Covid lockdowns Globally

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, rabang said:

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

 

Timing is crucial I think. It has been said that China's lockdown worked. 40% of citizens of Wuhan had already left the city by the time the lockdown was put in place. That is why the virus spread further outside of Wuhan and to the wider world in the way it did.

 

Had all countries as soon as the news was on TV put in place a hard lockdown that may have stopped the pandemic. But the timing was usually very late, and the supposed lockdowns were permeable and patchy.

 

There were no scientific studies at the start of the pandemic that would have shown that lockdowns achieve specific results. Rather at the start governments in panic, realising they reacted too late, grasped at a slew of different measures, anything that could perhaps have an effect, and lockdown was one of those measures. 

 

But there is no proof that lockdowns stopped the spread of the virus. Even if certain measures did reduce transmissions we saw 3 waves of covid 19, and a fourth wave may yet come. Exactly as with the Flu pandemic of WWI, which also had 4 waves. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

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.

Nonsense.

Internationalinational travelers came to and left from Wuhan before it drew anyone's notice. People returning from Wuhana weren't quarantined until it was too late. 

 

Study Suggests Covid-19 Was In The U.S. Weeks Earlier Than Thought, Before First Public Cases In China

Researchers, including scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Red Cross, have found evidence that Covid-19 was present in the U.S. in December 2019, weeks earlier than previously thought and before even the first cases in Wuhan, China, had been publicly identified. 

 

Findings from the study, which tested stored blood samples from between December 2019 and January 2020 for Covid-19 antibodies and were published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, indicated the presence of Covid-19 in several U.S. states “earlier than previously recognized.”

Researchers found positive test results, indicating prior exposure to the virus responsible for Covid-19, in samples from California, Oregon and Washington in mid-December, much earlier than the first official U.S. case on Jan. 19.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/12/01/study-suggests-covid-19-was-in-the-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-before-first-public-cases-in-china/?sh=3a6d9b9d4bf8

 

Coronavirus: France's first known case 'was in December'

A patient treated in a hospital near Paris on 27 December for suspected pneumonia actually had the coronavirus, his doctor has said.

This means the virus may have arrived in Europe almost a month earlier than previously thought.

Dr Yves Cohen said a swab taken at the time was recently tested, and came back positive for Covid-19.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52526554

 

Early warnings of COVID-19 outbreaks across Europe from social media

We analyze data from Twitter to uncover early-warning signals of COVID-19 outbreaks in Europe in the winter season 2019–2020, before the first public announcements of local sources of infection were made. We show evidence that unexpected levels of concerns about cases of pneumonia were raised across a number of European countries. Whistleblowing came primarily from the geographical regions that eventually turned out to be the key breeding grounds for infections. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81333-1

 

[placeholder]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:08 AM, 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.

 

Really?

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/australia

[brewsterbudgen]

8 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 But Thailand hasn't had a proper lockdown? Workplaces, public transport, shops, restaurants haven't been locked down to any significant extent.  I really don't believe that just closing bars, clubs, schools, parks and gyms is responsible for Thailand's relative success in handling the pandemic.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

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.

What?  China has one of the best records for dealing with this virus. The virus was global well before the world knew it. And it's not just Wuhan. They just did a massive lockdown last week.

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 But Thailand hasn't had a proper lockdown? Workplaces, public transport, shops, restaurants haven't been locked down to any significant extent.  I really don't believe that just closing bars, clubs, schools, parks and gyms is responsible for Thailand's relative success in handling the pandemic.

And in the end, we've got one of the best records for dealing with this virus. Sadly, they are failing massively with regards to the vaccines.

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense.

Internationalinational travelers came to and left from Wuhan before it drew anyone's notice. People returning from Wuhana weren't quarantined until it was too late. 

 

Study Suggests Covid-19 Was In The U.S. Weeks Earlier Than Thought, Before First Public Cases In China

Researchers, including scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Red Cross, have found evidence that Covid-19 was present in the U.S. in December 2019, weeks earlier than previously thought and before even the first cases in Wuhan, China, had been publicly identified. 

 

Findings from the study, which tested stored blood samples from between December 2019 and January 2020 for Covid-19 antibodies and were published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, indicated the presence of Covid-19 in several U.S. states “earlier than previously recognized.”

Researchers found positive test results, indicating prior exposure to the virus responsible for Covid-19, in samples from California, Oregon and Washington in mid-December, much earlier than the first official U.S. case on Jan. 19.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/12/01/study-suggests-covid-19-was-in-the-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-before-first-public-cases-in-china/?sh=3a6d9b9d4bf8

 

Coronavirus: France's first known case 'was in December'

A patient treated in a hospital near Paris on 27 December for suspected pneumonia actually had the coronavirus, his doctor has said.

This means the virus may have arrived in Europe almost a month earlier than previously thought.

Dr Yves Cohen said a swab taken at the time was recently tested, and came back positive for Covid-19.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52526554

 

Early warnings of COVID-19 outbreaks across Europe from social media

We analyze data from Twitter to uncover early-warning signals of COVID-19 outbreaks in Europe in the winter season 2019–2020, before the first public announcements of local sources of infection were made. We show evidence that unexpected levels of concerns about cases of pneumonia were raised across a number of European countries. Whistleblowing came primarily from the geographical regions that eventually turned out to be the key breeding grounds for infections. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81333-1

 

 

Yah, yah, we've seen all this before, Italian sewer samples claiming Covid was traced much earlier, but that doesn't change the facts, even if it were true. The Chinese FAILED to contain Covid 19 with lockdown, the lockdown of Wuhan was a FAILURE, the pandemic still spread, even if some transmissions were stopped. Mostly because China's top decision makers failed to realise that 40% of people in Wuhan had already left the city by the time the lockdown was put in place. 

 

So the lockdowns did not stop the spread of the virus as we saw it. Of course there were a few tourists leaving China before the Wuhan lockdown, but had China been able to stop the virus with a hard lockdown then the pandemic would not have unfolded in the way it has. Sadly China was unable to do that. As were all other countries unable to stop the pandemic with lockdowns.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

 

Timing is crucial I think. It has been said that China's lockdown worked. 40% of citizens of Wuhan had already left the city by the time the lockdown was put in place. That is why the virus spread further outside of Wuhan and to the wider world in the way it did.

 

China was was working with a much less infective strain than the Western world. Even in China there were 2 early strains, S and L, mild and milder.  Most of Asia got the mild version so you can't make direct comparisons.

 

China also had lots of forewarning the rest of us didn't have. On January 22 they overrode a WHO plan to issue warnings then on January 23, began the most draconian lock-down ever seen in modern history.   How long did that take to decide and  plan?

 

Lockdown is also not a black and white thing. They need some quantification to comparison.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

What?  China has one of the best records for dealing with this virus. The virus was global well before the world knew it. And it's not just Wuhan. They just did a massive lockdown last week.

 

Indeed. But if we look at their first lockdown, the lockdown of Wuhan, it was a failure. A hard 76 day lockdown but it in no way succeeded in preventing the virus from spreading in the way it has, it did not stop the pandemic. If lockdowns worked then China would have stopped the virus with Wuhan's lockdown. But the fact is by the time China put a lockdown in place 40% of Wuhan's population had left that city. Spreading the virus elsewhere.

 

So whilst their lockdown may have succeeded in halting a certain number of transmissions, it in no way succeeded in stopping the pandemic, did it?

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, rabang said:

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

Please give us a link showing the most strict lockdowns didn't work.  This should be interesting.  LOL

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

China also had lots of forewarning the rest of us didn't have. On January 22 they overrode a WHO plan to issue warnings then on January 23, began the most draconian lock-down ever seen in modern history.   How long did that take to decide and  plan?

 

Lockdown is also not a black and white thing. They need some quantification to comparison.

 

Yes, and how successful was that draconian lockdown? Did it stop the spread of the pandemic within China? To the rest of the world? It did not. It may have reduced some transmissions, but it was not hugely effective, not a smoking gun so to speak, nothing that actually stopped the pandemic. That's what I mean when I say lockdowns don't work. By "work" I mean do they stop the pandemic. Doesn't look like they have. And the studies are very mixed and contradictory.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Please give us a link showing the most strict lockdowns didn't work.  This should be interesting.  LOL

 

Well, if you remember the lockdown of Wuhan was succeeded by a large spread of transmissions within China and across the world. So clearly the Wuhan lockdown did not work in stopping the spread of the pandemic. Only in reducing a certain number of transmissions, which was not decisive in stopping the pandemic, which continued to spread.

 

So no, the Wuhan lockdown did not work.

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Indeed. But if we look at their first lockdown, the lockdown of Wuhan, it was a failure. A hard 76 day lockdown but it in no way succeeded in preventing the virus from spreading in the way it has, it did not stop the pandemic. If lockdowns worked then China would have stopped the virus with Wuhan's lockdown. But the fact is by the time China put a lockdown in place 40% of Wuhan's population had left that city. Spreading the virus elsewhere.

 

So whilst their lockdown may have succeeded in halting a certain number of transmissions, it in no way succeeded in stopping the pandemic, did it?

It's because the virus was already propagating globally! The Wuhan lockdown helped Wuhan.  Big time. Impossible to say otherwise.

 

The Western countries didn't lockdown and paid the price.  Big time!

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

It's because the virus was already propagating globally! The Wuhan lockdown helped Wuhan.  Big time. Impossible to say otherwise.

 

The Western countries didn't lockdown and paid the price.  Big time!

 

Of course 40% of people leaving Wuhan before the lockdown probably had some effect on numbers in Wuhan, but it also spread the virus to other parts of China, and then the world.

 

Don't forget part of the goal of the lockdown was also to isolate the virus and stop its spread across China. In that China failed completely, it spread across China post -Wuhan, and it spread around the world from China.

 

When you say the Western countries didn't lockdown that's completely wrong actually. Britain had a very hard lockdown, so did Germany, Italy even more, Spain even more. And yet the virus spread like wildfire.

 

So studies are contradictory, but looking at reality it does not seem like the lockdowns stopped the spread of the pandemic.

[wprime]

On 6/1/2021 at 11:52 PM, Pla nin said:

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. 

 

Lockdowns and other restrictions slow the spread which helps hospital systems keep up. The virus isn't really all that deadly when effectively treated, the issue is it spreads so quickly that hospital systems become overloaded so people don't get adequate treatment - that's when the mortality rate shoots up.

 

Depending on the context, this can sometimes save more lives than are killed through the economic damages from lockdowns. This is particularly true in places with good social support services. In the rest of the world it becomes a tradeoff which needs to be considered at a local level.

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Yah, yah, we've seen all this before, Italian sewer samples claiming Covid was traced much earlier, but that doesn't change the facts, even if it were true. The Chinese FAILED to contain Covid 19 with lockdown, the lockdown of Wuhan was a FAILURE, the pandemic still spread, even if some transmissions were stopped. Mostly because China's top decision makers failed to realise that 40% of people in Wuhan had already left the city by the time the lockdown was put in place. 

 

So the lockdowns did not stop the spread of the virus as we saw it. Of course there were a few tourists leaving China before the Wuhan lockdown, but had China been able to stop the virus with a hard lockdown then the pandemic would not have unfolded in the way it has. Sadly China was unable to do that. As were all other countries unable to stop the pandemic with lockdowns.

I did not even bring up the issue of waste water assays.. So stop knocking down straw men and evading the evidence  I presented.  2 of my citations concern blood samples.  What's that got to do with sewage?

As for lockdowns, you're confused.

 Externally the Wuhan lockdown didn't work. How could it since the virus wasn't even identified until after it had escaped? In addtion, even when the disease was identified, international air travel still wasn't shut down and quarantines weren't universally enforced. What's that got to do with Wuhan locking down.

But internally, the lockdown succeeded brilliantly in Wuhan.  And lockdowns and precautions when they are strictly enforced still do succeed. And they buy us time for the vaccinations to take effects.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I did not even bring up the issue of waste water assays.. So stop knocking down straw men and evading the evidence  I presented.  2 of my citations concern blood samples.  What's that got to do with sewage?

As for lockdowns, you're confused.

 Externally the Wuhan lockdown didn't work. How could it since the virus wasn't even identified until after it had escaped? In addtion, even when the disease was identified, international air travel still wasn't shut down and quarantines weren't universally enforced. What's that got to do with Wuhan locking down.

But internally, the lockdown succeeded brilliantly in Wuhan.  And lockdowns and precautions when they are strictly enforced still do succeed. And they buy us time for the vaccinations to take effects.

It's irrelevant frankly, even if a few people spread the virus before Wuhan, the point is still that a very hard lockdown in Wuhan did not stop the pandemic from spreading, either in China or around the world.

 

And yes,  you have a point about air travel. Trump was one of the first, together with Italy, to shut down air travel. But for MONTHS places like Germany got flights from China. Crazy. Those in charge should all be held accountable, there should be a public enquiry like is being done in the UK everywhere.

 

I'll tell you what is has to do with the Wuhan lockdown. Wuhan was the epicentre.  The idea with the lockdown was to isolate the virus in Wuhan so it does not spread across China and the world. That failed. Completely. It succeeded brilliantly? It succeeded brilliantly in alerting the citizens of Wuhan that lockdown was coming so 40% of the population left the city and spread the virus elsewhere in China. So you can see how the lockdown itself actually helped to spread the virus.

 

Strict enforcement, with due respect, is not the key in lockdown success. We had incredibly strict enforcement of lockdowns in Italy and Spain. Didn't help at all. What is key is timing. Unless a lockdown is down very early it is not going to really make much difference. It may stop some transmisions, but not enough to stop the pandemic. None have.

[BenDeCosta]

Throughout history, there have always been pandemics. And humanity survived, thrived even.

 

Never did any government introduce economy-destroying lockdowns.

 

Nature works like this: organisms breed, environmental selection pressures are applied to those organisms, the strong survive and the weak are eliminated, which results in a more resilient population, the weak genes are removed from the gene pool. Rinse and repeat, you end up with a stronger population who can survive almost anything.

 

When you introduce human intelligence, whereby we do everything we can to protect the weak and vulnerable, we are going against nature and allowing the weakest genes to perpetuate. Yes, of course it's human nature to save lives and prevent deaths, but nature doesn't give a rat's ass about that, it applies pressure to the population to eliminate the weakest, which results in a stronger population in the end.

 

If you have a population of zebras in Africa, every time they are attacked by a lion, the slowest one would die. Over time, the zebra population would get faster and faster because the slowest ones would get eaten. That is nature, that is how life works.

 

As conscientious human beings, we don't want anyone to die, we want to save everyone and be as safe as we can. As honorable as that may sound, all we are doing is retarding nature's efforts to make us a stronger population.

 

It's almost like our intelligence and appreciation for life is at odds against nature, who is doing everything she can to improve us.

 

I apologise if that sounds offensive to some, but that's how the world works.

Edited June 3, 2021 by BenDeCosta

[James105]

59 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Please give us a link showing the most strict lockdowns didn't work.  This should be interesting.  LOL

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53150808

 

Peru.

 

"The county's borders were shut, curfews were imposed, and people could only leave their homes for essential goods - but infections and deaths continued to rise."

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

It's irrelevant frankly, even if a few people spread the virus before Wuhan, the point is still that a very hard lockdown in Wuhan did not stop the pandemic from spreading, either in China or around the world.

 

And yes,  you have a point about air travel. Trump was one of the first, together with Italy, to shut down air travel. But for MONTHS places like Germany got flights from China. Crazy. Those in charge should all be held accountable, there should be a public enquiry like is being done in the UK everywhere.

 

I'll tell you what is has to do with the Wuhan lockdown. Wuhan was the epicentre.  The idea with the lockdown was to isolate the virus in Wuhan so it does not spread across China and the world. That failed. Completely. It succeeded brilliantly? It succeeded brilliantly in alerting the citizens of Wuhan that lockdown was coming so 40% of the population left the city and spread the virus elsewhere in China. So you can see how the lockdown itself actually helped to spread the virus.

 

Strict enforcement, with due respect, is not the key in lockdown success. We had incredibly strict enforcement of lockdowns in Italy and Spain. Didn't help at all. What is key is timing. Unless a lockdown is down very early it is not going to really make much difference. It may stop some transmisions, but not enough to stop the pandemic. None have.

Nonsense. Lockdowns didn't stop the virus from spreading because by the time it was know what it was, it was too late. But now, it's a known quantity. And lockdowns succeed fantastically within China where they were strictly enforced. A nation with the largest population in the world has succeeded via lockdown imposed when necessary to keep the virus in check.

 

And as a matter of historical record, at first Trump only stopped air travel from China.. And he didn't have returning Americans quarantined. And he waited another 40 days to stop air travel from Europe. And an additional 4 days to stop air traffic form the UK and Ireland. (nothing to do with the fact that his 2 European golf resorts are located in the UK and Ireland)

 

And what do you mean none have succeeded? China, for one, has succeeded in keeping the pandemic almost completely subdued by imposing strict lockdowns when necessary.

[BenDeCosta]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Please give us a link showing the most strict lockdowns didn't work.  This should be interesting.  LOL

 

Or, why don't you show us some evidence that lockdowns do anything to prevent the spread of a virus? That should be more interesting seeing as there isn't any.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

 

China was was working with a much less infective strain than the Western world. Even in China there were 2 early strains, S and L, mild and milder.  Most of Asia got the mild version so you can't make direct comparisons.

 

China also had lots of forewarning the rest of us didn't have. On January 22 they overrode a WHO plan to issue warnings then on January 23, began the most draconian lock-down ever seen in modern history.   How long did that take to decide and  plan?

Maybe the chinese had plans on what to do in the case of a pandemic? So did the US until Trump and his people decided that they knew better.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, BenDeCosta said:

 

Or, why don't you show us some evidence that lockdowns do anything to prevent the spread of a virus? That should be more interesting seeing as there isn't any.

Is Lockdown Effective in Limiting SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic Progression?—a Cross-Country Comparative Evaluation Using Epidemiokinetic Tools

In New Zealand, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and the UK, early-onset stay-at-home orders and restrictions followed by gradual deconfinement allowed rapid reduction in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (t_1/2β ≤ 14 days) with R₀ ≤ 1.5 and rapid recovery (t_1/2γ ≤ 18 days). By contrast, in Sweden (no lockdown) and the USA (heterogeneous state-dependent lockdown followed by abrupt deconfinement scenarios), a prolonged plateau of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (terminal t_1/2β of 23 and 40 days, respectively) with elevated R₀ (4.9 and 4.4, respectively) and non-ending recovery (terminal t_1/2γ of 112 and 179 days, respectively) was observed.

Early-onset lockdown with gradual deconfinement allowed shortening the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and reducing contaminations. Lockdown should be considered as an effective public health intervention to halt epidemic progression.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7806254/

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, BenDeCosta said:

Throughout history, there have always been pandemics. And humanity survived, thrived even.

 

Never did any government introduce economy-destroying lockdowns.

 

Nature works like this: organisms breed, environmental selection pressures are applied to those organisms, the strong survive and the weak are eliminated, which results in a more resilient population, the weak genes are removed from the gene pool. Rinse and repeat, you end up with a stronger population who can survive almost anything.

 

When you introduce human intelligence, whereby we do everything we can to protect the weak and vulnerable, we are going against nature and allowing the weakest genes to perpetuate. Yes, of course it's human nature to save lives and prevent deaths, but nature doesn't give a rat's ass about that, it applies pressure to the population to eliminate the weakest, which results in a stronger population in the end.

 

If you have a population of zebras in Africa, every time they are attacked by a lion, the slowest one would die. Over time, the zebra population would get faster and faster because the slowest ones would get eaten. That is nature, that is how life works.

 

As conscientious human beings, we don't want anyone to die, we want to save everyone and be as safe as we can. As honorable as that may sound, all we are doing is retarding nature's efforts to make us a stronger population.

 

It's almost like our intelligence and appreciation for life is at odds against nature, who is doing everything she can to improve us.

By vapid reasoning like yours, hospitals should all be closed. In fact, medical care should be pretty much abolished.

[BenDeCosta]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Is Lockdown Effective in Limiting SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic Progression?—a Cross-Country Comparative Evaluation Using Epidemiokinetic Tools

In New Zealand, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and the UK, early-onset stay-at-home orders and restrictions followed by gradual deconfinement allowed rapid reduction in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (t_1/2β ≤ 14 days) with R₀ ≤ 1.5 and rapid recovery (t_1/2γ ≤ 18 days). By contrast, in Sweden (no lockdown) and the USA (heterogeneous state-dependent lockdown followed by abrupt deconfinement scenarios), a prolonged plateau of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (terminal t_1/2β of 23 and 40 days, respectively) with elevated R₀ (4.9 and 4.4, respectively) and non-ending recovery (terminal t_1/2γ of 112 and 179 days, respectively) was observed.

Early-onset lockdown with gradual deconfinement allowed shortening the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and reducing contaminations. Lockdown should be considered as an effective public health intervention to halt epidemic progression.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7806254/

 

Did you see who paid for that study?

 

Read this one:

 

https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cesifo/ifab003/6199605

Edited June 3, 2021 by BenDeCosta

[BenDeCosta]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

By vapid reasoning like yours.

 

I am talking about science, about how populations arise and evolve, and how nature exerts selection pressures to improve populations and their gene pool. 

 

If that sounds vapid to you, then that's your personal opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

[Logosone]

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. Lockdowns didn't stop the virus from spreading because by the time it was know what it was, it was too late. But now, it's a known quantity. And lockdowns succeed fantastically within China where they were strictly enforced. A nation with the largest population in the world has succeeded via lockdown imposed when necessary to keep the virus in check.

 

And as a matter of historical record, at first Trump only stopped air travel from China.. And he didn't have returning Americans quarantined. And he waited another 40 days to stop air travel from Europe. And an additional 4 days to stop air traffic form the UK and Ireland. (nothing to do with the fact that his 2 European golf resorts are located in the UK and Ireland)

 

And what do you mean none have succeeded? China, for one, has succeeded in keeping the pandemic almost completely subdued by imposing strict lockdowns when necessary.

 

Okay, so we agree that lockdowns did not succeed in stopping the spread of the virus. Excellent.

 

Of course every pandemic has a natural course, the last flu pandemic had 4 waves, they run their course. If you have proof that the lockdowns were the sole cause of the stop of the pandemic then you should provide it.

 

I'm not so sure if China as a nation succeeded or the virus simply started first in China and thus ran its course first in China, naturally. As even scientists in Hong Kong showed the figures China provides are hugely unreliable.

 

By "none succeeded" I was of course referring to lockdowns, none of which succeeded in stopping the spread of the virus, as we both agreed. Neither the Wuhan lockdown, nor the Italian one, the British one, the Spanish one. All failed to stop the spread of the pandemic, except for small numbers of transmissions.

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, BenDeCosta said:

 

I am talking about science, about how populations arise and evolve, and how nature exerts selection pressures to improve populations and their gene pool. 

 

If that sounds vapid to you, then that's your personal opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

Of course it's vapid. Nature has no goals. It doesn't work to "improve". These are human concepts. Scientists may sometimes use shorthand to talk about nature as though it has goals, but unless you believe that Mother Nature is a genuine entity, it does not. But if you do believe that Nature is working to improve humanity through diseases and such, then there is no justification for any preventive care.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Okay, so we agree that lockdowns did not succeed in stopping the spread of the virus. Excellent.

 

Of course every pandemic has a natural course, the last flu pandemic had 4 waves, they run their course. If you have proof that the lockdowns were the sole cause of the stop of the pandemic then you should provide it.

 

I'm not so sure if China as a nation succeeded or the virus simply started first in China and thus ran its course first in China, naturally. As even scientists in Hong Kong showed the figures China provides are hugely unreliable.

 

By "none succeeded" I was of course referring to lockdowns, none of which succeeded in stopping the spread of the virus, as we both agreed. Neither the Wuhan lockdown, nor the Italian one, the British one, the Spanish one. All failed to stop the spread of the pandemic, except for small numbers of transmissions.

Stop with the jejune sophistry. We do not agree on that. Not one bit.Have lockdowns worked there? They have succeeded in stopping the spread of the virus within China. China has 1/5 of the world's population. I'd say that's a pretty huge success.  In other nations as well. We can see in natural experiments like the contrast between Sweden and its neighbors how well lockdowns work. Your criterion for success in an impossible one. But by any rational measure, lockdowns work.

 

Maybe you're not sure about China but any rational person should be. China is not North Korea. If the pandemic was raging there, it's absurd to think that it could be hidden. The hospitals would be overrun. There are foreigners living throughout China. Would they not see evidence? Wouldn't they be suffering from Covid too? Or are they part of a conspiracy of silence?

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by placeholder

[BenDeCosta]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Of course it's vapid. Nature has no goals. It doesn't work to "improve". These are human concepts. Scientists may sometimes use shorthand to talk about nature as though it has goals, but unless you believe that Mother Nature is a genuine entity, it does not. But if you do believe that Nature is working to improve humanity through diseases and such, then there is no justification for any preventive care.

 

Nature provides selection pressures to populations of organisms which allows the strongest to survive and to reproduce, and the weakest to die. Over many generations, this results in significant developmental changes and evolution, and a vast improvement of the gene pool.

 

Take the anteater for example. The ones with short tongues couldn't eat as much so they died, and the ones with long tongues thrived, reproduced, and the short-tongue genes were permanently removed from the gene pool. Therefore we only see anteaters with very long tongues, allowing them to eat a decent meal. But if anteaters had our intelligence, they would provide food for the anteaters with short tongues because they didn't want to see them die. That is a retardation of natural evolution.

 

It's not rocket science.

Edited June 3, 2021 by BenDeCosta