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

a reply to: ScepticScot

I have been discussing content with every other poster except you and underwerks. Most of the reason for that is that only you two seem to fail to comprehend the issue being discussed. Of course, I understand why you would deny what is right in front of your face. I am a heretic for not agreeing with your religion, am I not?

TheRedneck

If you want to objectively assess whether something is based on objective scientific assessment of correlation with some level of statistical confidence, you can just change the subject matter and then look at the numbers again.

Say it's covid deaths and hospitalizations vs time with lockdown measures in place. Just change the subject to Statistic 1 over time with Stimulus 1, 2 etc. applied at certain times. Ask any credible data scientist (many have tossed science out the window) to look at the data and determine if there is any evidence Stimulus 1,2 etc. impacted Statistic 1 with no knowledge that the subject matter is Covid related.

Right now, we have that data from many many countries, counties, states, etc. Unfortunately when you use the above method and take the feels triggering words out, there is no correlation.

Are there a whole bunch of factors at play that are very very very difficult to decouple? Sure. But we do have results data for over a year now and it shows nothing even when population density is accounted for. You can't just say trust the science and then ignore it.

They should have cancelled the lockdowns during the summers because there are way less other seasonal viruses in the summer, including pneumonias which seem to go way up in Winter time. A lot of people would have got the virus over with minimal sickness in the summer and would have had immunity to the virus...building herd immunity. Our state kept things closed in the low risk times and we have one of the higher hospitalizations this winter.

They knew they would not get the vaccines approved till in December, and the states did not even focus on preparing for mass innoculations, they were too busy bashing Trump and focusing on keeping people suppressed so much that they ignored prepping for the vaccine distribution.

The Democrat states seemed to do the worst in this pandemic, the Democrat leaders lack common sense.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It's relevant as the last really deadly viral pandemic. It's also something so many people compare COVID to as though COVID were as bad.

It's not. The simple numbers prove that out.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have been discussing content with every other poster except you and underwerks. Most of the reason for that is that only you two seem to fail to comprehend the issue being discussed. Of course, I understand why you would deny what is right in front of your face. I am a heretic for not agreeing with your religion, am I not?

TheRedneck

So discussing with posters who agree with you?

I am not the one treating this as a religion and refusing any point that disagrees with my dogma.

Let me try this again. A correlation between severity of lockdown and number of infections does not show in anyway that lockdowns do not work or make covid worse

No serious scientific study would ever suggest that , any more than a correlation between being on chemotherapy and having cancer shows that chemotherapy causes cancer. It gets the causation completely the wrong way round.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss how effective or necessary lockdowns were/are However it should be done with some effort at rationality.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's relevant as the last really deadly viral pandemic. It's also something so many people compare COVID to as though COVID were as bad.

It's not. The simple numbers prove that out.

I don't think there is much validity in comparing covid and spanish flu from either side* of the debate. Very different virus, in different circumstances at a different time.

*terrible choice of word but I trust you get my meaning.

a reply to: The2Billies

What this chart says to me: it could be possible that the nations who WANT the greatest control over its people bumped up death stats to support the fear driven emotions needed to sieze that control.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Spanish Flu also was a true novel virus.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spanish Flu also was a true novel virus.

Should I assume you think Covid-19 isn't?

What do you think is different? Genuine question.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

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.

Trump said over and over "the cure can not be worst then the disease", but in this case the cure was some virtual signaling elixir. The big issue is we could have roughly the same number of deaths without shutting down the country for a year. We also have not looked at the deaths due to the lock down. We most likely spent trillions with zero gains...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spanish Flu also was a true novel virus.

Should I assume you think Covid-19 isn't?

What do you think is different? Genuine question.

For one thing, it has been proven that plenty of people have a partial immune response from other circulating coronaviruses, much like our immune systems mount every year to the latest cold and flu strains. A truly novel virus is one where such a thing is not widespread. Instead, the immune response hyper-reacts, and it is often what kills us which is why novel viruses like Spanish tend to knock off the ones in the very prime of life - they have strong, fully reactive immune systems. For the very old and young who are normally the most at risk, the risks are about the same as they always would be from a bad flu.

Now let's look at COVID numbers. Who's most at risk? The very old and those with already compromised immune response and other health conditions. They're the ones who would already be at risk from a bad bug, and not the ones in the prime of life with strong, fully developed immune systems. In fact, the very, very young, the other end of the spectrum who is usually also at risk from this kind of thing, is the *least* at risk from it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spanish Flu also was a true novel virus.

Should I assume you think Covid-19 isn't?

What do you think is different? Genuine question.

For one thing, it has been proven that plenty of people have a partial immune response from other circulating coronaviruses, much like our immune systems mount every year to the latest cold and flu strains. A truly novel virus is one where such a thing is not widespread. Instead, the immune response hyper-reacts, and it is often what kills us which is why novel viruses like Spanish tend to knock off the ones in the very prime of life - they have strong, fully reactive immune systems. For the very old and young who are normally the most at risk, the risks are about the same as they always would be from a bad flu.

Now let's look at COVID numbers. Who's most at risk? The very old and those with already compromised immune response and other health conditions. They're the ones who would already be at risk from a bad bug, and not the ones in the prime of life with strong, fully developed immune systems. In fact, the very, very young, the other end of the spectrum who is usually also at risk from this kind of thing, is the *least* at risk from it.

Not really sure that is a requirement to meet the definition of novel.

There are a number of theory's why spanish flu was more deadly to younger age groups. Not something I have read a lot on so not sure which is most accepted. One of the alternatives is that older people had partially imunity from a previous flu.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spanish Flu also was a true novel virus.

well....we don't even know if it was an influenza or not. We assume it is, and typically ascribe it to swine flu strains as of late. In the past I recall it was typically ascribed to bird flu strains. So who knows on that.

But if it was the flu, it was not novel in any way. Influenza is a very common virus.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So discussing with posters who agree with you?

Discussing with all posters who show some level of critical thinking. If you believe that "agrees" with me in every case, it just shows how indoctrinated you are.

And to beat it all, you then have the gall (or the ignorance, not sure which) to say this:

Let me try this again. A correlation between severity of lockdown and number of infections does not show in anyway that lockdowns do not work or make covid worse

No serious scientific study would ever suggest that

Let me translate what I am hearing:
"It doesn't matter if it failed! I say it worked, dammit! And any study which shows data or scientist who reaches their own conclusion, which may be different from mine, isn't 'serious!' Only 'serious' studies agree with me!"

Dude, give it up. You're so far out of your league here, it isn't funny any more. It's becoming just embarrassing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

The Chinese virus is not a novel virus. It was a novel virus. It's been a year of panic and continuous research; we now have a pretty good idea of what we are dealing with.

"Novel" means "new and unknown." You'd know that if you read that science book like I suggested.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

The more severe the outbreak, the more restrictive the lcokdown measures put in place to curb the spread . It's how lockdowns work and function in the real world.

The core form and function of what someone is trying to analyse can't be ignored if the aim is accurate analysis and using the scientific method.

Claiming such incomplete data as proof lockdowns don't work by ignoring the who, what, when, why, how and where of such measures and the equations involved in monitoring spread is obviously a flawed method which will produce a false result.

a reply to: ScepticScot

My son had swine flu back when it circulated not long ago. I had to cancel a trip for a metallica concert for him, myself, and the wife because he went into the hospital. The wife and I were with him the entire time in close quarters. Neither of us got sick with the flu. It is likely we both still had immunity from the prior major swine flu outbreak in the 70's.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

So discussing with posters who agree with you?

Discussing with all posters who show some level of critical thinking. If you believe that "agrees" with me in every case, it just shows how indoctrinated you are.

And to beat it all, you then have the gall (or the ignorance, not sure which) to say this:

Let me try this again. A correlation between severity of lockdown and number of infections does not show in anyway that lockdowns do not work or make covid worse

No serious scientific study would ever suggest that

Let me translate what I am hearing:
"It doesn't matter if it failed! I say it worked, dammit! And any study which shows data or scientist who reaches their own conclusion, which may be different from mine, isn't 'serious!' Only 'serious' studies agree with me!"

Dude, give it up. You're so far out of your league here, it isn't funny any more. It's becoming just embarrassing.

TheRedneck

Your not replying didn't last long but sadly again a complete inability to deal with any actual points raised and resulting to personal insults.

If that is what you are 'hearing' the problem is with your ability to comprehend a fairly simple point that has already been explained. The OP does not provide any evidence that the lockdown didn't work.

Your attempts at deflection and making this personal do not change that.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The Chinese virus is not a novel virus. It was a novel virus. It's been a year of panic and continuous research; we now have a pretty good idea of what we are dealing with.

"Novel" means "new and unknown." You'd know that if you read that science book like I suggested.

TheRedneck

Yet a virus from 1918 is? Those must be some science books you read.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Trump said over and over "the cure can not be worst then the disease", but in this case the cure was some virtual signaling elixir. The big issue is we could have roughly the same number of deaths without shutting down the country for a year. We also have not looked at the deaths due to the lock down. We most likely spent trillions with zero gains...

Yes, I know. To his credit, Trump did not want lockdowns; I feel he just put too much trust in the wrong people (*cough* Fauci *cough*). As a matter of fact, when he tried the most logical approach, travel restrictions from the affected areas, he was lambasted for it.

The Democrat leaders (and, to be fair some of the Republican leaders) at the local and state level implemented the lockdowns. To Trump's detriment, he did go along with them, although I'm not sure what else he could have done.

Since this is the Political Mud Pit, didn't Joe Biden say he was going to fix the pandemic problem? And aren't his supporters saying it's worse now?

TheRedneck