States with strict lockdown rules had more COVID 19 deaths as a percentage of population

wattsupwiththat.com...
www.justfacts.com...


What this "Just Facts" survey showed was that states with the most restrictive lockdowns and rules had a greater percentage of COVID 19 infections per population. The most restrictive states were predominately run by the Democratic Party from the Governor on down. The less restrictive states with far fewer COVID 19 infections were predominately Republican Party run from the Governor on down.

My personal theory as to why is this:

Where the lockdowns were most severe the entire population was funneled into a very small number of open establishments to get their basic goods. The mega-uber rich-corporate owned stores (who donate the most to politicians from both sides) had the entire population sent into their stores for daily needs. While smaller establishments were closed and the population could not spread out to lessen exposure.


Also, in the very restrictive states, especially NYC and NJ there is a great deal of public transport and the Liberals/progressives really want as many people as possible in public transport to "save the environment". Public transport is the ideal place to transmit disease. It is already dirty, unwashed hands touching everything and jostling forcing people to grab onto germ laden poles and arm rests so as not to fall. Public transport in NYC was NEVER closed and is in steamy hot filthy underground tunnels, the absolute perfect breeding ground for pandemic disease.

What this chart says to me is:

Power grabs of forcing people into soul sucking isolation which caused mental illness and domestic abuse to rise exponentially; the de-education and under-education of children; the forced unemployment of a large segment of the population by the political class; turned out to be harmful megalomania on the part of Governors.

The power hungry Governors in the states with the most percentage of deaths by population were certain they could run the minutia of their peon's lives better than the masses they considered too ignorant to behave in a way that would stop the spread of COVID 19. Worst of all this overreach and insult to the citizenry was encouraged by the the fear mongering sycophantic media like CNN.

In reality the SCIENCE shows that the more Governors trusted the population to behave in a manner that lessened the spread of the virus, the lower the percentage of infection by population.


Actual Question/Answer from survey

Question 4: In which of the following states do you think the greatest portion of the population has died from Covid-19? Florida, New Jersey, or Texas?

Correct Answer: New Jersey

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the states with the highest portions of their populations killed by C-19 have been New York and New Jersey.

Nonetheless, many media outlets have showered praise on the governors of those states for their handling of the pandemic while vilifying the governors of states with significantly better outcomes like Florida and Texas:

Beyond the political implications of misinforming large portions of the electorate, such journalism can draw attention away from serious problems and lead people to false conclusions about how best to protect their health and lives.

Correct answer given by 39% of all voters, 27% of Biden voters, and 53% of Trump voters.

a reply to: The2Billies

your facts hurt feelz, they must be silenced. Don't post this on the big sites, you will be shut down.
Shame on your for going against the narrative.

a reply to: The2Billies

What this "Just Facts" survey showed was that states with the most restrictive lockdowns and rules had a greater percentage of COVID 19 infections per population.

So the places that had a greater percentage of infections had more restrictive lockdowns?

Yeah. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to work.

Lmao

a reply to: underwerks

So the places that had a greater percentage of infections had more restrictive lockdowns?

Yeah. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to work.

Lmao

You should be forced by law to never use the word "science" again, either verbally or by text communication, with the penalty for doing so being having your lips sewn together and your fingers broken.

The OP just presented a clear indication of correlation between the lockdowns (which were designed and advertised to stop the spread of the Chinese virus, thereby decreasing deaths from it) and the number of deaths. Such a positive correlation indicates at the very least that the lockdowns failed to do what they were supposedly intended to do. the OP went on to provide a potential mechanism by which the lockdowns could have actually contributed to the increased number of deaths.

And all you can come up with from seeing such data is that the lockdowns must be working? The exact opposite of what any thinking, rational being would conclude? Have you ever even seen a science textbook? Did you even attend school?

I'm not LMAO at you; I am in shock and despair wondering if this is the mentality the human race is devolving into! Idiocracy was edited heavily to present the people as more intelligent than they are, based on your response.

TheRedneck

a reply to: The2Billies

You need to factor in that both Cuomo and Murphy placed sick people into nursing homes and this will skew the numbers upwards.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Excellent point.
Mass murder is proven to have an effect on death counts.

a reply to: underwerks

the whole show is garbage. LMAO. live in fear. LOL.

a reply to: The2Billies

I did some analyzing of the available data from the CDC a while back (published somewhere on ATS), and my conclusion was that the lockdowns were having no effect. This based on the comparison between the states with the most severe lockdown measures and those with no lockdown measures in place. The correlation I did get was one of population density; the more dense the population, the higher the hospitalization and death rates.

That much was expected, as higher population density tends to favor viral transmission.

Now, that said, New Jersey does have a very high population density compared to, say, Texas. I would expect them to have a higher hospitalization and death rate by virtue of that alone. How much higher is another issue... there is also a correlation between population density and lockdowns in many (but not all) cases, since the denser cities tend to be more likely to have Democratic control. My analysis could have indicated a positive correlation between lockdowns and hospitalization/death rates, but at the time I had no data to indicate or contra-indicate such.

Your personal hypothesis does seem on the surface to have merit. I have voiced my concern over the unintended consequences of the lockdowns myself on numerous occasions. My concern, being from Alabama and never having used New York public transportation, was that I have personally seen lines outside stores here, necessitated by a combination of smaller stores being unable to operate and draconian restrictions on store occupancy, where people were standing in close contact in the open weather for sometimes hours, often for a longer period than they would have been in the store otherwise.

There is also the issue of face mask use, which would seem to correlate to the intensity of the lockdowns. I remain convinced that continuous use of face masks is making the problem worse by trapping the infected breath of those infected and re-introducing it into their lower respiratory tract. Those virus particles, even if they are caught in the face mask, do not simply disappear; they are then re-inhaled into the wearer's lungs. The masks may give some small protection from contracting the virus, but they also, IMO, make it much more likely that anyone with the virus will suffer a much more severe case.

Even surgeons only wear their masks for a few hours at a time, when performing operations. There's a reason for that. There's also a reason why discarded face masks in a medical environment are typically incinerated; they are themselves small petri dishes of contamination and never should be left lying in parking lots. Unless, of course, those demanding their continual use are intent on increasing the spread of a virus.

Thank you for bringing this to light.

TheRedneck

Everything that the so called experts have made mandatory with these lockdowns is the exact opposite of what you should do to keep your immune system healthy.

Lock yourself inside (no vitamin D which is crucial for a healthy immune system.) wear masks (and risk bacterial lung infections, which will be counted as a COVID death/case anyways) stay away from everyone (thereby crippling your immune system even further).

None of this has anything to do with peoples health.

Keep the fear elevated, keep people confused with conflicting information. It’s a proven fact that fear shuts down the part of your brain that thinks and reasons. Scared, confused people are easily led.

I mean, they have convinced almost everyone that you can be sick and have no symptoms.

Total BS.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Mass murder is proven to have an effect on death counts.

Don't tell underwerks. He'll try to claim that higher death rates have a positive effect on mass murders.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: The2Billies

What this "Just Facts" survey showed was that states with the most restrictive lockdowns and rules had a greater percentage of COVID 19 infections per population.

So the places that had a greater percentage of infections had more restrictive lockdowns?

Yeah. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to work.

Lmao

This is typical circular, self-defining progressive "reasoning."

I put the word reasoning in quotes because there is no reason to it. This kind of excuse making is like the line of thought that says that the reason that influenza has virtually disappeared from the world and the cause of the drastic decline of nearly every other major cause of death is because the mass house arrests and mandated muzzling are so successful ... ignoring the fact that alleged WuFlu deaths are supposedly skyrocketing.

The burning need for denial is indicative of a deep fear induced psychosis.


:

I'm not so sure that this indicates anything absolute in terms of actual infection rates. Here's my theory:

Medical professionals in states that are not promoting the coronaphobia histeria are much less likely to scream COVID!!!! every time somebody has a sniffle or dies in a drive-by shooting, auto accident or fall from a fourth-story window.

In other words, it may be that the reporting from the non-coronaphobic states is a little closer to reality. (I say "a little closer" because I suspect that even those numbers are inflated by over-zealous or outright deceptive medical professionals.)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks

So the places that had a greater percentage of infections had more restrictive lockdowns?

Yeah. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to work.

Lmao

You should be forced by law to never use the word "science" again, either verbally or by text communication, with the penalty for doing so being having your lips sewn together and your fingers broken.

The OP just presented a clear indication of correlation between the lockdowns (which were designed and advertised to stop the spread of the Chinese virus, thereby decreasing deaths from it) and the number of deaths. Such a positive correlation indicates at the very least that the lockdowns failed to do what they were supposedly intended to do. the OP went on to provide a potential mechanism by which the lockdowns could have actually contributed to the increased number of deaths.

And all you can come up with from seeing such data is that the lockdowns must be working? The exact opposite of what any thinking, rational being would conclude? Have you ever even seen a science textbook? Did you even attend school?

I'm not LMAO at you; I am in shock and despair wondering if this is the mentality the human race is devolving into! Idiocracy was edited heavily to present the people as more intelligent than they are, based on your response.

TheRedneck

Maybe rather than adopting your now default position of trying to insult anyone who holds a different positions you could try considering the fairly obvious point being made?

Places with high infection rates were far more likely to introduce stict lockdowns.

I think most of the statistics in Democrat areas were and still are all fixed and rigged for political propaganda purposes🤫

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you're with underwerks? Lockdowns are good?

By the way, I've seen you posting around before. You need to remove some planks before you chide others on insulting.

Frankly this post draws the same reactions as when I post the connections to obesity and lack of physical activity and bad COVID outcomes. It's not fat shaming, it's anger that the government decided that gyms and sports were "non-essential" and stuffed people inside their homes where keeping in shape because far more difficult and less fun and then when they finally did let us get back into preferred venues and activities, they continue to keep face coverings on which sucks a lot of the joy out of those things even now.

It's the same idea as this post.

Government measures intended to "help" that actually end up hurting.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you're with underwerks? Lockdowns are good?

By the way, I've seen you posting around before. You need to remove some planks before you chide others on insulting.

Of course they aren't good, but there is a lot of evidence they can be necessary.

Feel free to link to any posts where I insult other posters in that manner

a reply to: ScepticScot

In what manner?

The poster in question was correct. The post was as anti-science as they come.

a reply to: The2Billies

I see the same...

1. Liberals live more in denser populations and that alone drives much of this.
2. Another big factor is how many people live in one place and how much room do they have? We saw with Italy that even locked down hard they had massive spikes due to the living density of their population i.e. a lot of people in one house. We saw this with the meat houses where the workers lived in tight masses... I live in a house well over 4000 feet with 3 people . We can go almost a full day and not see one another...My area in WA just North of Portland has almost not been touched by COVID.
3. They were already infected at a much higher rate than thought....COVID didn't start in nursing homes in Seattle, LA. NY, NJ etc the population was already so infected that it finally found its way into these more secured areas. So when we said there was 15 known cases there were millions already infected who treated it like a common cold and were over it.
4. Isolation works... Masks, 6 feet etc not so much. China didn't just mask their population they had a full lockdown isolation. People just staying home more most likely was the biggest part in not having a unmanageable outbreak.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IAMTAT

Mass murder is proven to have an effect on death counts.

Don't tell underwerks. He'll try to claim that higher death rates have a positive effect on mass murders.

TheRedneck

LOL...same poster was actually trying to claim WATER IS NOT WET in another thread.

We laughed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

In what manner?

The poster in question was correct. The post was as anti-science as they come.

No it wasn't , or at least not as I was reading the post.

The OP is an example of a reverse causation fallacy.