Originally posted by Quincy
That's nutty where can I read that?
You can google search her quote and find many results:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53443724
And the WaPo also covered their overcounting approach:
"A review revealed that a government agency had been counting people as having died of the virus regardless of when they tested positive — meaning even an asymptomatic carrier who was infected in March but was killed in a traffic accident in July would be considered a covid-19 death"
Originally posted by -Pr-
It's looking very likely that Ireland will have another lockdown. All because people can't ****ing behave themselves. -sigh-
The lockdown is the problem, not the people.
Ireland should have never locked down. If they didn't, you'd already be done with dealing with the coronavirus.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Right, but I could also be dead. Not really a trade I wanna make.
This is a problem you will have to deal with the rest of your life. That's a personal choice, not a state choice.
You will be at a higher risk your entire life.
edit - and if it makes you feel worse about lockdowns, the research does not support lockdowns as an effective measure against coronavirus mortality. It it not an effective tool. In fact, it kills more than it can save since the findings in results duplicated, peer reviewed, published research shows no statistically significant benefit to lockdowns, rapid lockdowns, border closures, and rapid border closures.
Face your anger/hate against something other than lockdowns. Hygiene appears to be more effective such as hand-sanitization and NOT touching your face and surfaces.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a problem you will have to deal with the rest of your life. That's a personal choice, not a state choice.You will be at a higher risk your entire life.
edit - and if it makes you feel worse about lockdowns, the research does not support lockdowns as an effective measure against coronavirus mortality. It it not an effective tool. In fact, it kills more than it can save since the findings in results duplicated, peer reviewed, published research shows no statistically significant benefit to lockdowns, rapid lockdowns, border closures, and rapid border closures.
Face your anger/hate against something other than lockdowns. Hygiene appears to be more effective such as hand-sanitization and NOT touching your face and surfaces.
I have no desire to suffer because of other people's selfishness or stupidity (at least, any more than I have already). Some people need to be saved from the stupidity of those around them. Lockdowns mean less people are outside. It means that on the days when I have to leave the house, I run in to less people that could ****ing ruin my life.
Do I think long term, lockdowns are the solution? No. But for now, I'm not gonna complain about it.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I have no desire to suffer because of other people's selfishness or stupidity (at least, any more than I have already). Some people need to be saved from the stupidity of those around them. Lockdowns mean less people are outside. It means that on the days when I have to leave the house, I run in to less people that could ****ing ruin my life.Do I think long term, lockdowns are the solution? No. But for now, I'm not gonna complain about it.
Again, lockdowns have been shown to not be effective tools to mitigate coroanvirus mortality.
However, those "walk-through" spray-sanitization machines they had in China are probably very effective. I have no science to directly support that since the hygiene research I did find is often coupled with other mitigating controls such as education.
Let me make it more clear: lockdowns don't work, based on the science.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, lockdowns have been shown to not be effective tools to mitigate coroanvirus mortality.However, those "walk-through" spray-sanitization machines they had in China are probably very effective. I have no science to directly support that since the hygiene research I did find is often coupled with other mitigating controls such as education.
Let me make it more clear: lockdowns don't work, based on the science.
I heard you the first time. I just don't agree. And, as nicely as I can put it, I feel more comfortable trusting my actual doctors (plural) than, essentially, some guy on the internet.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I heard you the first time. I just don't agree.
Wait a minute...
You have high quality science that has also been published with results duplication across multiple studies that analyzed multiple countries and the results of that research says your previous held opinion is factually wrong, and you don't accept it? I thought you were a logical, science-based, analytical person? Am I confusing you for someone else (this is not intended to be condescending - I thought from our previous exchange on this topic in the spring, subjective unverified positions were garbage to you and you wanted the facts, not guesses). My memory fails me from time to time and I may have confused you for someone else.
I thought you were the staunch empiricist type? That's why I've been discussing this topic from a purely science-based angle. I'm not so dense as to waste someone's time throwing facts and science at their face if this is not how they engage on topics (that's a failure to communicate and gets no where for both parties).
Originally posted by -Pr-
And, as nicely as I can put it, I feel more comfortable trusting my actual doctors (plural) than, essentially, some guy on the internet.
I am not just some guy on the internet and I didn't conduct the research myself.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people."
This is not an opinion. You're not trusting me. You're trusting actual research, from multiple countries, across a lengthy time period, among a very large sample of populations from those countries, across multiple studies.
My opinion is, we should setup sanitization spray stations like China did and we should have mandatory protections in place for who can enter elder care facilities.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait a minute...You have high quality science that has also been published with results duplication across multiple studies that analyzed multiple countries and the results of that research says your previous held opinion is factually wrong, and you don't accept it? I thought you were a logical, science-based, analytical person? Am I confusing you for someone else (this is not intended to be condescending - I thought from our previous exchange on this topic in the spring, subjective unverified positions were garbage to you and you wanted the facts, not guesses). My memory fails me from time to time and I may have confused you for someone else.
I thought you were the staunch empiricist type? That's why I've been discussing this topic from a purely science-based angle. I'm not so dense as to waste someone's time throwing facts and science at their face if this is not how they engage on topics (that's a failure to communicate and gets no where for both parties).
I am not just some guy on the internet and I didn't conduct the research myself.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
This is not an opinion. You're not trusting me. You're trusting actual research, from multiple countries, across a lengthy time period, among a very large sample of populations from those countries, across multiple studies.
My opinion is, we should setup sanitization spray stations like China did and we should have mandatory protections in place for who can enter elder care facilities.
Ok, let me rephrase.
How do I know you're being honest about this? That you're not cherry picking studies that suit your side of the argument (and let's be fair, there are tons of "studies" out there about Covid that contradict each other)? The truth is, whether I want to or not, I can't. Especially not with how much flip-flopping there is from so-called experts.
I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I want to be sure that I'm trusting the right people when my own health is at stake, especially seeing as I'm not an expert on viruses. I have my talents, sure, but being a virologist is not one of them.
But I want to be fair, so how's about I ask you this. What's the solution if not lockdowns? I'm going to apologise if you've posted it before, but right now, what should be doing if not isolating myself so nobody coughs in my face?
That is the issue: the experts keep flipping.
Remember in the beginning we were told not to go get masks, but I think Fauci sort of admitted this was a lie and that they didn't want people to go rush out and buy up all the masks so the medical professionals had none.
Now we have this lockdown flip. People are already going crazy and the "experts" seem like chickens with their heads cut off running around still trying to go "cluck cluck"
Originally posted by -Pr-
But I want to be fair, so how's about I ask you this. What's the solution if not lockdowns? I'm going to apologise if you've posted it before, but right now, what should be doing if not isolating myself so nobody coughs in my face?
Don't worry, you're not a bad-faith troll so I have no problem repeating stuff I've posted over and over in this thread. I only do the "look it up yourself" to people are are not interested in honest discussion and just want to troll.
My opinion, which I do not know if it is backed by actual high quality research, is to setup those sanitization spray stations before entering common areas. I think they worked really well in China.
On top of that, strict protections for elder care facilities on who can enter. That worked and has shown to have worked. It should not be left up to the states or cities to protect the elder care facilities. It should be federally mandated (or, nationally mandated, in your country's case). I would hold the same opinion if a virus had a majority Infection Fatality rate among the young, as well. While it would be devastating to the economy, if a virus had 84% of all deaths among the 15 and younger crowd, and an infection fatality rate of 16% among that age group, sorry, but you'd need to protect that age group with strict controls. That's what SARS-CoV-2 is for the 75 and older crowd.
And for people like you, extra precautions would be necessary regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic situation - same precautions for people like you at all times, year round. You know best and your doctor knows your medical situation best so what precautions you take should be up to you to decide (and not follow, if you don't care about your health, as well - shouldn't be our choice, should be yours).
The narrative has shifted, lately, on what governments should be doing. They are not talking about lockdowns as much, anymore. And many orgs are now discussing and talking about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns as a mortality-control measure.
For example, the WHO statement I posted about a page back or a couple of pages back. Or this WSJ article, which was largely pro-lockdown during the early days of the outbreak:
I know those are news sources but the WHO, if seen as an authority, should be considered now that we have more data and research to determine what actually works. WSJ is just a news org but when they properly source their article, it lends itself to better credibility on "what policy works."
And for large cities and countries who have reached what is being called the "steady state", there is a consistent new-case measure. Meaning, there is a floor limit and you will always have a minimum number of new cases. The goal is to have enough of your population naturally immune that you can't really experience an outbreak. The protections in place at elder care facilities should always be followed, however. Every flu and cold season, you can kill the elderly if you let sick relatives and friends visit. This has always been true. It's just more obvious, now.
We also know that lockdowns very much disproportionately negatively affect the poor. It's an elitist policy and we know from prior research, the economic devastation is going to take more lives than it could save, regardless of what any controversial limited benefit research shows.
I'm being long-winded but if you are at risk, a great measure would be those sanitization spray stations that you walk through. It would be good for you and everyone.
However...there are also other issues with trying to create a clean-room in the world - it would harm immune system strength and make us susceptible to other illnesses in the future that we might not otherwise be. It's a very complicated situation and has ridiculous nuance.
Originally posted by Surtur
That is the issue: the experts keep flipping.Remember in the beginning we were told not to go get masks, but I think Fauci sort of admitted this was a lie and that they didn't want people to go rush out and buy up all the masks so the medical professionals had none.
Now we have this lockdown flip. People are already going crazy and the "experts" seem like chickens with their heads cut off running around still trying to go "cluck cluck"
That was for N95s, which were shown to be effective in preventing VRIs when strict santization and mask wearing protocols were followed. He wanted those saved for the medical community.
However, I may have been mistaken about that as newer research also shows the N95s to not work compared to surgical masks when you do RCTs with lab confirmed VRIs.
Meaning, you're right. The research itself appears to be contradictory. But, enough of the high quality studies have confirmed the efficacy of N95s that I think you can wear the N95s if there's no mask shortage and you follow strict mask wearing protocols. My mother has an immuno-compromising situation and tried to wear an N95 when she went out to get groceries. She's also anemic and nearly passed out from oxygen deprivation in the middle of the grocery aisle. She's just not capable of wearing proper PPE in public without putting herself at risk for syncope so her choice is to ask her children to buy her groceries until new COVID-19 confirmed infections in her area are really low.
So...whatever...can't do shit about it if you have problems with your health.
Originally posted by Surtur
And then for the WHO to just turn around and go "yeah lockdowns maybe not so good".The f*ck? That is as close to them admitting "the reaction to the virus will kill more than the virus itself" as we will get.
In the legal world, that would put them in a position of culpability. But...for some reason, the WHO gets a pass for the lives destroyed/lost.
It's whey there is an indemnification clause in contracts you sign before accepting the recommendations from a consulting firm which is basically what the WHO is.
Which we had a lawyer who could talk more about that. Some want to Sue China and WHO for their actions/words. Contract law can get interesting.