Covid lockdowns Globally

[Pla nin]

As cruel as this sounds lockdowns won't achieve anything, its a virus and before long everyone in the world will have been exposed to it. 

Look at the Spanish flu pandemic there were no aeroplanes then and that found its way around the world and killed  an estimated 500 million people  which at the time was a third of the world population 

[Pla nin]

Sorry an estimated 500 million people were infected with Spanish Flu and 50 million people died world wide according to my limited research on google

[Phillip9]

1 hour ago, Pla nin said:

50 million people died world wide according to my limited research on google

 

So far less than 4 million have died of covid in the same length of time the spanish flu killed 50 million.  A year from now, most of the world will have vaccines available and deaths will have dropped dramatically.   We will probably never hit 10 million covid deaths.

 

The covid Lockdowns seemed to have worked quite well.

[Jeffr2]

6 hours ago, Pla nin said:

Sorry an estimated 500 million people were infected with Spanish Flu and 50 million people died world wide according to my limited research on google

Estimates for deaths from the Spanish flu range from 17MM to well over 100MM.  They just don't know.

 

Lock downs work.  Sadly, covid deniers don't understand this, or don't want to.

[cclub75]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Lock downs work.  Sadly, covid deniers don't understand this, or don't want to.

 

Lock downs do not work. Sadly, covid believers don't understand this, or don't want to.

 

(always look things into a mirror... it helps to understand by giving another perspective)

 

More seriously, you have no scientific proof whatsoever that lock downs are "working".

 

Look at Australia... An island-continent... borders closed... The virus still manage to find a way. Look at Vietnam.

 

And of course look at all those "lockdown" countries (UK, Europe etc.)... What did they achieve during many months ?

 

Everywhere... nothing... But covid deaths, and Covid infected... plus economic hardship.

 

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, cclub75 said:

 

Lock downs do not work. Sadly, covid believers don't understand this, or don't want to.

 

(always look things into a mirror... it helps to understand by giving another perspective)

 

More seriously, you have no scientific proof whatsoever that lock downs are "working".

 

Look at Australia... An island-continent... borders closed... The virus still manage to find a way. Look at Vietnam.

 

And of course look at all those "lockdown" countries (UK, Europe etc.)... What did they achieve during many months ?

 

Everywhere... nothing... But covid deaths, and Covid infected... plus economic hardship.

 

You're a known covid denier.

[rabang]

20 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

You're a known covid denier.

You are as someone said a fearmongerer par excellence. I don't give any value to anything you say.

[Jeffr2]

34 minutes ago, rabang said:

You are as someone said a fearmongerer par excellence. I don't give any value to anything you say.

Ummm...I dare say the 200MM who've gotten the virus, and the relatives of the probably 5MM or so who've died, might argue with you a bit.  Hardly fear mongering.  More like being realistic.  Covid deniers help no one, just hurt us all.

[faraday]

*!!!! me* Another Covid thread!

 

 

[rabang]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Ummm...I dare say the 200MM who've gotten the virus, and the relatives of the probably 5MM or so who've died, might argue with you a bit.  Hardly fear mongering.  More like being realistic.  Covid deniers help no one, just hurt us all.

I had covid myself so I don't know should I start arguing with myself. My problem with people like you is that we're supposed to ignore all the problems of the lockdowns and try to suppress one disease at any cost.

[Jeffr2]

Just now, rabang said:

I had covid myself so I don't know should I start arguing with myself. My problem with people like you is that we're supposed to ignore all the problems of the lockdowns and try to suppress one disease at any cost.

Where did I ever say to ignore all the problems of lock downs?  Answer: I didn't.  You just made that up.  And that's my problem with people like you.  Making things up.  Kinda hard to prove on a forum like this that you actually had covid.  Another member tried that trick and got caught out.  He's not saying this any more....

[Fromas]

41 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Where did I ever say to ignore all the problems of lock downs?  Answer: I didn't.

 

Ignore the deniers, or they will dump on you with mocking, deflection and defects in logic. They take it personally.

 

[James105]

On 6/2/2021 at 7:03 AM, Jeffr2 said:

Lock downs work.  Sadly, covid deniers don't understand this, or don't want to.

 

I want to believe they work I really do, otherwise this means tens of millions of lives have been destroyed on a global virtue signalling project that has achieved nothing.     I have yet to find anyone who can explain why states in America with no lockdown/face mask mandate are faring no worse overall than states with enforced lockdown.   Why, for example, does California (strict lockdown & mask mandate) not have better outcomes than Florida (no lockdown, no mask mandate) if the lockdowns work as advertised?   As lockdowns undeniably cause devastation and deaths (from poverty, undiagnosed medical conditions, depression etc) there surely needs to be evidence that they actually make a difference in countries that are not "islands" where the virus is endemic and cannot simply close their borders.    

 

It seems to me like lockdowns are in place so that governments can be seen to be doing "something", even though that "something" doesn't make any difference to the outcomes of covid. 

[Jeffr2]

15 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

I want to believe they work I really do, otherwise this means tens of millions of lives have been destroyed on a global virtue signalling project that has achieved nothing.     I have yet to find anyone who can explain why states in America with no lockdown/face mask mandate are faring no worse overall than states with enforced lockdown.   Why, for example, does California (strict lockdown & mask mandate) not have better outcomes than Florida (no lockdown, no mask mandate) if the lockdowns work as advertised?   As lockdowns undeniably cause devastation and deaths (from poverty, undiagnosed medical conditions, depression etc) there surely needs to be evidence that they actually make a difference in countries that are not "islands" where the virus is endemic and cannot simply close their borders.    

 

It seems to me like lockdowns are in place so that governments can be seen to be doing "something", even though that "something" doesn't make any difference to the outcomes of covid. 

With regards to the US, there are no easy answers.  Some of it is due to age of the population, what variant was there, the weather, more knowledge about how the virus works, etc. 

 

Lock downs do work.  Thailand is a great example of it.  Compare us to, say, India.  China, Taiwan, etc are all great examples.  Their health care systems aren't over run like those in, say, Brazil or India.  Or, as they us to be in the US, UK and Europe. 

 

P.S. I'm TIRED of lock downs.  But sure don't want to be somewhere like Brazil or India....or the UK/US back when the virus was raging. 

 

Some interesting reads:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/business/economy/economy-coronavirus-lockdown-iowa.html

 

Iowa Never Locked Down. Its Economy Is Struggling Anyway.

President Trump has blamed Democratic officials’ rules for impeding the recovery. But even where restrictions are few, business is far from normal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html

 

 

Lockdown Delays Cost at Least 36,000 Lives, Data Show

Even small differences in timing would have prevented the worst exponential growth, which by April had subsumed New York City, New Orleans and other major cities, researchers found.

 

 

 

[James105]

59 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

With regards to the US, there are no easy answers.  Some of it is due to age of the population, what variant was there, the weather, more knowledge about how the virus works, etc. 

 

Lock downs do work.  Thailand is a great example of it.  Compare us to, say, India.  China, Taiwan, etc are all great examples.  Their health care systems aren't over run like those in, say, Brazil or India.  Or, as they us to be in the US, UK and Europe. 

 

P.S. I'm TIRED of lock downs.  But sure don't want to be somewhere like Brazil or India....or the UK/US back when the virus was raging. 

 

Some interesting reads:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/business/economy/economy-coronavirus-lockdown-iowa.html

 

Iowa Never Locked Down. Its Economy Is Struggling Anyway.

President Trump has blamed Democratic officials’ rules for impeding the recovery. But even where restrictions are few, business is far from normal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html

 

 

Lockdown Delays Cost at Least 36,000 Lives, Data Show

Even small differences in timing would have prevented the worst exponential growth, which by April had subsumed New York City, New Orleans and other major cities, researchers found.

 

 

 

 

I specifically used the 2 US states (similar climate/demographics/healthcare) as an example as if lockdowns worked as advertised, then it surely would be easy to point at these 2 states and say look at this - lockdowns work.   But you cannot and use vague terms such as "there are no easy answers" and then use countries with different demographics, SARS histories etc to justify lockdowns.    It's easy to point at other countries and say that lockdowns worked as they had better outcomes if you cherry pick -  I could do it myself and point at Peru, who locked down faster and harder than almost any other country and yet had one of the worst covid outcomes.

 

I think that if you were to give someone a list of Covid infections/deaths per million of every single US state and did not give the name of the state, nor whether or not they locked down, it would be impossible to identity which states enforced harsh lockdowns, and which did not.    I think if you are going to purposely destroy peoples lives, destroy their businesses, cause millions of people to go into an early grave from non-Covid reasons (poverty, undiagnosed illnesses, suicide) then the bar needs to be set extremely high for the reason for doing so.    I don't think that bar has come even close to being met and the reason for lockdowns/masks is unscientific i.e it makes people feel better as at least "something" is being done.    

[Fromas]

Put it this way, based on (still incomplete) knowledge of how Covid spreads, restrictions and safety measures SHOULD work just as a matter of principle.

 

But if they AREN'T working, we could look at points of failure, instead of immediately assuming it never worked.

 

Examples could include: non-compliance (meatpacking factories?), surface transmission?, internal ventilation, mass events (concerts, religious gatherings, covid parties?).

 

The economic damage caused? That's a hard one. IDEALLY the whole world could have have locked down collectively for 14 days (save protected essential services) and put covid behind us, with economic disruption reduced to a minimum.

 

 

 

[atpeace]

4 hours ago, Fromas said:

 

Ignore the deniers, or they will dump on you with mocking, deflection and defects in logic. They take it personally.

 

How about addressing that he never stated what you claimed.  Not even did he hint at it. I'm not saying you're mentally challenged but you sure are lacking common courtesy and rationality at the moment.

[atpeace]

2 hours ago, Fromas said:

Put it this way, based on (still incomplete) knowledge of how Covid spreads, restrictions and safety measures SHOULD work just as a matter of principle.

 

But if they AREN'T working, we could look at points of failure, instead of immediately assuming it never worked.

 

Examples could include: non-compliance (meatpacking factories?), surface transmission?, internal ventilation, mass events (concerts, religious gatherings, covid parties?).

 

The economic damage caused? That's a hard one. IDEALLY the whole world could have have locked down collectively for 14 days (save protected essential services) and put covid behind us, with economic disruption reduced to a minimum.

 

 

 

I agree, but last February not at all.  Hindsight is easy but we all make bad choices.  If  decisions were based on the worst outcomes the world would not be a pleasant place to much of anything.  This has been a learning experience and with very little doubt as a whole we will overreact to viruses in the future.

 

With that said, it is strange how people are so vested in being right, they can't grasp reality.  What fool would think lockdowns haven't minimized the spread?  Maybe there is an argument for at what cost but doubt it.

[atpeace]

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

 

P.S. I'm TIRED of lock downs.  But sure don't want to be somewhere like Brazil or India....or the UK/US back when the virus was raging. 

 

 

 

Agree with the post but why use India as an example.  The death rate is small fraction of Brazil or most countries.

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Agree with the post but why use India as an example.  The death rate is small fraction of Brazil or most countries.

They admit to under reporting by a factor of at least 2-3x.  Official numbers from just about every country are under counted.  Look at Peru's recent announcement.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/01/americas/peru-covid-death-toll-intl/index.html

[Logosone]

The question whether lockdowns work or not is a complex one. I've read studies on this which said that certain lockdown measures worked whereas others didn't. Obviously if they were done in a perfect way, at the perfect time then lockdowns would work, but the supposed lockdowns in most countries are not really lockdowns, people go out to buy food, commuters come into the country and usually were put in place far too late. There is currently no scientific proof lockdowns have worked, however, it is possible some lockdown measures have had an effect. Have they stopped the pandemic? Obviously not, one only needs to look at the UK, Italy or Germany.

 

 

[atpeace]

6 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

They admit to under reporting by a factor of at least 2-3x.  Official numbers from just about every country are under counted.  Look at Peru's recent announcement.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/01/americas/peru-covid-death-toll-intl/index.html

The link doesn't have an admission?  Hard to debate anything when the counter argument uses assumptions.  Why not 5x, 6x...  Anyhow use 3x and the same applies, India has done much better than Brazil, Europe...  

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, atpeace said:

The link doesn't have an admission?  Hard to debate anything when the counter argument uses assumptions.  Why not 5x, 6x...  Anyhow use 3x and the same applies, India has done much better than Brazil, Europe...  

What?  Did you even read the article?  Doesn't seem so.  Do some research on India's under count.  It's massive.

 

Here's the title of that article.  Seems like an admission to me.

 

Peru more than doubles its official Covid-19 death toll, leaving it with world's worst death rate

[atpeace]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The question whether lockdowns work or not is a complex one. I've read studies on this which said that certain lockdown measures worked whereas others didn't. Obviously if they were done in a perfect way, at the perfect time then lockdowns would work, but the supposed lockdowns in most countries are not really lockdowns, people go out to buy food, commuters come into the country and usually were put in place far too late. There is currently no scientific proof lockdowns have worked, however, it is possible some lockdown measures have had an effect. Have they stopped the pandemic? Obviously not, one only needs to look at the UK, Italy or Germany.

 

 

Lockdowns in  China worked.   IMO you are past the point of looking at data objectively. I thought it was overblown in March last year when this all began but being aware and open to new data helped me adjust my beliefs.  If you hate data then just look at lockdowns using common sense.  

[Jeffr2]

20 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The question whether lockdowns work or not is a complex one. I've read studies on this which said that certain lockdown measures worked whereas others didn't. Obviously if they were done in a perfect way, at the perfect time then lockdowns would work, but the supposed lockdowns in most countries are not really lockdowns, people go out to buy food, commuters come into the country and usually were put in place far too late. There is currently no scientific proof lockdowns have worked, however, it is possible some lockdown measures have had an effect. Have they stopped the pandemic? Obviously not, one only needs to look at the UK, Italy or Germany.

 

 

There is scientific proof lock downs work.  It's just that some don't want to hear it.

[atpeace]

5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

What?  Did you even read the article?  Doesn't seem so.  Do some research on India's under count.  It's massive.

 

Here's the title of that article.  Seems like an admission to me.

 

Peru more than doubles its official Covid-19 death toll, leaving it with world's worst death rate

Please, calm down. Yes I read the article.   Here is my statement you are so angry about.

 

"The link doesn't have an admission?  Hard to debate anything when the counter argument uses assumptions.  Why not 5x, 6x...  Anyhow use 3x and the same applies, India has done much better than Brazil, Europe...  "

 

Don't want to sound condescending but do you see Peru anywhere? The article is about Peru and my statement is about India.  

 

You are just losing your cool.  I agree with most of what you posted previously.  I might even be wrong about what I've said above.  Maybe I should have known Peru and India are related or possibly I'm missing a reference to India in the article.  If  I made a mistake, I'll move on.  Sorry in advance if this is the case.

 

 

[James105]

33 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

There is scientific proof lock downs work.  It's just that some don't want to hear it.

 

As far as I understand science any experiment should be repeatable and the same results will occur.    So I come back to California/Florida and why there is no discernible difference between the outcomes even though one state enforced lockdown and one did not.   It seems to me that lockdowns are more equatable with religion where people that are believers attribute good things that happen with some all powerful entity, whilst ignoring anything bad that happens, or putting it down to the entity working in mysterious ways.    Is lockdown working (or not working) in a mysterious way in California?    

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, atpeace said:

Lockdowns in  China worked.   IMO you are past the point of looking at data objectively. I thought it was overblown in March last year when this all began but being aware and open to new data helped me adjust my beliefs.  If you hate data then just look at lockdowns using common sense.  

 

China is  prime example where lockdowns did not work of course. If the 76 days hard lock down of Wuhan had worked we would not have seen the virus spread around the globe from China, and within China, the way it did, would we? Fact is when China put the Wuhan lockdown in place 40% of people in Wuhan had already left that city.

 

Depends what you mean by "worked", the Wuhan lockdown may have reduced the transmission numbers a little, but it certainly did not stop the spread of the pandemic. In that sense it didn't work.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

There is scientific proof lock downs work.  It's just that some don't want to hear it.

 

No, there isn't. There are highly conflicting studies, some saying certain lockdown measures reduced transmissions somehwat, others saying that was not the case. There is no proof that lockdowns stopped the pandemic. Self-evidently they did not. They may have reduced transmissions somewhat, certain lockdown measures anyway, but I don't think you can say the lockdowns stopped the pandemic.

[rabang]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

No, there isn't. There are highly conflicting studies, some saying certain lockdown measures reduced transmissions somehwat, others saying that was not the case. There is no proof that lockdowns stopped the pandemic. Self-evidently they did not. They may have reduced transmissions somewhat, certain lockdown measures anyway, but I don't think you can say the lockdowns stopped the pandemic.

Yes, cherry picking the best examples and ignoring the worst outcomes. As has been said here there have been some of the worst results in the world in the most strict lockdown countries so the lockdowns don't obviously work universally. Some measures might work implemented at the correct time but with so many factors it seems almost like lottery. I believe simple luck