What if the lockdown was a big mistake?

submitted by Unicorn from dailybreeze.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

The problems of today could be solved by doing what the government did in the past- NOTHING.

Yeah. That's how you end up with the number of dead people we had during the Spanish Flu - more than WWI which is ran concurrent to.

The simple fact of the matter is just too unconspiratorial for most people on this forum. A previously unknown corona virus with a mortality rate which appears from the available data to be between 5 and 14% for which we have neither a proven treatment nor a vaccine means if we don't want to risk millions and millions dead, we need to enact the 1,000 year old effective technique of social distancing and we need to do that until we have some real evidence that we've achieved some sort of herd immunity (which acts in the same way as social distancing) or it is not as deadly as was feared.

All governments did the same thing not because of some conspiracy, but because it was the prudent and responsible thing to do.

[–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Love these numbers people throw out. 5-14% mortality rate? Where are you getting these numbers? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Are we just making up mortality rates to fit the narrative at this point? Even the worst hit countries, like Italy, don't have a mortality rate at 14%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

And again look at the age break down. Yes the mortality rate is high but not till you get to a specific age group. Have you been reading the most recent data coming from Italy. 99%, I repeat, 99% of people who have died in Italy due to Coronas had prior medical conditions. I think something like 50% had three or more conditions.

People who compare this to the Spanish flu are being disingenuous. It's not the same. The Spanish flu was killing mostly people between ages of 20-40. Healthy young adults would get sick and die within 24-48 hours. This is not the same as what we are seeing right? At least you can agree with that fact. Your whole comment is laced with inflammatory and disingenuous statements that you back up with no sources. It was just a waste of your time to write all that jibberish. Turn off the TV my friend.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

From https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

which is the very page you cite:

Overall, the mortality rate of coronavirus in Italy reached 12.9 percent,

which is not 14% but earlier had been estimated and reported at 14%. I am not making anything up. This page is very recent, today, so the number is being revised daily but the relevant fact is this is two orders of magnitude or 100 times the normal death rate from the flu:

https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

I have to do this on a regular basis in every thread about the cornoa virus. The death rates you're saying I am wrong about are to be found on the very website you claim disproves me.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

USA confirmed cases : 1,013,508

USA confirmed deaths: 57,049

Spain confirmed cases: 232,128
Spain confirmed deaths:23,822

Italy confirmed cases: 201,505

Italy confirmed deaths: 27,359

Dividing the second of these by the first gets you the death rate for confirmed cases. Those number are:

USA 0.056 or 5.56%

Spain 0.1026 or 10%

Italy 0.13577 or 13.6%

Numbers you claim don't exist.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't give you the mortality rates because there are millions more that are asymptomatic who are NOT being tested. Why they are using a test that is only suppose to be used for research purposes or the newer one, that looks more and more like the falsified antibody test we saw with Borreliosis, illustrates a clear conflict of interest. And what is the criteria to report these cases, for this website?

The asymptomatic cases is what is most important and if over 90% of those infected become asymptomatic, and dozens of studies have illustrated this, even Fauci himself has made this clear a month ago, then the mortality rate is WELL UNDER 1% for those 45 years and younger. Again, your link does NOT take into account asymtomatic cases, which number far greater than symptomatic cases, nor does it take into account infection rate in endemic areas of .11% or age groups.

In your livescience link there is no mention of asymptomatic cases.

Though the death rate for COVID-19 is unclear, most research suggests it is higher than that of the seasonal flu.

And indeed, it is, but they continue to conclude it is well over 1% by throwing out or disregarding asymptomatic patients, who will not come in and get tested.

The article does not link many of the studies they appear to be quoting from, so we have to take their word for it.

The CDC says this:

Therefore, mass serologic surveillance and surveys to assess the presence or absence of symptoms is strongly recommended to disentangle the threat of emerging infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

So:

In addition, because our estimates of CFR are based on the number of confirmed cases reported before the February 12 change in the case definition.

Basically, the mortality rate is flimsy at this time, and surely teh CDC when it came to Borreliosis was confident in their numbers, that's why they lied for thirty years.

[–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The point remains that to compare it to the Spanish flu is disingenuous. We know Coronavirus deaths are not being reported accurately. We also know that the mortality Tate will definitely come down as more people get the virus and recover. These numbers are dramatic. If you take out people over 60 the mortality rate in all these countries are far below 5%. You're saying this is every thread because youre making the numbers fit your narrative. You used the mortality rate to justify comparing this to Spanish flu, that is disingenuous. The age discrepancy matters, you can't just discount that fact to make it seem like this is a more deadly virus than it really is. Again turn off the TV and my friend.

Also loved how you cherry picked countries to fit your narrative. What about Russia, turkey, Germany, etc., Mortality rate. Not anywhere near these numbers.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If we use that same methodology for the seasonal flu, the deaths would not be the 1% they announced, it would be 10% - and this is the CDC's own numbers: 222,000 confirmed flu cases, 22,000 estimated deaths. That would be a 10% death rate for the flu.

But what the CDC does is they estimate the actual mortality rate based on an estimated 36 million flu cases

[–]MostlySunnySkies 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No one had any idea what the equivalent numbers for this cornoa virus were when we went into lockdown. That's the reason we went into lockdown. That was the entire point of my posts and the reason all nations went into lockdown.

We.

Didn't.

Know.

You keep saying the same thing as if my posts hadn't already said this a million times.

I am not going to repeat the same things in every post. I am going to call you out because what you're saying is dangerous and wrong and at this point, it's willfully wrong.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The CDC and the WHO did know that when estimating a mortality rate for a virus that asymptomatic and non-reported cases should be taken into account as is done with influenza.

Why was a 4% mortality rate cited when it was known that the mortality rate would likely be orders of magnitude lower when asympomatic and non-reported cases were taken into account? Perhaps the collapse of the economy had something to do with it?

You are citing numbers that have no relation to reality. Your argument makes no sense.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The CDC and the WHO did know that when estimating a mortality rate for a virus that asymptomatic and non-reported cases should be taken into account as is done with influenza

That's not in dispute, so please stop citing it as evidence of anything.

The point is it was not known what numeric value the mortality rate was. None of the data coming out of China was good and the numbers from Italy looked very bad indeed for known cases.

In the absence of reliable data, it could be anything. That's a fact about viruses. This is an ongoing concern by medical experts- a novel virus with a high mortality rate.

You can argue that the world over reacted. You can't compose an argument that the CDC knew what the mortality was or was likely to be.

The numbers I cite are the confirmed cases- the numbers we know are true. We also know the real mortality rate is likely less, but no one knows how much less. It also could have been worse, with people dying of an unidentified effect of the virus such as heart attacks- which has been observed in yong people - which was not however ascriobed to the virus.

So it was possible the real mortality rate could have been higher.

We still don't know.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

There is no evidence to support your assertion of a 5 to 14% mortality rate.

https://saidit.net/s/science/comments/3i9b/nature_medicine_covid19_in_wuhan_was_14/

https://saidit.net/s/Coronavirus/comments/3vz3/danish_blood_tests_shed_new_light_on_the/

https://saidit.net/s/Coronavirus/comments/3wo8/stanford_study_finds_covid19_infection_rate/

Current mortality rate is not out of bounds with a bad flu season.

The amount of fear and hysteria is certainly unprecedented.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

give links, not saidit links to rt links, if it is a stanford study show that

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

His links are links to links which site studies. I followed it all and refuted it below.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Italy went into lockdown on Mar 9.

By the end of March 32 of 50 states were mandating social distancing.

These papers are all arriving later, a fact which is everything and what's more, it's a fact which we expect and want to happen; it's called "further study" and its what science does:

https://saidit.net/s/Coronavirus/comments/3wo8/stanford_study_finds_covid19_infection_rate/ 17 Apr, 2020 22:36

https://saidit.net/s/Coronavirus/comments/3vz3/danish_blood_tests_shed_new_light_on_the/ 8. APR 2020

With the exception of this one:

https://saidit.net/s/science/comments/3i9b/nature_medicine_covid19_in_wuhan_was_14/ 19 March 2020

But in this very paper there comes this sage observation, which is the same one I am making here:

For a completely novel pathogen, especially one with a high (say, >2) basic reproductive number (the expected number of secondary cases generated by a primary case in a completely susceptible population) relative to other recently emergent and seasonal directly transmissible respiratory pathogens4, assuming homogeneous mixing and mass action dynamics, the majority of the population will be infected eventually unless drastic public health interventions are applied over prolonged periods and/or vaccines become available sufficiently quickly.

Even under more realistic assumptions about mixing informed by observed clustering of infections within households and the increasingly apparent role of superspreading events (for example, the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Chinese prisons and the church in Daegu, South Korea)5,6, at least one-quarter to one-half of the population will very likely become infected, absent drastic control measures or a vaccine. Therefore, the number of severe outcomes or deaths in the population is most strongly dependent on how ill an infected person is likely to become, and this question should be the focus of attention.

We know that the death rate may be lower than the CONFIRMED data we have at hand, you're not telling epidemiologists anything they don't know, but how much lower? We needed more information to determine that. This paper is one tiny bit of information derived from one single data point, as they explain::

Briefly, because the healthcare structure has been overwhelmed in Wuhan and milder cases were unlikely to have been tested, we used the prevalence of infection in travelers (both on commercial flights before 19 January and on charter flights from 29 January to 4 February) to estimate the true prevalence of infection in Wuhan; we also used the Wuhan case numbers from only the first 425 cases to estimate the growth rate of the epidemic

Even the authors themselves don't recommend backing off social distancing. They did one study using a single source of data. It's interesting and perhaps suggestive but not by any measure definitive enough to guide public policy.

But you're suggesting it should have driven public policy. Because that's what we're talking about here- public policy.

Public policy was and should be as conservative as is bearable until enough data is accumulated to warrant the risk of backing off. This is what this paper itself says, as I pointed out.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You literally, ignored two posters who debunked your 5 - 14% mortality myth, which indeed is a myth. It's even higher than the death risk that scumbag CDC RICO enterprise officials were pushing, ie. not accounting the infection rate and all the other factor that determine the mortality rate.

Stanford study finds Covid-19 infection rate likely 50-85 times higher than reported, but could mean the mortality rate is 0.14% percent or less instead of 3.4%.

secondary cases generated by a primary case in a completely susceptible population) relative to other recently emergent and seasonal directly transmissible respiratory pathogens4, assuming homogeneous mixing and mass action dynamics, the majority of the population will be infected eventually unless drastic public health interventions are applied over prolonged periods and/or vaccines become available sufficiently quickly.

Bunch of humdrum without any backing. Fearmongering to its fullest. Interestingly, places like Spain and Italy do NOT have excess deaths and yet even before social distancing their mortalities were on the decline.

Nevertheless, still doesn't explain the 14% mortality rate lie.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Nope. Wrong again. You are refuted in the above post on this very thread.

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/428w/what_if_the_lockdown_was_a_big_mistake/evdr

[–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This dudes just going to keep saying your refuted and citing his own posts. Hilarious. Also probably just getting paid to shill it up. Idk why they waste their money on saidit, no one here is buying this nonsense. You'd think they'd find better ways to spend their money.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh so when some idiot who does not read his opposition's posts says somethng which has laready directly been addressed and refuted, it is "lame" to link to the refutation. We must endlessly rewrite the post anew, because our opposition can't read.

I see no need to repeat myself. Anyone who wants to can confrim the post above refutes directly his reply.

[–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This has been refuted already. See above post.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you can't reference an earlier post which directly addresses your opponent's point. Why is that, exactly? Are we to act as if people are too lazy to click a link now?

[–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But what you're having people click just returns them to your jibberish. Why would we want to read the same thing twice? Especially something so poorly researched and sourced. It prob makes your job easier I understand. Do they pay you by the hour, word, post? Prob by the hour so I understand why you'd be wasting people time linking back to a comment that's in the same thread. You gotta make it look like you're doing something or the boss gets on ya huh? Again, let him know they shouldn't be wasting their money on said it, no one's buying it my friend. Also everything you say is already refuted by my earlier post.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

THis isn't the Spanish Flu.

5 and 14%

No, the mortality rate is nowhere near that high if you account for endemic areas, infection rate, age, and health. For the majority it is well under 1%.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Jesus said:

No, the mortality rate is nowhere near that high if you account for endemic areas, infection rate, age, and health. For the majority it is well under 1%.

You are refuted in the above post on this very thread.

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/428w/what_if_the_lockdown_was_a_big_mistake/evdr

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You have not taken into account asymptomatic cases, which would thus bring down the lethality.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Now you're making my point- no one knows how many asymtomatic cases there were because it's a new virus. Absent that knowledge, as was the case when lockdown started, the apporpriate thing to do is go into lockdown.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They do know, and it is far greater than symptomatic cases. But they may use the new antibody bogus test for a immunocomromising infection to test for it. Lets hope not.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus don't you see that you're just pulling this stuff out of your behind?

What if the police were permitted to use the same level of "evidence" and act against you on the basis of it?

So cops sit around and say,

"What if Jesus is going to do [some terrible thing]."

"Yeah, good thought."

......

......

......

"Better throw him in jail forever."

"OK, I'll go get the cruiser."

Would you accept that chain of reasoning as valid ?

The first question you have to ask yourself when making an argument is - woud I accept this level of "proof" if it were turned against me?