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

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.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


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

The OP is an example of a reverse causation fallacy.

You have to understand something critical here. The "science" being referred to here is not the science of the scientific method, of peer review, of empirical evidence; this is the religion of science, a religion that demands blind faith that condems reasoning and questions outside of a tightly defined set of pre-established parameters, and who's priests and prophets - with their holy vestments of white lab coat or suit and tie, and their ordination papers granted through high financial sacrifice by ivy-walled institutions will not be challenged, regardless of the inanity or insanity of their pronouncements and mandates.

If you understand this, then the claims to "science" make perfect sense.
:

a reply to: ScepticScot

Insult?

Believe you me, I was holding my tongue so tight I bit half of it off while writing that. These kind of posts, the kind which have absolutely zero basis in logic or science, by those who scream "follow the science!" whenever it suits their personal agenda, are insulting to ME.

What I responded to, as well as what I am responding to now, are attempts to dismiss any type of scientific analysis because it might not fit with their personal agenda.

Look, dude, this ain't Twitter. This is ATS. We have reasoned debate here, not trades of unfounded BS and some sort of agenda-driven check on what can be posted. We allow actual scientific analysis and real reasoned debate, and allow that to lead us to informed decisions and conclusions. If you can't handle that, either let the adults talk or go complain on Twitter.

TheRedneck

a reply to: incoserv

It's a bit like the NYT's "science" rating lockdown measures by how far people drive.

They failed all the rural states completely missing that for a lot of rural people, a necessary trip is one of miles, not a simply walk downstairs to a corner bodega like it is in densely packed New York.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Insult?

Believe you me, I was holding my tongue so tight I bit half of it off while writing that. These kind of posts, the kind which have absolutely zero basis in logic or science, by those who scream "follow the science!" whenever it suits their personal agenda, are insulting to ME.

What I responded to, as well as what I am responding to now, are attempts to dismiss any type of scientific analysis because it might not fit with their personal agenda.

Look, dude, this ain't Twitter. This is ATS. We have reasoned debate here, not trades of unfounded BS and some sort of agenda-driven check on what can be posted. We allow actual scientific analysis and real reasoned debate, and allow that to lead us to informed decisions and conclusions. If you can't handle that, either let the adults talk or go complain on Twitter.

TheRedneck

Telling someone they should have their lips sewn shut and fingers broken is reasoned debate? You are the one trying to shout down any debate or analysis.

Showing that their is a correlation between states with a more severe lockdown and covid infections does not show that lockdowns are ineffective or cause higher infections. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious to anyone wanting genuine scientific analysis.

a reply to: ScepticScot

One would think that if lockdowns did anything about COVID, that states that refused to lock down would suffer worse infection rates ... at least some of them. And you would also think that states that locked down harshly would have been spared ... at least some of them.

The logic behind locking down, of course, being that we're doing it to prevent massive infection rates.

If the states with the most stringent measures also had the worst outcomes, it argues that the measures weren't very effective especially since most measures were imposed before the infections hit true second wave status this fall. Most of the strictest lockdown states locked down months ago in the spring and never, ever eased. That's well outside the infection cycle.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

One would think that if lockdowns did anything about COVID, that states that refused to lock down would suffer worse infection rates ... at least some of them. And you would also think that states that locked down harshly would have been spared ... at least some of them.

The logic behind locking down, of course, being that we're doing it to prevent massive infection rates.

If the states with the most stringent measures also had the worst outcomes, it argues that the measures weren't very effective especially since most measures were imposed before the infections hit true second wave status this fall. Most of the strictest lockdown states locked down months ago in the spring and never, ever eased. That's well outside the infection cycle.

Places that introduced stricter lockdown measures will in general be areas that have already either have had more likely to have higher infection rates (due to demographics, population density etc).

Assessing the effectivnes of different measures is sa worthwhile exercise. A correlation between strictness of lockdowns and number of infections tells us little to nothing about that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My responses to your points:

1. Absolutely likely this has a positive impact. I found a definite correlation in my earlier analysis between population density and hospitalization/death rates. As a matter of fact, that was the only obvious correlation I found.

2. Again, absolutely likely. A metric of this type is notoriously hard to quantify, however, and from a practical standpoint much harder even to correct in a social structure.

3. I won't discount this; however the hospitalization/death rates continued to rise in all areas despite the different degrees of lockdown implemented... and this study seems to indicate the areas with higher intensity lockdowns actually increased at a higher rate. Even if the areas in question were more heavily infected earlier, the obvious conclusion is that the lockdowns failed to provide significant relief as designed.

One point I have to add: in any infectious disease, including the Chinese virus but also including influenza viruses, the common cold, and other corona viruses, the elderly can safely be assumed to be at higher risk simply because their immunity is typically slower and weaker in response to disease. Even with a novel coronavirus, that assumption should have been made initially. However, the governors of both New York and New Jersey intentionally and purposely placed known infectious patients into nursing home environments using force of law to do so, against the advice of those charged with the care of the residents.

This was either recklessly malicious, or hopelessly incompetent. Either way, charges should be filed and both should be sitting in a prison cell for mass murder.

4. Reasonable, but the difficulty of implementing a complete national lockdown is enormous. People depend on others to survive. We need food, which means farmers, storage facilities, manufacturers, packagers, wholesalers, and retailers must operate. We need electricity, which means mining and electrical production must continue. We need water, which necessitates the need for water treatment plants to continue operation. And that's just a few examples.

Quarantine (which is what you seem to be describing) was never intended for a majority of a population; it was designed for a minority of infected to contain the infection, and was intended to be used only when the risk of death was high. The risk of death, even including the most vulnerable, is in the very low first percentile, actually approaching zero in those who are not high risk. Quarantine of an entire society under such a threat is ludicrous at best, unachievable at worst.

That said, distance is a reasonable precaution; that used to be common knowledge with any sickness. The six foot separation distance requirement was IMO likely the only one that did any good whatsoever. It's also the only one I personally tried to comply with. It seems ironic that the people wearing face masks seem to be the same ones who regularly violate that simple request to maintain a little social distance.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

Showing that their is a correlation between states with a more severe lockdown and covid infections does not show that lockdowns are ineffective or cause higher infections. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious to anyone wanting genuine scientific analysis.

If I propose an experiment with a stated, expected outcome, and that outcome does not occur, the experiment is a failure. Additional analysis may be introduced to determine if usable data was still gathered from the experiment, or suggestions may be made as to why the experiment failed when the theory was sound, but THE EXPERIMENT STILL FAILED.

If you cannot grasp that fact, you are espousing religion, not science.

The lockdowns were, as most things are in essence, an experiment. The stated, expected outcome was a decrease in future hospitalizations/deaths. That outcome did not occur. Therefore THE EXPERIMENT WAS A FAILURE. Any attempt to say otherwise is an admission of inability to comprehend the principles of the scientific method, and disqualify one from being taken seriously in any further discussion.

The OP attempted to explain why, in their opinion, the experiment failed. I found their analysis to be professional and reasonable, worthy of consideration. Had I not, I would have dissented with specific, reasoned explanation of why I believed their analysis to be incorrect. Your buddy just dismissed them out of hand and declared the experiment did not fail.

Now go read a science book. Maybe you can find one with pictures.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

3. I won't discount this; however the hospitalization/death rates continued to rise in all areas despite the different degrees of lockdown implemented... and this study seems to indicate the areas with higher intensity lockdowns actually increased at a higher rate. Even if the areas in question were more heavily infected earlier, the obvious conclusion is that the lockdowns failed to provide significant relief as designed.

I guess my point is due to their density of already infected at a much higher rate their hard lockdowns were too late. Its was like you ran and jumped in the air into a pond and in mid air you realized you still have your wallet and phone on you...Lol nothing you do after that point matters...

One point I have to add: in any infectious disease, including the Chinese virus but also including influenza viruses, the common cold, and other corona viruses, the elderly can safely be assumed to be at higher risk simply because their immunity is typically slower and weaker in response to disease. Even with a novel coronavirus, that assumption should have been made initially. However, the governors of both New York and New Jersey intentionally and purposely placed known infectious patients into nursing home environments using force of law to do so, against the advice of those charged with the care of the residents.

WTF were they thinking? They hardly touched their isolation bed counts to include the ship...geez.. This was criminal, so if a cop can shoot someone and we say it is criminal because of poor judgement what the hell should we all this?

4. Reasonable, but the difficulty of implementing a complete national lockdown is enormous. People depend on others to survive. We need food, which means farmers, storage facilities, manufacturers, packagers, wholesalers, and retailers must operate. We need electricity, which means mining and electrical production must continue. We need water, which necessitates the need for water treatment plants to continue operation. And that's just a few examples.

I agree, not something we could do in the states. China is a much different culture. What we did was kind of like using an umbrella with holes in it and then debating how much less rain got on us comparted to no umbrella while either way we still got wet.

originally posted by: ScepticScot Telling someone they should

which is the modus operandi of the entire scamdemic. it's baloney. but carry on championing the worst psy-op ever executed on the population of the world. in time you might see the error of your ways, or not. whatever.

originally posted by: The2Billies

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

The very solid Republican state of Texas did not have very strict lockdown rules, if you'll recall. Here in Dallas it took a county judge standing up to him (Judge Clay Jenkins) to set up stricter rules (but no lockdowns) and even then lawmakers in surrounding counties took a lasseiz faire attitude toward masks, many of them actually encouraging opening and no mask enforcement rules (Denton, I'm looking at you.)

And now that the shots are open to all (but not everyone's getting them or has Internet to set up appointments -- immunization in Dallas alone is around 25%), we're seeing more people deciding that they don't need to wear masks. Data collection is still spotty (we've had a number of days with no data being reported) We're down since February but are still averaging upward of 2500 new cases every day here.

And then there's the rest of Texas. Most of the small towns never did any mask requirements. Houston fought Abbot and eventually got their own masking requirements, but Galveston and other large cities didn't.

So, no. The attitude here was "whatever, man, but we're not going to make you" and in Republican-controlled areas there never were any mask mandates.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Showing that their is a correlation between states with a more severe lockdown and covid infections does not show that lockdowns are ineffective or cause higher infections. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious to anyone wanting genuine scientific analysis.

If I propose an experiment with a stated, expected outcome, and that outcome does not occur, the experiment is a failure. Additional analysis may be introduced to determine if usable data was still gathered from the experiment, or suggestions may be made as to why the experiment failed when the theory was sound, but THE EXPERIMENT STILL FAILED.

If you cannot grasp that fact, you are espousing religion, not science.

The lockdowns were, as most things are in essence, an experiment. The stated, expected outcome was a decrease in future hospitalizations/deaths. That outcome did not occur. Therefore THE EXPERIMENT WAS A FAILURE. Any attempt to say otherwise is an admission of inability to comprehend the principles of the scientific method, and disqualify one from being taken seriously in any further discussion.

The OP attempted to explain why, in their opinion, the experiment failed. I found their analysis to be professional and reasonable, worthy of consideration. Had I not, I would have dissented with specific, reasoned explanation of why I believed their analysis to be incorrect. Your buddy just dismissed them out of hand and declared the experiment did not fail.

Now go read a science book. Maybe you can find one with pictures.

TheRedneck

You are making an invalid point will trying to be condescending, well done.

The 'evidence' in the OP does not show that lockdowns failed to reduce infections, hospitalizations or deaths. If you really think it does then perhaps consider the issue might your own understanding or scientific literacy in this area, not other peoples.

a reply to: Byrd

And yet, there are no piles and piles of dead people in Texas ...

Neither are there piles and piles of dead people here in Missouri where our governor refused to impose a statewide mask mandate. He left it up to local authorities to decide. So I live under one where I am at, but there are plenty of places that do not have them inside the state.

And our death toll is still less than places like New York and New Jersey.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: ScepticScot Telling someone they should

which is the modus operandi of the entire scamdemic. it's baloney. but carry on championing the worst psy-op ever executed on the population of the world. in time you might see the error of your ways, or not. whatever.

Possibility A: There is worldwide conspiracy involving almost every government in the world, their scientific and medical experts, international health organisations, independent laboratories and staticistical agencies, and millions of health professionals, scientists and researchers in order to conduct a massive 'psy-op' of unprecedented scale and complexity and no clear purpose .

Possibility B: There is a serious viral pandemic as agreed by pretty much all of the above.

Which seems more likely?

a reply to: ScepticScot

To date, we've lost less people in the US to COVID than the Spanish Flu, but about 100,000. And you have to understand that back in 1918, there were also about 1/3 the total US population of today too - roughly 100 million to today's 350 million or so.

Oh, and that's assuming that every COVID death *is* a COVID death and not a death to something else where the person also tested positive for COVID.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess my point is due to their density of already infected at a much higher rate their hard lockdowns were too late. Its was like you ran and jumped in the air into a pond and in mid air you realized you still have your wallet and phone on you...Lol nothing you do after that point matters...

... including slitting your wrists.

Either way, the lockdowns failed to solve the issue. The only thing they did do for certain is they destroyed the future livelihoods of a huge number of people either operating small businesses that were deemed "nonessential" or workimg for someone in that position.

WTF were they thinking? They hardly touched their isolation bed counts to include the ship...geez.. This was criminal, so if a cop can shoot someone and we say it is criminal because of poor judgement what the hell should we all this?

Absolutely agreed.

I agree, not something we could do in the states. China is a much different culture. What we did was kind of like using an umbrella with holes in it and then debating how much less rain got on us comparted to no umbrella while either way we still got wet.

An apt analogy, especially if one adds a bit of hydrochloric acid on the umbrella. Most of the arguments I have seen presented in favor of the lockdowns refuse to acknowledge the known damage to our economy that was done, not to mention the potential future damage. Many businesses even here, where the lockdowns were not as draconian as elsewhere, have either disappeared forever or have entirely changed how they operate. How much worse it is in other states which did (and still do) implement such restrictions?

I have heard that North Korea ensured the the Chinese virus was under control by summarily executing anyone found to be infected along with their entire household. Not quite as effective as China's method, but much more brutal. I guess in the end it's a tradeoff between absolute brutality and authoritarianism, or ensuring that a virus which turns out to have a 99+% survival rate is eradicated completely.

Had this virus turned out to be something like 99% fatal, perhaps such measures would have been deemed prudent. It seems that is far from the case, however, so the measures implemented were absolutely more harmful than helpful overall.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

You are disqualified from presenting any further analysis which I will even consider. You obviously know nothing of science nor do you wish to.

I do not care to discuss religion with you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

To date, we've lost less people in the US to COVID than the Spanish Flu, but about 100,000. And you have to understand that back in 1918, there were also about 1/3 the total US population of today too - roughly 100 million to today's 350 million or so.

Oh, and that's assuming that every COVID death *is* a COVID death and not a death to something else where the person also tested positive for COVID.

Over a 2 year period with a lot less medical knowledge than we have a century later.

Also not sure why historical comparisons are particularly relevant. As a % of population Covid will kill a lot less people in Europe than the Black Death, that doesn't really give us much guidance on how we should handle it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

You are disqualified from presenting any further analysis which I will even consider. You obviously know nothing of science nor do you wish to.

I do not care to discuss religion with you.

TheRedneck

Feel free to ignore any posts I make. Since you don't/can't discuss posts content anyway it makes very little difference. If confirmation bias is more your speed there are plenty on this site who will oblige.

Happy to discuss with anyone who doesn't want to hide why the OP doesn't demonstrate that lockdowns don't work.

a reply to: Byrd

That is an apt point. Here in Alabama, while Governor Mee-Maw did overstep her authority and issued a mask mandate, few places strictly required one. Most simply offered a mask if one entered without wearing one, and my quick statement of "medical condition, sorry" was accepted. I have been denied access to only one business (who I will never visit again) over my medical inability to wear a mask, and still our death rates are low compared to most of the states.

Those who do wear the masks typically wear them incorrectly. At the place I was denied access to, the first person I saw upon entering was wearing a mask over his mouth only, leaving his nose completely exposed.

In the more Democratic cities I had the misfortune to visit, the use of masks was much more a demand, and these areas also tended to have the highest mortality rates.

TheRedneck