Driving today heard on the radio that Oklahoma is one of the states being hit hardest now. Something like over 2,000 new daily cases and concerns it could increase.
Interesting that both North and South Dakota are highest. Wonder if the not too distant Sturgis motorcycle rally had anything to do with this.
Originally posted by Blakemore
The U.K. did bad because the release of lockdown created a huge spike and we had to go into another one. In the last week we've had a 30% decrease and now people are actually taking it seriously and wearing masks. Believe it or not, a lot of people weren't wearing masks in the UK. Now they are and we've had a massive decrease.
What you're dishonestly leaving out is you went on lockdown November 5th and saw multiple days of increased new cases and deaths for 20+ days after lockdown. This was in the face of new cases already slowing before you went into lockdown.
In fact, you had a spike in new cases 7 days* after you implemented a lockdown despite seeing a steady-state for new cases for about 10 days prior to your new lockdown. Since 95% of people, who have been exposed, will test positive (if they will test positive), 4-5 days after exposure, your lockdowns should have worked if you assume lockdowns work.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
*We know why: lockdowns cause a spike in new cases and deaths in the following 2-4 weeks because packing people into small spaces together allows the virus to spread more quickly. We've seen the lockdowns do this in previous countries and lockdown scenarios. We are aware that this is what happens and some assume that the prevented new cases will prevent new deaths down the road: an intended increase in deaths with lockdown policies.
Originally posted by Robtard
Driving today heard on the radio that Oklahoma is one of the states being hit hardest now. Something like over 2,000 new daily cases and concerns it could increase.
We have near 100% mask wearing adherence, in Oklahoma.
We hit a spike of new cases of over 3700 on November 25th. Social distancing measures are in place anywhere you go.
According to my coworker in LA who just came from Tulsa, Tulsans wear masks at the highest rates he's seen anywhere. He said it was about 50% in LA. That was 2 weeks ago.
And, according to mobility data, Oklahoma is pretty far down in mobility:
https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-11-27_US_Oklahoma_Mobility_Report_en.pdf
And both CA and OK wish we had North and South Dakota's new case numbers as both Dakotas have dropped sharply.
Originally posted by Surtur
Holy shit this board has become 90% just pieces of shit whining about DDM.What happened? Why did these certain posters become so pathetic?
Originally posted by Surtur
And No it's not even entertaining. It's the most pathetic thing in the world. Block him if he sets you guys off so much. If you are so bereft of intellect you can only summon a "reee" in response just block him. Do yourself and the board a favor.
While I agree, things might be different if they actually had an arguments of substance to provide. At least Lord XYZ tries to engage.
Originally posted by dadudemonSo.... a delayed reaction by about a week?
What you're dishonestly leaving out is you went on lockdown November 5th and saw multiple days of increased new cases and deaths for 20+ days after lockdown. This was in the face of new cases already slowing before you went into lockdown.In fact, you had a spike in new cases 7 days* after you implemented a lockdown despite seeing a steady-state for new cases for about 10 days prior to your new lockdown. Since 95% of people, who have been exposed, will test positive (if they will test positive), 4-5 days after exposure, your lockdowns should have worked if you assume lockdowns work.
You literally just argued it yourself!
*We know why: lockdowns cause a spike in new cases and deaths in the following 2-4 weeks because packing people into small spaces together allows the virus to spread more quickly. We've seen the lockdowns do this in previous countries and lockdown scenarios. We are aware that this is what happens and some assume that the prevented new cases will prevent new deaths down the road: an intended increase in deaths with lockdown policies.
Originally posted by SurturI won't block him. He's great entertainment. 😂
And No it's not even entertaining. It's the most pathetic thing in the world. Block him if he sets you guys off so much. If you are so bereft of intellect you can only summon a "reee" in response just block him. Do yourself and the board a favor.
Originally posted by Blakemore
So.... a delayed reaction by about a week?
If by "delayed reaction" you mean delayed reaction by increased number of deaths and cases, yes.
Originally posted by Blakemore
You literally just argued it yourself!
No I most certainly did not. What I just did is be honest about their intentions instead of dishonestly hiding it. I explained their reasoning behind it. I explained that they think they will reduce the number of deaths, long term, with policies like these. I was also pointing out that they accept the fact that their policy WILL kill more people in the short term than if they did nothing at all because they bank on the lockdowns saving more lives, long term. Turns out it is not true and, long-term, you kill even more people with lockdowns specifically from the coronavirus infections (and that model did not account for ancillary deaths).
My opinion doesn't matter to you or most anyone: epidemiologists opinions do matter. And they say this tactic doesn't work and shouldn't be used.
Not only that, WHO said lockdowns should not be used to control the pandemic.
Originally posted by Surtur
Why lie? You aren't even entertained.
This, I agree with. Sometimes, he's gets extremely pissed at me. But he's learning bad habits from one of his 2 daddies.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
needs more maths and graphses
Sure:
The model used for Report 9 was independently validated and verified, and predicts that, in the absence of an effective vaccine for covid-19, school closures would result in more overall deaths than no school closuresMitigating a covid-19 epidemic requires a different strategy from an influenza epidemic, with more focus on shielding elderly and vulnerable people
Originally posted by Silent Master
Why? it's not like you understand them.
I just posted the exact research I was talking about.
It includes full transparency including the peer review write-ups and discussions about the content.
One person pointed out that the researchers left our the care home situation which caused far more deaths meaning the results are worse than this research suggests.
Some people incorrectly seized this study and tried to say social distancing doesn't work. That's not true at all. It does work. This paper focused mostly on lockdowns and their efficacy.
Anyway, yes, no one will really care. Doesn't matter what research you show them. They didn't reason themselves into supporting some policies so you can't reason them out of it.