Lockdowns didn't work.

CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Still waiting for that proof.

Sounds like lockdowns work as well against pandemics as drugwars work against drugs. US lockdowns didn't work because people didn't respect them and Chinese lockdowns didn't work because they didn't continue them forever. It is clearly MRNA vaccines and not the government doing the pandemic stopping.
Click to expand...
Here is what happened when Alberta lifted restrictions too quickly in October 2021:
Just a few pieces of it:

The COVID-19 situation in Alberta has gone from bad to worse — providing a cautionary tale for the rest of Canada on how a string of bad policy decisions, low vaccination rates and a failure to act quickly are a recipe for disaster.
Unlike Ontario, which has triple the population but is faring much better in the fourth wave after keeping many public health restrictions in place, Alberta resisted vaccine passports, lifted mask mandates and even planned to abandon test, trace and isolate protocols before backtracking as cases rose.

Fast forward to today and Alberta has the highest rate of infections in the country, at close to four times the national average, and Albertans are dying of COVID-19 at close to three times the rate of anywhere else in Canada — rivalled only by Saskatchewan.

"Our healthcare system has completely collapsed," said Schwartz. "It's not just that we're on the verge of collapse, I think that's misleading at this point — we've completely collapsed."
Schwartz says Alberta hospitals are currently unable to offer life-saving surgery or safe emergency care to those that desperately need it and some are consistently running at more than 100 per cent ICU capacity, making for a "completely dysfunctional healthcare system."

Now you are going to say that you asked about US lockdowns, or be really adamant you meant lockdowns and not restrictions, or some other irreverent point. I'll counter that restrictions alone was never the plan and they were simply one aspect to slow it down while other measures were on-going. You are going to pretend like you made a point and LOL at everyone. Sound about right?
 
OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
WE never had any 'lockdowns' and if we had of gone full lockdown for 3 weeks at the beginning a lot of people would still be alive and our economies would be in a lot better shape.

We just had a lot of restrictions that slowed things down a bit at the cost of turmoil for millions. To have done nothing would have been a lot worse tho.

Still Covid free here and that's the best way to be.

:peace:
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lockdowns are by definiiton, totalitarian measures, and demonstrate the difference in the psyche and emotional responses of the proponents and the resisters.

One is security based coming from a deep seated fear of inadequacy and inability to take care of oneself, "fear based", "save me government, save me" !

One is not, instead favoring rational and independent thought. "I got this" , "I'm not scared", "natural immunity is better than an experimental possibly fatal jab".

The hyper emotional state of the fear based people spills over into other covid related areas. For instance some people don't seem to want to even consider ...are some of the "covid deaths" actually from a "vax" or multiple vax / boosters related cause? The "died suddenly" thing is something insurance companies may be weighing in on too. If an insurance company can get out of paying for an EXPERIMENTAL vax related death, I bet they will.

Just who is dying? Just who is getting sick, multiple times ? Is it the unvaxxed or the vaxxed? How can we even trust a hospital if they are incentivized to call everything covid? How can "government officals" be trusted? Tony Fauci playing simon sez with recommendations "don't need a mask" , "wear a mask", 'wear two masks", "I was trying to save masks for medical people", "I don't recall". What a joke this little person is.

I've witnessed some really puzzling, unscientific responses from people too. Lockdown and mask believers can appear fetish like and sometimes exhibit as much sense as throwing virgins in volcanoes to make the crops grow. I'm not saying the people who advocate for masks and lockdowns are all mentally inferior as far as i.q., but it's my opinion they are more fear based type people and exhibiting emotional responses that hint at a deep underlying psychological need for a super nanny to take care of them rather than any adherence to "trusting science".

That fear sometimes manifests in irrational superstitious and authoritiy worshipping behaviors. For instance the mask wearing around "strangers" ramps up, but when they're around people they feel more comfortable with and or if they think nobody is watching they don't wear masks. Clearly a lack of consistency and reason is in the mix as situational fear and superstitition ebb and flow. I've been studying this behavior and it's also been peer reviewed as a thing. I will hold off on the anecdotal stories of irrational fear based behaviors I've witnessed for now, but there are many.


Lockdowns work to ramp up the hysteria and consolidate control as well as instilling a heightened sense of fear in the gullible and fearful. They help set the stage for a massive money transfer too. So yeah, lockdowns work alright, as they were intended to.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
Now you are going to say that you asked about US lockdown
Click to expand...
No.

I'm saying that there is no proof that government interference into social interactions and the associations of citizens had any material impact on all-cause mortality. It is established and proven that herd immunity is the only solution to the pandemic. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not asking anything.

I already know that the measures, what ever you want to call them, which imposed fetters on the free movements, associations and business of people subjected to them were ostensibly meant to "flatten the curve" in order to avoid overcrowding hospital capacity. I would settle for proof that they achieved even that. I am poiting out that even when I lower the bar to this, you still can not cite satisfying proof that they did so.

But the real issue is that they did not reduce death overall. People accepted restrictions on liberty without any proof that it would actually reduce deaths overall.

Besides, it's not like anyone was forced to go outside or shake hands with people. You always had the option to isolate yourself.
 
C

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The US flipped the switch. One day, masks were mandatory in order to protect one's self and the people around them. The next day, masks were no longer mandatory and vulnerable people were left out in the cold. I have an elderly mother who lives in assisted living. When people just dropped all pretenses of staying safe from the virus, I had feelings similar to yours. WTF? Can't people do just a little more than just think of themselves? Apparently not.
Click to expand...
Yup,what I'm seeing out and about these day's concerning masking = "Covid what" ,in spite of medical experts pleading to mask up in crowded venues over the holiday's, easily <10%.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The US flipped the switch. One day, masks were mandatory in order to protect one's self and the people around them. The next day, masks were no longer mandatory and vulnerable people were left out in the cold. I have an elderly mother who lives in assisted living. When people just dropped all pretenses of staying safe from the virus, I had feelings similar to yours. WTF? Can't people do just a little more than just think of themselves? Apparently not.
Click to expand...
It was after National Governors Association met with Biden. That was the clear diving 'line' if you will.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
“I still wish my profile would be removed along with all my posts because I spent so many years agreeing with people who turned out to be militant lockdown advocates.” Then you got all attitudy Judy when people disagreed and ran away in tears.
:(. But yet here you are blah blah, but, blah blah. At least Rob agrees, that says something lol.
 
HGCC

HGCC

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
It was after National Governors Association met with Biden. That was the clear diving 'line' if you will.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

I'm saying that there is no proof that government interference into social interactions and the associations of citizens had any material impact on all-cause mortality. It is established and proven that herd immunity is the only solution to the pandemic. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not asking anything.

I already know that the measures, what ever you want to call them, which imposed fetters on the free movements, associations and business of people subjected to them were ostensibly meant to "flatten the curve" in order to avoid overcrowding hospital capacity. I would settle for proof that they achieved even that. I am poiting out that even when I lower the bar to this, you still can not cite satisfying proof that they did so.

But the real issue is that they did not reduce death overall. People accepted restrictions on liberty without any proof that it would actually reduce deaths overall.

Besides, it's not like anyone was forced to go outside or shake hands with people. You always had the option to isolate yourself.
Click to expand...
You are asking for proof, and also saying you are not asking for anything. I provided an example of what happened when restrictions were lifted too early, and it caused the hospital system to crash. No one will ever be able to provide enough proof for you to accept reality, you will simply not accept what is presented. People accepted that restrictions would lessen overall death because they were not purposefully being obtuse, they applied logic and thought about other members of their community instead of getting a case of the hard-done-by's and only thinking of themselves.

If only not shaking hands was all that was needed to prevent the spread of this respiratory virus. Not everyone had the ability to just self isolate, some people had to get medical treatments to continue to live. Some people had life saving treatment delayed because of hospital capacity issues. I hope you have had to look them in the eye and said the same shit you're posting.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

I'm saying that there is no proof that government interference into social interactions and the associations of citizens had any material impact on all-cause mortality. It is established and proven that herd immunity is the only solution to the pandemic. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not asking anything.

I already know that the measures, what ever you want to call them, which imposed fetters on the free movements, associations and business of people subjected to them were ostensibly meant to "flatten the curve" in order to avoid overcrowding hospital capacity. I would settle for proof that they achieved even that. I am poiting out that even when I lower the bar to this, you still can not cite satisfying proof that they did so.

But the real issue is that they did not reduce death overall. People accepted restrictions on liberty without any proof that it would actually reduce deaths overall.

Besides, it's not like anyone was forced to go outside or shake hands with people. You always had the option to isolate yourself.
Click to expand...
That's a zombie argument. It has been proven that lockdowns work. Your claim has been killed many times in this thread but here it is again. Walking about trying to devour brains.

That said, lockdowns aren't practical for humans and society. They were a useful tool early on. They gave medical science some time to work on vaccines, develop treatments and prevented a collapse of the medical system like what happened in Italy.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
That's a zombie argument. It has been proven that lockdowns work. Your claim has been killed many times in this thread but here it is again. Walking about trying to devour brains.

That said, lockdowns aren't practical for humans and society. They were a useful tool early on. They gave medical science some time to work on vaccines, develop treatments and prevented a collapse of the medical system like what happened in Italy.
Click to expand...
or India. We still don’t have the full story from there and then.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Your claim has been killed many times in this thread but here it is again.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
View attachment 5244374
abandonconflict said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well since you had the initial post that lockdowns didn't work, kindly provide the statistical proof that you believe supports your claim.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
View attachment 5244374

Well since you had the initial post that lockdowns didn't work, kindly provide the statistical proof that you believe supports your claim.
Click to expand...
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.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
“I still wish my profile would be removed along with all my posts because I spent so many years agreeing with people who turned out to be militant lockdown advocates.” Then you got all attitudy Judy when people disagreed and ran away in tears.
:(. But yet here you are blah blah, but, blah blah. At least Rob agrees, that says something lol.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top