Lockdowns didn't work.

[Budley Doright]

I don't mind if "people disagree". In fact "people agreeing" was part of my problem. Weren't you saying something about proof? You had months to post it.

I guess it wasn’t on my list of priorities the last few months

What scientists have learnt from COVID lockdowns

Restrictions on social contact stemmed disease spread, but weighing up the ultimate costs and benefits of lockdown measures is a challenge.

www.nature.com

Evidence shows that lockdowns implemented to tackle the spread of COVID-19 have saved lives, contrary to claims in the New York Post

Lockdowns have saved lives by reducing the physical interactions between infected and uninfected people, which in turn reduces transmission and the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. While lockdowns have affected the economy and income, temporary restrictions may help economic recovery...

healthfeedback.org

Would you like more? It would make for good reading while getting that tan at the beach (be sure to use sunscreen as it has been “proven” to prevent melanoma).
The proof is out there!

 

[Budley Doright]

“Noted you think it is "poppycock" that I demand proof before (and 3 years after) having my freedom restricted.”
Wow it’s been 3 years huh?

 

[Budley Doright]

obsessed
adjective
ob·sessed əb-ˈsest
äb-

: preoccupied with or haunted by some idea, interest, etc. : being in a state of obsession

 

[CCGNZ]

It's easy to criticize the "lockdown" w/the benefit of hindsight, mistakes were made and 180's occurred, but people had to make decisions in REAL TIME about a mysterious and deadly virus w/limited scientific knowledge that was ever changing. And the sights of patients in Italy dying w/domes covering their heads before New York got hit were terrifying.

 

[schuylaar]

For all the weird conspiracies floating around, that dramatic change in messaging once the democrats got in was the only thing that I thought had legs(ironically it was one that never got picked up). Nothing had really changed on the ground, but they didn't want the political pressure to keep the restrictions in place so zooooom we just went back to normal. From that, I think its reasonable to infer that the dems had been using covid as a political tool, rather than doing what was best and didn't adapt their views as the science dictated, but as part of some political calculus.

As always, wear masks to big box stores and steal stuff. It's your patriotic duty.

They made it into a stinker, therefore I wear my mask as a symbol of said stench..until the day I die.

 

[schuylaar]

This is a good point.

His statement was bland without substance; that's what you go for?

 

[Rob Roy]

His statement was bland without substance; that's what you go for?

I took it as growth on his part to consider the unintended consequences of forcing other people to do things when there are other peaceful alternatives. I also respect his intellect.

Good ideas don't require force.

 

[sunni]

useless arguing is not needed,

ill never understand why the group of you just sit here and argue all day long none of you are changing eachothers minds.

we do have a tos here,

 

[Budley Doright]

It's easy to criticize the "lockdown" w/the

It is a unanymous "sorry for the lack of proof" from the scientific community. Meanwhile any researchers who actually make an argument that would produce proof that they did not work are vociferously attacked mainly with political arguments. The best anyone in the scientific community can produce are short term models showing that some regional outbreaks were stemmed temporarily, buying time toward herd immunity. They all, without variation, ignore the costs of those measures that are not apparently related to covid.

What I am saying is that nobody is allowed to prove they didn't work and you can't prove they did. The onus of proof is upon those restricting freedom. Look at the personal attacks against me in this thread.

Bullshit! It was proved many times that lives were saved, only if helping to keep hospitals from collapsing. Do you even read any of the articles posted or just ignore what doesn’t fit your obsessed narrative? There were plenty of cost analysis re the “restrictions” and yes it was costly. World wide calamities are costly. So now you’ve moved to was it financially worth it FFS. The goalpost movement is strong lol. What’s next?

 

[Budley Doright]

useless arguing is not needed,

ill never understand why the group of you just sit here and argue all day long none of you are changing eachothers minds.

we do have a tos here,

Yes we do have TOS and yes your right, it seems that arguing (I call it discussion) is not effective in this particular thread. I’ll bow out now .

 

[sunni]

Yes we do have TOS and yes your right, it seems that arguing (I call it discussion) is not effective in this particular thread. I’ll bow out now .

when its the same group of people just going back and forth constantly over every thread i dont see it as a discussion

 

[cannabineer]

I guess it wasn’t on my list of priorities the last few months

What scientists have learnt from COVID lockdowns

Restrictions on social contact stemmed disease spread, but weighing up the ultimate costs and benefits of lockdown measures is a challenge.

www.nature.com

Evidence shows that lockdowns implemented to tackle the spread of COVID-19 have saved lives, contrary to claims in the New York Post

Lockdowns have saved lives by reducing the physical interactions between infected and uninfected people, which in turn reduces transmission and the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. While lockdowns have affected the economy and income, temporary restrictions may help economic recovery...

healthfeedback.org

Would you like more? It would make for good reading while getting that tan at the beach (be sure to use sunscreen as it has been “proven” to prevent melanoma).
The proof is out there!

about the sunscreen thing, she still became first lady.

 

[Fogdog]

Not even close. The fact is, political alignment dictates one's need for proof in this. The very language you chose illustrates it. You refer to it as "my claim" which has been "killed". It is not simply a claim. It is a fact that such proof does not exist. The best you've done is to dismiss this, claiming that I could never be satisfied by what has been presented as "evidence" of efficacy.

Then you proceed to point out that it is there again, as if you just want me to shut up about it, a purely political assertion. It's almost as though you're unwilling to suffer a political discussion in a political forum about a political policy. It is absolutely not based on any kind of science.

So there it is. You accepted restrictions on liberty without needing proof that they would actually save lives. Here were are and still there is no statistical proof they did. Cherry-picked time periods notwithstanding.

It's pointless to try to revive a dead argument.

Not going to do it.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

when its the same group of people just going back and forth constantly over every thread i dont see it as a discussion

Trump and covid have made things more intense, J6 also added fuel to the fire. Things do appear to be normalizing somewhat though, as we see what justice brings in 2023. Politics has been pretty wild lately in America and Kevin's house promises more entertainment.

 

[Budley Doright]

Well I said I was done but I must add, between the babble, there have been some valid points and proof provided re the subject at hand. Possibly the provided points of discussion will help to convince “some” that the “lockdowns” were helpful and thought necessary at the time. And yes it is the same people most of the time, politics seems like an exclusive section and I’m happy to be part of it although it’s not helping my quit smoking thing right now lol. I actually find this section more cordial than the growing section. Their down right mean over there lol

 

[PJ Diaz]

I guess it wasn’t on my list of priorities the last few months

What scientists have learnt from COVID lockdowns

Restrictions on social contact stemmed disease spread, but weighing up the ultimate costs and benefits of lockdown measures is a challenge.

www.nature.com

Evidence shows that lockdowns implemented to tackle the spread of COVID-19 have saved lives, contrary to claims in the New York Post

Lockdowns have saved lives by reducing the physical interactions between infected and uninfected people, which in turn reduces transmission and the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. While lockdowns have affected the economy and income, temporary restrictions may help economic recovery...

healthfeedback.org

Would you like more? It would make for good reading while getting that tan at the beach (be sure to use sunscreen as it has been “proven” to prevent melanoma).
The proof is out there!

Except that you didn't post any proof.

From your posted article:

"That paper’s methodology has also been questioned, however. One issue is that it could have overstated the size of the benefit because it assumes that without lockdown mandates, people wouldn’t have reduced their social contacts. In reality, rising deaths would probably have changed people’s behaviour.

That happened in Florida, for instance, where data show a reduction in mobility during the first wave about two weeks before lockdowns, says health-policy researcher Thomas Tsai at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “People were watching the news in New York and Boston and seeing how severe COVID could be,” he says.

One analysis5 by political scientist Christopher Berry and his colleagues at the University of Chicago, Illinois, supports this. It suggests that US states’ shelter-in-place orders did little to further reduce COVID-19 cases and deaths, not because social distancing doesn’t work, but because people were already avoiding contact before the orders were imposed."

Here is an analysis from Johns Hopkins University, which affirms that voluntary behavioral changes played a greater role in mitigating the pandemic compared to draconian type lock-downs:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/06/A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-of-COVID-19-Mortality-II.pdf

"The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. This result is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behavior, such as social distancing, did play an important role in mitigating the pandemic."

 

[Budley Doright]

Except that you didn't post any proof.

From your posted article:

"That paper’s methodology has also been questioned, however. One issue is that it could have overstated the size of the benefit because it assumes that without lockdown mandates, people wouldn’t have reduced their social contacts. In reality, rising deaths would probably have changed people’s behaviour.

That happened in Florida, for instance, where data show a reduction in mobility during the first wave about two weeks before lockdowns, says health-policy researcher Thomas Tsai at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “People were watching the news in New York and Boston and seeing how severe COVID could be,” he says.

One analysis5 by political scientist Christopher Berry and his colleagues at the University of Chicago, Illinois, supports this. It suggests that US states’ shelter-in-place orders did little to further reduce COVID-19 cases and deaths, not because social distancing doesn’t work, but because people were already avoiding contact before the orders were imposed."

Here is an analysis from Johns Hopkins University, which affirms that voluntary behavioral changes played a greater role in mitigating the pandemic compared to draconian type lock-downs:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/06/A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-of-COVID-19-Mortality-II.pdf

"The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. This result is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behavior, such as social distancing, did play an important role in mitigating the pandemic."

Okee dokee.

 

[schuylaar]

Okee dokee.

With Righties, it's the gullibility; but didn't post proof, here's what you posted?

Back to the Rubik's Cube..it makes more sense.

 

[schuylaar]

View attachment 5244545

It's pointless to try to revive a dead argument.

Not going to do it.

But that's what he came back for..they're sending in the big guns.

 

[schuylaar]

Yes we do have TOS and yes your right, it seems that arguing (I call it discussion) is not effective in this particular thread. I’ll bow out now .

It's the selectivity..no one knows what's in a mods mind..personally, I'd like to see true debate rules posted and adhered to so that you have a reference point. Selectivity is a Rightie thing.

Debate: Argue about especially in formal manner.