunity kicks in. The real fatality rate has always been overblown and is nowhere near hype of 4 or 5%, as current discoveries are beginning to show. It's likely much more closer to 0.5%., since many more people are walking around testing positive, which lowers the death rate drastically. Bringing an entire nation to economic death for the sake of such a modest number is insane!

Of course the objectives are to prevent death, suffering, hospitalizations and widespread infection. You are reading the wrong sources. Trump TV is it?

Any one may be a carrier. At this point, if we allow the the younger, theoretically healthy and uninfected, to go on and about as what used to be normal, we invite other problems. Like re-infetion, again and again

Until there is a vaccine, or we are sure they are not carrying or infected, by extensive testing procedures, the disease will remain pervasive and return pretty much a seasonal or worse as a year long problem

So yes, the now uninfected and healthy could avoid lock down, but could never again come into contact with the "at danger group" until those conditions are met If I were you, I would light a fire under Trump's ass to expand testing procedures 100 times

[PaceAdvantage]

This world you've invented is fascinating.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Stanford doctor explains why coronavirus lockdown policies need to end: 'Ignore the panic and rely on facts'

In an op-ed published in The Hill, Dr. Scott Atlas laid out some key facts he believes policymakers are ignoring about the pandemic, and called for leaders to "ignore the panic" when making decisions.

Hey bunky, he is chief of "neuroradiology" at Stanford University

Not exactly an expert in infectious disease or epidemiology. Gee, I suppose a bit better than Tucker, Sean and Laura. And a notch better than your Moron who thinks we should inject Lysol, or shove a UV light up our butts

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This world you've invented is fascinating.

I see you were an early adaprtor of that great philosopher Sarah Palin, and her treatise on the lying Lame Streams.

Randall speaks so highly of her.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by hcap

.... So yes, the now uninfected and healthy could avoid lock down, but could never again come into contact with the "at danger group" until those conditions are met[/I][/B] If I were you, I would light a fire under Trump's ass to expand testing procedures 100 times

The now healthy and uninfected should avoid lock down. What's the downside? They become infected, have little or no symptoms and become a threat to nobody.