The Lancet, the foremost publication for Medicine, has published this article, which makes for an extremely interesting read:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7200128/

 

You have to hand it to the Swedish for having the guts to go with minimal or no interruption to daily life, and now we can see the results, and more importantly, compare them with countries that did the extreme opposite, and locked up it's people, life & economy.

Has published correspondence from a Swedish doctor and professor. 
 

if you want academic papers with research that shows the benefits of lockdown there are plenty.

The lockdowns are a pointless waste of time and money, for over 2 months now I cannot watch premier league football, I cannot sit in a bar having a beer, the only entertainment is watching Trump explode!

I like lockdown.  I don't have to speak to other humans.

A troll post has been removed.

The objectives of the lock down were to prevent the health services from being overwhelmed after an new 'novel' virus spread across the world. Nothing was known about it at the time, projections showed the devastating potential of this new and unstudied virus.

 

The virus is not as deadly as we first believed, the heath services have not been overwhelmed.

 

The lock down was the correct decision initially, continued now seems pointless.

Those in high risk groups and those who would have contact with them could choose to isolate while the world moves on.

 

I can only suspect that any decisions to continue the lock down are taken out of fear of criticism when someone becomes severely ill from Covid-19.

 

We will continue to live with Covid-19 and the risks associated with Covid-19 years from now.

Perhaps a Vaccine will be found, but remember, the influenza vaccine is between 40 and 60% effective. Could we assume that any Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 to be equally as effective meaning many people remain at risk.

 

As more testing continues, it is becoming recognised that more people have had Covid-19 without symptoms, the Case Fatality Rates are low (still double that of Influenza - which has a vaccine).

 

Question: if we had a vaccine that was 99% effective would we (humanity) be happy? because it should be noted that we already have more 99.8% effective protection when the CFR is 0.2%

 

Food for thought - All decisions now are not made for the benefit of the people and the future, but out of fear of criticism.

 

1 hour ago, CanadaSam said:

The Lancet, the foremost publication for Medicine, has published this article, which makes for an extremely interesting read:

unfortunately Spock read this. i could not believe it. 

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The objectives of the lock down were to prevent the health services from being overwhelmed after an new 'novel' virus spread across the world. Nothing was known about it at the time, projections showed the devastating potential of this new and unstudied virus.

 

The virus is not as deadly as we first believed, the heath services have not been overwhelmed.

 

The lock down was the correct decision initially, continued now seems pointless.

Those in high risk groups and those who would have contact with them could choose to isolate while the world moves on.

 

I can only suspect that any decisions to continue the lock down are taken out of fear of criticism when someone becomes severely ill from Covid-19.

 

We will continue to live with Covid-19 and the risks associated with Covid-19 years from now.

Perhaps a Vaccine will be found, but remember, the influenza vaccine is between 40 and 60% effective. Could we assume that any Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 to be equally as effective meaning many people remain at risk.

 

As more testing continues, it is becoming recognised that more people have had Covid-19 without symptoms, the Case Fatality Rates are low (still double that of Influenza - which has a vaccine).

 

Question: if we had a vaccine that was 99% effective would we (humanity) be happy? because it should be noted that we already have more 99.8% effective protection when the CFR is 0.2%

 

Food for thought - All decisions now are not made for the benefit of the people and the future, but out of fear of criticism.

You are mixing up CFR and IFR. The CFR (Not really a useful statistic though) is much much higher than 0.2% and it is likely that the IFR will be significantly higher too.

 

You say that continued lockdowns are pointless but they are now being lifted almost everywhere. This may seem slow to some but there is sense in these things being done incrementally and with some caution. Nevertheless, the world will be significantly more open at the end of this month than it was on May 1st.

I think that you should practice with Google more.

Sweden had a population of less than 11 milliion people in last years figures.

These are the current stats for the virus there. And you believe that no lockdown is better? I think that I will stay in Thailand thank you.

Confirmed 40,803

Recovered 4,971

Deaths 4,542

Where in the UK? No it doesn't work there.

Everywhere else it works fine.

1 hour ago, johnray said:

I like lockdown.  I don't have to speak to other humans.

It doesn't have to end for you if you don't want it to - you can just stay in.

 

However, as lock down continues more, people lose their income streams, jobs are lost, people may become more desperate - an upturn in crime is the possible consequence. Lock-downers may not be so happy when their houses are getting robbed.

From the linked article:

 

Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface...

 

I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken....

 

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly.

 

Sweden is in the top countries with the highest death rate, with 450 deaths/1 million citizens. 
UK, which was aiming for herd immunity, has almost the highest death rate in the world (585 deaths/1M citizens).

Lockdowns work if they're done in time. Most (with common sense) know that a lockdown that is started 1 month after an epidemic in one's country has taken off amounts to little (such as with Trump's botched response in the US, now with almost 109,000 deaths).

 

50 minutes ago, impulse said:

From the linked article:
[...]
 

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future—it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly.

 

The author of the study seems to think lockdowns work.

9 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Sweden is in the top countries with the highest death rate, with 450 deaths/1 million citizens. 
UK, which was aiming for herd immunity, has almost the highest death rate in the world (585 deaths/1M citizens).

Lockdowns work if they're done in time. Most (with common sense) know that a lockdown that is started 1 month after an epidemic in one's country has taken off amounts to little (such as with Trump's botched response in the US, now with almost 109,000 deaths).

 

And how about all the countries which have the virus under control without lockdowns? Their success proves that a lockdown is not needed, and probably has not much effect at all.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, ...

That's a key point so many seem not to understand ????

5 minutes ago, ThLT said:

The author of the study seems to think lockdowns work.

 

You seem to have missed this part:

 

I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken....

 

 

Sweden compared to its neigbors (in deaths/1 million citizens):

9 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

And how about all the countries which have the virus under control without lockdowns? Their success proves that a lockdown is not needed, and probably has not much effect at all.

Like which countries (with data)? Please don't name islands in the middle of nowhere (being an island is basically itself a lockdown), or countries that barely have a health system to reliably report cases/deaths.
 

2 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling

So the study which caused the examination of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as possible Covid-19 treatments to get stopped everywhere, that study is flawed, fake, baseless, wrong?
 

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

You seem to have missed this part:

 

I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken....

This is false. Any epidemiologist, doctor or nurse can tell you an overburdened health system results in more deaths. 

No one is suggesting lockdowns to stop the virus (which makes no sense), it's to slow the virus, which the author of the study verbatim says that lockdowns work for this.

5 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Like which countries (with data)? Please don't name islands in the middle of nowhere (being an island is basically itself a lockdown), or countries that barely have a health system to reliably report cases/deaths.
 

I posted a lot about them here already, with sources and graphs and all. Feel free to check my posts if you want to know details. I like especially the examples of Taiwan, Cambodia and Japan.

Just now, yuyiinthesky said:

I posted a lot about them here already, with sources and graphs and all. Feel free to check my posts if you want to know details. I like especially the examples of Taiwan, Cambodia and Japan.

I said no islands (isolated and basically a lockdown) or countries with a poor health system, and you name two islands and a country with a poor health system. ????

6 minutes ago, ThLT said:

This is false. Any epidemiologist, doctor or nurse can tell you an overburdened health system results in more deaths. 

And where was the health system really overburdened?

Yeah, Italy, every other seasonal flu does that there, but where else?

Sweden? No. Germany? No. France? No. Japan? No. South Korea? No. Cambodia? No. Thailand? No. UK? No. USA? No. Not even in New York, the quickly prepared additional ICU and ventilator capacities did not even get used.

23 minutes ago, ThLT said:

This is false. Any epidemiologist, doctor or nurse can tell you an overburdened health system results in more deaths. 

No one is suggesting lockdowns to stop the virus (which makes no sense), it's to slow the virus, which the author of the study verbatim says that lockdowns work for this.

 

But where's the balance?  Health care resources aren't overburdened.  Of course, they couldn't predict that when the lockdowns were implemented.  So the lockdowns were probably prudent.  But no longer, given the data we have today that we didn't have in January.

 

In the meantime, factories, restaurants, airlines, hotels and theaters are closing down, companies are going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs and their homes.  Millions are going hungry.  The effects of the depression are getting worse by the day and will far exceed the damage done by the Covid itself

 

Sweden at 404 deaths per 100,000 is 0.4% of the population.  Most of them in bad health to start with.  If a tiny percentage of the population needs protecting, by all means... let them stay home.  Restrict their contact with others.  

 

The other 99% of us need to go to work and live our lives.

 

4 minutes ago, ThLT said:

I said no islands (isolated and basically a lockdown) or countries with a poor health system, and you name two islands and a country with a poor health system. ????

A lockdown is not an island isolation / border closure but locking the population in their homes. So these countries are good examples, they have not done so.

 

If you merely talk about closing the bordures, that is a different story. And if you think these countries are hiding piles of dead bodies, up to you.

9 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

And where was the health system really overburdened?

Yeah, Italy, [...]

Well, if there are lockdowns, this helps to not have health systems be overburdened. Had there been no lockdowns at all, many countries would probably have had overburdened hospitals/systems.

You can't ask me to prove something based on something that didn't happen.
 

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

But where's the balance?  Health care resources aren't overburdened.  Of course, they couldn't predict that when the lockdowns were implemented.  So the lockdowns were probably prudent.  But no longer, given the data we have today that we didn't have in January.

 

In the meantime, factories, restaurants, airlines, hotels and theaters are closing down, [...]

 

Yeah, for sure. I'm not for an indefinite lockdown. I'm simply refuting 100% anti-lockdowners/lockdown-deniers.

Once you do lift the lockdown, you still need to lift it gradually, since with a second wave, the number of deaths will increase (even if the health systems aren't overloaded).

Just now, ThLT said:

Yeah, for sure. I'm not for an indefinite lockdown. I'm simply refuting 100% anti-lockdowners/lockdown-deniers.

Once you do lift the lockdown, you still need to lift it gradually, since with a second wave, the number of deaths will increase (even if the health systems aren't overloaded).

 

But the point of the linked opinion piece is that the total deaths will be the same, regardless of whether you have 30,000 a month dying for 6 months or 15,000 a month dying for 12 months.  The lockdown just spreads them out over a slightly longer period.  While decimating the economy.

 

Lockdowns are an affront to civil liberties, everything should go back to the way it was. People need to manage their own risks not being nannied by the state and what the WHO says.

 

If you have multiple underlying conditions then stay indoors and don't meet anyone apart from at a safe distance, the rest of us don't need to suffer the lockdowns.