Covid lockdowns Globally

[Fromas]

So now we're comparing NZ in early containment stage.

 

Stay in your corner.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

no one even mentions it anymore

 

ask Sweden. Go ahead.

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

You're not quite right. Good lockdowns stop the spread. Imperfect lockdowns can slow down the spread.

 

Lockdowns do NOT end the pandemic. Vaccines, and preventative/therapeutic cures are needed too.

 

 

 

If good lockdowns stop the spread it's a shame no one has done one yet, because as far as I can see the spread of the virus continues. If anything has had an effect  it would appear to the be the vaccines.

 

Indeed lockdowns do not end the pandemic, that's what I'm saying. We agree.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

ask Sweden. Go ahead.

 

Sweden is doing fine. A number of European countries have more cases and deaths per head than Sweden. Countries that have used lockdown.

[Fromas]

Go ahead, ask Sweden.

 

King of Sweden blasts country's 'failed' coronavirus response

Sweden has highest new Covid cases per person in Europe

 

 

I give up on you, Logosone. You state opinion as fact. Do your research and stop making things up just to shore up your position.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Fromas

[friendofthai]

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

As cruel as this sounds lockdowns won't achieve anything

Lockdowns cannot stop the spread of the virus. They are being used for another purpose. They help to prevent collapse in hospitals. More people get chances to be saved in hospitals.

Don't be too pessimistic! We see at least 3 countries in Europe that are using vaccines from China and Russia - Hungary, Slovakia and San Morino. We see that Hungary and San Marino have defeated COVID already. Just wait a little bit and wonderful kiss of Chinese and Russian vaccine diplomacy will come to your country also. The result will be the same - no lockdowns and freedom.

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

So lockdowns "don't work" because they "can't work" in the real world.

 

Then we're stuck in a semantic debate. You're in your corner, I in mine.

 

I'd encourage you to look at real world data. The pandemic is not yet over and humankind has work to be done.

 

 

It's not a semantic debate at all, it's a debate on whether what people call a lockdown is sufficiently restrictive to be effective, with people going out routinely for food, medical supplies, trucks coming in to replenish supplies, commuters allowed to come in from other countries, air travel continuing etc.

 

Given that no lockdown has stopped the spread of the virus, it's pretty clear they don't work in that sense.

 

Yes, it is of course the case that lockdown can stop a number of transmissions, but given that the virus has already spread outside the lockdown area, or is being spread through soft lockdown exemptions, we have seen that no lockdown has succeeded in stopping the spread of the virus.

[atpeace]

On 6/3/2021 at 2:28 PM, 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.

Ok

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, Fromas said:

Go ahead, ask Sweden.

 

King of Sweden blasts country's 'failed' coronavirus response

Sweden has highest new Covid cases per person in Europe

 

 

I give up on you, Logosone. You state opinion as fact. Do your research and stop making things up just to shore up your position.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I am stating pure facts. A number of European countries have more cases and deaths than Sweden. Perhaps you should do your research?

 

 

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

Edited June 4, 2021 by Logosone

[Fromas]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Given that no lockdown has stopped the spread of the virus, it's pretty clear they don't work in that sense.

 

What's your point? What should we change?

What has your friend Sweden told you?

 

 

 

[Fromas]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

A number of European countries have more cases and deaths than Sweden.

 

When did those countries "lock down"? How did they "lock down"? Are they landlocked by "lockdown countries"?

 

You think flashing a graph with a static snapshot of cases shows anything?

 

 

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Fromas said:

 

What's your point? What should we change?

What has your friend Sweden told you?

 

 

 

 

Given that lockdowns do not stop the pandemic, in fact Chinese officials announcing the lockdown in Wuhan led to 5 million residents of Wuhan leaving the city and spreading the virus throughout China so they can actually spread the virus, I think it would best to do a careful, in-depth study of the benefits of lockdowns vs the cost. 

 

I think there is too much knee-jerk panic measures that go over the top and actually do more harm than good.

 

If a lockdown at the very start of an outbreak stops a pandemic of course do it, as harsh as possible.  But these wishy washy lockdowns long after the virus has spread, may do more harm than good.

 

As the example of Sweden showed, a country where minimal lockdown measures were taken, it still has far less deaths than countries that have had hard lockdowns like the UK. Sweden is actually an example that lockdowns are not a great advantage. Even if they stop a few transmissions, they may not play a role in the pandemic course to any significant degree.

 

Politicians are far too eager to put lockdowns in place because it makes them look like they're doing something. The illusion of action. Have lockdowns stopped the spread of the virus? They have not to the degree that the pandemic has come to an end. But the cost of the lockdowns has been stratospheric. A cost/benefit analysis is needed.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Sweden is actually an example that lockdowns are not a great advantage.

 

Go ask Sweden. Pick up the phone and call anyone in Sweden's health department and inquire whether lockdowns are useful.

 

Then, pick up the phone and call anyone in UK's health department.

 

"Knee-jerk," "panic," you just want to win a debate by throwing in loaded terms. Who's knee-jerking? Who's panicking?

 

Most importantly of all:

 

Here. Thailand. Now. Lockdown / restrict / what should Thailand do?

 

Since you know, tell us.
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

When did those countries "lock down"? How did they "lock down"? Are they landlocked by "lockdown countries"?

 

You think flashing a graph with a static snapshot of cases shows anything?

 

 

 

Well, for example Italy, Spain, UK all had very hard lockdowns. Yet still have more deaths per head than Sweden.

 

If you think it is about dates, measures or geography you may have a point. But the fact remains, Sweden, a country which has used minimal lockdown measures, far less than most countries, still has considerably FEWER deaths than many of the countries that have used very hard lockdowns. That does beg the questions are late, permeable lockdowns even needed?

[Logosone]

Just now, Fromas said:

 

Go ask Sweden. Pick up the phone and call anyone in Sweden's health department and inquire whether lockdowns are useful.

 

Then, pick up the phone and call anyone in UK's health department.

 

"Knee-jerk," "panic," you just want to win a debate by throwing in loaded terms. Who's knee-jerking? Who's panicking?

 

Most importantly of all:

 

Here. Thailand. Now. Lockdown / restrict / what should Thailand do?

 

Since you know, tell us.

 

 

Sure. Firstly Thailand should buy more mRNA vaccines and put in place infrastructure to vaccinate, without priority restrictions, as fast as possible. Then they should do proper testing, to identify cases properly. Like most Asian countries the figures in Thailand for cases and deaths are due to massive undertesting and not a true reflection of the actual reality.

 

Yes, you're quite right health departments will say lockdowns are useful now, but of course had you picked up the phone to them in March 2020, the UK health department would have told you that masks are not proven to be useful. Just because a health department says something does not make it so.

 

Whatever the Swedish health department says, they used minimal lockdowns, and still have considerably fewer deaths than many other EU countries that have used hard lockdowns. That's just a fact.

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Well, for example Italy, Spain, UK all had very hard lockdowns.

 

When did Italy, Spain, UK lock down? In what phase of containment?

 

You'd want to compare Sweden with her immediate neighbors.

 

You'd want to know what Sweden thinks of Tegnell's "no lockdown" policy, or what his health ministry now thinks about it.

 

You haven't bothered to read through my questions. They sound antagonistic, but read them anyway. Then apply your knowledge to what Thailand should do or should not do.

 

 

 

[Fromas]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, you're quite right health departments will say lockdowns are useful now, but of course had you picked up the phone to them in March 2020, the UK health department would have told you that masks are not proven to be useful. Just because a health department says something does not make it so.

 

What's your point? That health ministries get dumber with more data?

Do you know more than they? Do you seriously speculate that same time next year, they will tell you lockdowns weren't ever useful?

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Fromas

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Fromas said:

 

When did Italy, Spain, UK lock down? In what phase of containment?

 

You'd want to compare Sweden with her immediate neighbors.

 

You'd want to know what Sweden thinks of Tegnell's "no lockdown" policy, or what his health ministry now thinks about it.

 

You haven't bothered to read through my questions. They sound antagonistic, but read them anyway. Then apply your knowledge to what Thailand should do or should not do.

 

 

It doesn't matter what the King of Sweden, or some Swedish health official thinks of Tegnell's no lockdown policy, the fact is that his very minimal lockdown measures have NOT resulted in deaths per head that are massively greater than deaths per head in other EU countries. In fact many other countries in the EU, which have used hard lockdowns, have greater deaths per head, than Sweden does.

 

I have read your many questions, if you would like to make a point based on them, please do so. I have already written above about Thailand.

[Fromas]

 

Just now, Logosone said:

the fact is that his very minimal lockdown measures have NOT resulted in deaths per head that are massively greater than deaths per head in other EU countries.

 

Sweden is dumb then for locking down!

 

Internet expert is right!

 

Comparing static snapshots of case spreads is useful for evaluation of temporal measures!

 

 

 

Over to you, Jeffr2. ????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

What's your point? That health ministries get dumber with more data?

Do you know more than they? Do you seriously speculate that same time next year, they will tell you lockdowns weren't ever useful?

 

 

 

 

I am not saying health ministry officials are dumb. Did the top health advisors in Cobra tell the UK prime minister there is no evidence that masks are useful? Yes they did. They looked at the evidence they had. But they may not yet have all the evidence to make a judgement on whether lockdowns are a major factor in ending the pandemic.

 

There may well be evidence next year that shows that lockdowns were not as useful as you think they were. There are already studies saying this now. But as you know there are studies saying the opposite as well. Health ministries will probably never admit they were wrong. 

 

My point is that health ministries have made mistakes, have been wrong in the past. And they may be wrong about over-reliance on lockdowns.

 

Lockdowns can be useful, if a certain reduction in transmissions is useful. However do you know how many transmissions the UK lockdown has stopped? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Didn't think so. What we know for sure: Lockdowns have not stopped the spread of the virus to a sufficient degree to end the pandemic.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Logosone

[JimmyJ]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:06 AM, 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. 

Vietnam - 47 total deaths to date.

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

My point is that health ministries have made mistake

 

No. Your point is that you are right, and they are wrong.

 

I bet on them.

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, Fromas said:

 

No. Your point is that you are right, and they are wrong.

 

I bet on them.

 

 

 

 

Then you would have bet in March 2020 that there is no benefit in wearing masks, because that's what health officials told Boris Johnson then.

 

Again, health ministry officials make mistakes.

[Fromas]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Again, health ministry officials make mistakes.

 

Humans make mistakes.

 

You are human.

 

Ergo, you may have made a mistake.

 

So?

 

 

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, BenDeCosta said:

 

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.

If there is an objective way to evaluate a species' success, the only standard is whether its population is growing or shrinking.  Behaviors that make populations grow are positively adaptive. Those that make it shrink aren't. .Your take on evolution is so very 19th century and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what survival of the fittest really means.

 

[Fromas]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

However do you know how many transmissions the UK lockdown has stopped? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Didn't think so

 

Don't ask me.

 

Ask them! ????????

 

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

Humans make mistakes.

 

You are human.

 

Ergo, you may have made a mistake.

 

So?

 

 

 

They certainly do. But they are generally smart enough to see when things are obvious. 

 

It seems obvious that the lockdowns that were put in place in many countries did not result in an end of the virus spread.

 

It is also obvious that these lockdowns had a stratospheric cost and ruined many people. Proper cost benefit analysis needs to be done. A full enquiry of the handling of the virus, as the UK is planning to do to their great credit.

 

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 Germany to UK to USA. Everywhere.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Logosone

[Fromas]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It doesn't matter what the King of Sweden, or some Swedish health official thinks of Tegnell's no lockdown policy, the fact is ...

 

Sweden changed gears. FACT.

 

What the King of Sweden, or some Swedish health official thinks is MORE INFORMED AND MORE IMPORTANT than what you think. FACT.

 

 

[Fromas]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

It seems obvious that the lockdowns that were put in place in many countries did not result in an end of the virus spread.

 

Who claimed they would? You?

 

 

[Logosone]

Just now, Fromas said:

 

Sweden changed gears. FACT.

 

What the King of Sweden, or some Swedish health official thinks is MORE INFORMED AND MORE IMPORTANT than what you think. FACT.

 

 

 

Indeed, but that may turn out to be a mistake. Despite all the alarmism Sweden has far less deaths per head than a lot of EU countries that locked down. Whether the change of gears will make any difference remains to be seen.

 

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.