Covid lockdowns Globally

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

There have been tons of mistakes done by health ministry officials and politicians in this pandemic.

 

The first was not to have prepared for the pandemic in the first place. In 2015 the Robert Koch Institute warned of a SARS pandemic, but nothing was done. Bill Gates warned of a pandemic, nothing was done. Our health officials and politicians have failed us.

 

Then when the pandemic hit nothing was done at all initially, when it would have made all the difference. The health ministries and politicians were watching tv and what was happening in Wuhan, instead of locking down when it could have succeeded.

 

Then they took knee-jerk measures many of which proved to be false. The handling of this pandemic has been a disaster across the board, from China to German to UK to USA. Everywhere.

 

You should run for UN Sec.-Gen. Or replace Tedros!  Then we will be ready to face the aliens!

 

 

 

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Whether the change of gears will make any difference remains to be seen.

 

No. There's data. Why don't you bring up the data instead of stating opinion/speculation as fact?

 

 

 

 

 

[Fromas]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I note you can attack me personally, that's fine, but you can not attack my arguments so that explains your personal insults. But that's fine, it's well established when those come out.

 

You would insinuate that the King of Sweden and the health authorities are wrong about the situation in Sweden.

 

Your proof is "it will all come out"?

 

And you're claiming ad hominem?

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Then when the pandemic hit nothing was done at all initially, when it would have made all the difference. The health ministries and politicians were watching tv and what was happening in Wuhan, instead of locking down when it could have succeeded.

So it would have succeed for them had they locked down early, but it was not a success in China which did?

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

Who claimed they would? You?

 

 

 

If the lockdowns do not end the pandemic then we need question seriously whether they are needed.

 

Because they cost billions and ruin people's livelihoods.

 

If there is no clear benefit such as ending the spread of the virus then lockdowns should be used more sparingly than they are now.

 

What seems clear that it is vaccination coupled with tracing and isolation that will stop the spread of the virus, if that is even possible, but lockdowns will not do so to any meaningful degree.

[Fromas]

Just now, Logosone said:

but lockdowns will not do so to any meaningful degree.

 

Lockdowns in early containment stages, when vaccination has not reached a critical mass, useless?

 

Assertion of fact. What's your proof?

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

 

If the lockdowns do not end the pandemic then we need question seriously whether they are needed.

 

Because they cost billions and ruin people's livelihoods.

 

If there is no clear benefit such as ending the spread of the virus then lockdowns should be used more sparingly than they are now.

 

What seems clear that it is vaccination coupled with tracing and isolation that will stop the spread of the virus, if that is even possible, but lockdowns will not do so to any meaningful degree.

Oddly enough, here in Chiang Mai lockdowns were imposed after the rates of cases began to rise sharply. I guess it was a miracle  that cases subsequently declined sharply and field hospitals are being dismantled.

[Sundown]

All you say is true but consider this:

 

1)big techs grow exponentially their profits with the pandemic

 

2) the owners of most media are the same owners of big techs (ever wondered why Bloomberg , WSJ and so on push so hard the pandemic topics? They care about your health? No)

 

3) governments individuals are colluding with big techs and taking shares of the cake 

 

4)govt lockdowns and media validate the existence of the pandemic

 

Rinse and repeat with a big tech funded vaccine that must be done every 6 months! 

 

yes, lockdowns are useless, to you. But not to someone else!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So it would have succeed for them had they locked down early, but it was not a success in China which did?

 

First of all this virus is a novum, so health ministries and politicians have had to start from 0 with gathering information about this virus, just like the rest of us. If you ask me, yes, I think of course all countries could have succeeded in staying safe and prevented wide-spread covid 19 disasters IF they had locked down early, when spread was minimal. Don't forget the media was quick on the case and we saw fairly early what was happening in China. We all watched it. Inlcuding the politicians and health ministries who did NOTHING. Until it was too late.

 

China's lockdown in Wuhan came too late, and what's more they did in such a way that 5 million residents of Wuhan left the city, thus the lockdown there actually helped to spread the virus across China and most likely the world.

 

The lockdown in Wuhan did reduce transmissions to some degree, but it certainly did not stop the spread of the pandemic in China or the world. There were many outbreaks both in China and across the world, after the Wuhan lockdown.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

If you ask me, yes, I think of course all countries could have succeeded in staying safe and prevented wide-spread covid 19 disasters IF they had locked down early, when spread was minimal.

 

You CONTRADICT your own statements.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

 

First of all this virus is a novum, so health ministries and politicians have had to start from 0 with gathering information about this virus, just like the rest of us. If you ask me, yes, I think of course all countries could have succeeded in staying safe and prevented wide-spread covid 19 disasters IF they had locked down early, when spread was minimal. Don't forget the media was quick on the case and we saw fairly early what was happening in China. We all watched it. Inlcuding the politicians and health ministries who did NOTHING. Until it was too late.

 

China's lockdown in Wuhan came too late, and what's more they did in such a way that 5 million residents of Wuhan left the city, thus the lockdown there actually helped to spread the virus across China and most likely the world.

 

The lockdown in Wuhan did reduce transmissions to some degree, but it certainly did not stop the spread of the pandemic in China or the world. There were many outbreaks both in China and across the world, after the Wuhan lockdown.

China locked down wherever it had to to suppress the spread of the virus. China's success is obvious, except to those who maintain that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

Lockdowns in early containment stages, when vaccination has not reached a critical mass, useless?

 

Assertion of fact. What's your proof?

 

I am not saying lockdowns are always useless, but for sure a large number of the lockdowns that were done were useless. Lockdowns can only reduce transmissions to a certain degree, by some numbers, but it is clear they can not stop the pandemic and only vaccines coupled with contact tracing and isolation can do that.

 

The proof is that pandemic has kept spreading despite lockdowns.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Fromas said:

 

You CONTRADICT your own statements.

 

 

Not at all, you just missed where I said that lockdowns had to be done early in the pandemic. After the virus spread widely any use of lockdowns lost in usefulness in proportion to that spread. At the very start of the pandemic of course it was a different story. But like deer in the headlights our health ministries and politicians just watched and did nothing. Then when it was too late they went into panic mode and most likely overreacted.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Lockdowns can only reduce transmissions to a certain degree, by some numbers, but it is clear they can not stop the pandemic and only vaccines coupled with contact tracing and isolation can do that.

 

Who claimed otherwise? If nobody, why are you bringing it up?

 

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The proof is that pandemic has kept spreading despite lockdowns.

 

Given that lockdowns are a temporal measure, affecting RATE, what's your point?

 

 

 

 

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Not at all, you just missed where I said that lockdowns had to be done early in the pandemic. After the virus spread widely any use of lockdowns lost in usefulness in proportion to that spread. At the very start of the pandemic of course it was a different story. But like deer in the headlights our health ministries and politicians just watched and did nothing. Then when it was too late they went into panic mode and most likely overreacted.

 

They did nothing. To rephrase, they got it all wrong. What would YOU do differently, then and now?

 

 

[Fromas]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

After the virus spread widely any use of lockdowns lost in usefulness in proportion to that spread.

 

What is "widely"?

Can you provide data?

 

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

China locked down wherever it had to to suppress the spread of the virus. China's success is obvious, except to those who maintain that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

You're contradicting yourself of course. If the Wuhan lockdown had been a success, and not the total debacle that it turned out to be, with 5 million Wuhan residents leaving before the lockdown was put in place and thus spreading the virus, there would have been no need for continous lockdowns because the Wuhan lockdown would have been such a success and stopped the pandemic, right? You can't have it both ways and say on the one hand "Ah Wuhan lockdown stopped the pandemic" but on the other "ermmm, yes further lockdowns were needed to stop the pandemic". Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

 

Yes, the Chinese put in place MANY, MANY lockdowns after Wuhan, which simply illustrates that their lockdowns were failures. The fact that the virus moves in waves, and eventually disappears is a fact which has been seen in history in many places, not just China, and will be seen in many more countries. Including Sweden, which hardly had any lockdowns. But still less deaths per head than most EU countries.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

"Ah Wuhan lockdown stopped the pandemic" but on the other "ermmm, yes further lockdowns were needed to stop the pandemic". Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

 

The contradiction exists only in your mind. It's a pandemic. It's here. Lockdowns are temporal containment measures to contain the RATE of infections. "Ah Wuhan lockdown stopped the pandemic" is something you invented as a straw man.

 

Give me hard data. Your speech-making should be based on data, not replace data.

 

 

 

[Fromas]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Including Sweden, which hardly had any lockdowns. But still less deaths per head than most EU countries.

 

Sweden changed its "no lockdown" policy when it wasn't working. FACT.

 

Why shouldn't they?

 

Why wasn't it needed?

 

Data please.

 

 

 

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

They did nothing. To rephrase, they got it all wrong. What would YOU do differently, then and now?

 

 

 

Health ministries and politicians did nothing at the start of the pandemic and watched it unfold in China on TV, quite right.

 

Obviously in Dec/Jan 2020 there should have been as thorough a lockdown as was possible in all countries, to stop the virus spreading in their countries. No country took this obvious measure.

 

Even though the Robert Koch Institute warned the German Bundestag of coronavirus pandemic in 2015 nothing was done to prepare.

 

The obvious failure at the start was not to go into full lockdown mode early, when it still would have made a huge difference.

 

Now, there should be less reliance on lockdown and more reliance on vaccination. Many countries got this wrong. For example, Germany put in place a "priority" system. So unlike Israel where everyone who came to a vaccination was rightly vaccinated, in Germany you had to comply with stringent priority criteria or you would not be vaccinated. That was a HUGE mistake, and apart from British/Swedish AstraZeneca prioritising UK vaccines and not delivering promised vaccine, and Biontech sending 40 million vaccine doses to the UK and not keeping them in Germany, was the main reason why the German vaccination effort dragged on so much.

 

Also, the health ministries are the problem. They are not even digitalised in Germany, they are useless at tracing and have publicly admitted they are overwhelmed and can not trace the virus. This is Germany. So there needs to be a lot of work done to enable countries to trace the virus and isolate the carriers. 

 

There needs to be a wider access to vaccination WITHOUT priority conditions such as which have hampered the German vaccination effort.

 

It's not rocket science really. It's vaccination across the board like in Israel, and proper tracing and isolation like in South Korea. Those can end the pandemic, if it can be done, but not lockdowns.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Now, there should be less reliance on lockdown and more reliance on vaccination.

 

Now you're making me laugh.

 

When were vaccines widely available for this novum?

 

"less reliance" "more reliance" what the heck do you mean? HARD DATA please.

 

 

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

Sweden changed its "no lockdown" policy. FACT.

 

Data please.

 

 

It changed it, sure, but both BEFORE and AFTER this change Sweden had less deaths per head than many other EU countries, most of which used hard lockdown.

 

 

[Fromas]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's vaccination across the board like in Israel, and proper tracing and isolation like in South Korea.

 

Ask Israel about lockdowns.

 

Ask South Korea about lockdowns.

 

 

 

 

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It changed it, sure, but both BEFORE and AFTER this change Sweden had less deaths per head than many other EU countries, most of which used hard lockdown.

 

And on Mars, where there is no lockdown, there are 0 infections.

 

False comparison. Different places, different base points.

 

What's your data on Sweden? If lockdowns are useless as you claim, why did they lock down?

 

 

 

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Fromas said:

 

Now you're making me laugh.

 

When were vaccines widely available for this novum?"

 

 

The clue is in the word "Now". Actually you're making me laugh, because you specifically asked what should be done "Now".

 

I told you, stop priority rules for vaccination, vaccinate everybody and trace and isolate the infected. It's not rocket science.

 

 

[Fromas]

I sense a trend.

 

You have aspirations and qualitative-subjective evaluations. You either don't have data, or assume them.

 

A lot of people are wrong about things, even the kings. But you are right.

 

 

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

because you specifically asked what should be done "Now".

 

No. I asked "then and now" because you kept claiming "they did nothing" and made mistakes from the outset.

 

In athletic terms, you're running circles around those incompetents.

 

 

 

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

And on Mars, where there is no lockdown, there are 0 infections.

 

False comparison.

 

What's your data on Sweden? If lockdowns are useless as you claim, why did they lock down?

 

 

 

 

Mars, talk about strawman, lol.

 

No it's a perfectly valid statement, before the change Sweden had less deaths per million than most EU countries and after the change Sweden still has less deaths per million than most EU countries, the majority of which all locked down hard.

 

Why they lock down? Because the pressure  on Tegnell from people who favoured lockdowns simply became too large and Tegnell caved, after many months of brave resistance in the face of hateful and personal attacks. And Tegnell had to do it because his health ministries (again) made the mistake of not focusing on the elderly population and figures went up, and if he had not put in place the lockdowns he would have been exposed to the charge that not using lockdown caused the increase in figures. So he protected his own job and probably was at  a loss how to deal with the rising number anyway. But the fact remains his figures are actually better than most EU countries, both before and after the lockdown.

 

I gave you data, but you seem to not want to comment on it:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Why they lock down? Because the pressure  on Tegnell from people who favoured lockdowns simply became too large and Tegnell caved, after many months of brave resistance in the face of hateful and personal attacks. And Tegnell had to do it because his health ministries (again) made the mistake of not focusing on the elderly population and figures went up, and if he had not put in place the lockdowns he would have been exposed to the charge that not using lockdown caused the increase in figures. So he protected his own job and probably was at  a loss how to deal with the rising number anyway.

 

Extraordinary claim.

 

Proof?

Still waiting for your infection/case temporal graph for Sweden, not static snapshots of different countries (judiciously avoiding mention of her neighbors).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fromas]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

the majority of which all locked down hard.

 

the majority of which locked down hard WHEN?

 

And what is the data of infection RATES in those countries?

Do you have trouble distinguishing RATES versus static snapshots?