Posted on 05/01/2020 10:35:12 AM PDT by grundle
I believe he is correct, but hey, what do I know?
I bet it saved a number somewhere in the 100s. The vast majority of deaths were in nursing homes.
I'm interested in seeing what sort of "data" will prove that lockdowns didn't save significant lives.
Meh. The “data” isn’t particularly persuasive. Sounds like another mathematical “model” that doesn’t necessarily fit the real world.
Governments need the tax dollars to survive in the manner in which they have already become accustomed. All data will be enlisted to assist!
If a few peasants die to keep the gravy train running? Well, there were too many peasants to begin with! And only THINK of the savings with social security and medicare!
If a few peasants die to keep the gravy train running? Well, there were too many peasants to begin with! And only THINK of the savings with social security and medicare!
I've seen a lot of people express the opinion that we shouldn't worry about the people this disease kills because they are "old", and probably weren't going to live much longer anyway.
I think that is a rather callous opinion, and I think many of the people expressing it are motivated by economic concerns mostly. Some think it's a "conspiracy" of one sort or another.
Any evidence that the lock downs work is purely anecdotal.
Politicians, and especially leftist politicians, don’t understand the law of diminishing returns. Because, as Barbie says, “Math is hard!” Simple measures like social distancing and public service reminders to wash hands frequently and not touch your face reduce almost all of the actual risk. At least enough to “flatten the curve” and prevent the “bad” cases for all happening at once and overrunning the emergency medical system. Basically it’s 95% of the good for 5% of the pain and inconvenience. Anything beyond that, and especially these draconian Democommunist and RINO lockdowns, at best produce marginally tiny extra value, at the cost of destroying the country.
Thanks!
“Meh. The “data” isn’t particularly persuasive. Sounds like another mathematical “model” that doesn’t necessarily fit the real world.”
You guys are all about data unless the data doesn’t match your world view Then it’s meh.....
Any lives “saved “ by the lockdown and i’m it sure there were any are just delayed. The virus is widespread in the community and those that are going to get it are going to get it
All you need to figure this out is to check the covid-19 death count. Countries that have locked down have skyrocketing deaths.... Countries that haven’t locked down or have limited lock downs or waited to lock down are experiencing fewer deaths. The lock down regimes and the media have no interest in pointing these facts out.
Some of the non locked-down countries and states....
Hong Kong - 4 deaths (pop 7.2 million)*
Iceland - 10 deaths (pop 340+ thousand)
South Korea - 248 deaths (pop 51.4 million)
Japan - 430 deaths (pop 126.1 million)
Sweden - 2,653 deaths (population 10.23 million)
New York City - 18,069 deaths (population 8.3 million)*
Hong Kong is more densely populated than New York... With a whopping 4 deaths.
Something obviously went wrong with locking down... They just don’t want to admit it.
I think calling your mathematical model "data" is a very generous usage of the word "data."
I think data is more a matter of measurement, but you may feel differently on this point.
Because the notion that keeping people separated from each other slows down the transmission of diseases is just silly.
I’m gonna give the politicians the benefit of the doubt for starting this lockdown fiasco. Perhaps they were genuinely scared into this mess. But it’s long long past due for them to end it now. As is often said, the cure is worse then the disease. And the lockdown isn’t much of a cure anyway. ( the trifecta of cheap and plentiful pills that had worked so well - over 90 percent in the large French trial - is far better!. And more treatments are on their way. Advise the sick frail elderly to be cautious and watch to help nursing homes — possibly some special care regarding NYC subways —-and let’s end this horribly destructive Lockdown now!)
So the possibility that individuals can remain aloof until it has gone through most of the population and produced "herd immunity" is just a ridiculous idea?
Or will it not eventually produce "herd immunity?"
It is when you have a contagious virus widespread in the community. Particularly with essential businesses like dispensaries and abortuaries open and subways running. Once a communicable disease is in the community there is no containing it despite what your opinion is
It will produce herd immunity but heard immunity is not in itself a guarantee. We have herd immunity to measles but thanks to anti vaxxers we still get outbreaks. Here immunity just prevents the widespread outbreaks like we are having now.
I think President Trump somewhat disagrees with you on this point.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255825648448348161
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.