lockdowns had little orno impact on covid-19 deaths

[badgolferman]

Just another example of the government being wrong and having no clue
what to do....

----------------------

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing
deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at
Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced
COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple
scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures,
and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19
mortality,” the researchers wrote.

“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising
unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest,
contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,”
the report said.

“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion:
lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy
instrument,” the paper concluded.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/

[Socrates]

On 2/1/2022 10:50 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> Just another example of the government being wrong and having no clue
> what to do....
>
> ----------------------
>
> Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing
> deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at
> Johns Hopkins University.
>
> The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced
> COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple
> scientific studies.

I wouldn't call it "little impact" if I or someone I loved was in that 0.2%.

[Charlie M. 1958]

I'm not sure how much lockdowns did or did not reduce the total number
of deaths. It would seem to me that any way you arrived at those numbers
(whether pro or anti lockdown) would involve a lot of speculation.

I did like this comment, though:

"Common sense predicted as much. But that was never the purpose of the
lock downs. The purpose of the lock downs was to facilitate the stealing
of a national election by allowing them to declare a "national
emergency" to justify arbitrary changes to election law, the blanketing
of states with unsolicited absentee ballots, setting up unlawful drop
boxes, denying republican poll watchers access to counting rooms, etc,
etc, etc."

Pass the tin foil hats, please. :-)

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I'm going to throw the bullshit flag on this...Stats can be manipulated
to what the author wants told...You can't tell me if businesses are
closed, crowds not allowed, that less people will not die...I ain't
buying it.

The Washington Times is a Conservative paper and that is the message
they want to put out.


--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

[badgolferman]

The report was put out by Johns Hopkins university. You do know what they
are, right? A bastion of liberalism.

[Rob D.]

And in hindsight, this is what we have learned.

It appears your premise is that "We should never have done this! It made little difference!"

Well . . .

The only way we *know* this is that we tried it.

Now that we have an idea that it [a lockdown policy] did not work as regards COVID-19, we ought not try that again, as it won't do us much good.

[I don't know if this data can be generalized to other pandemics or not. I would guess it "probably" can, but that's for somebody way smarter than I am.]

In *your* scenarios, we would not have locked down, and had about 850,000 dead in the US alone, and always wondered if we could have prevented some/many of those deaths via a lockdown.

You cannot have it *both* ways, Mike.

[Rob D.]

So . . . you take them as an authority now, yes?

After all, *you* cited them to back your point.

In the future, you'll take what John's Hopkins says as worth serious consideration and as good policy, yes?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

You beat me to it. :)

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I don't care who took the data...I'm calling bullshit on this...Anybody
with a shred of common sense could figure out that less exposure to
crowds means less infections.

[badgolferman]

>The only way we know this is that we tried it.

>
>Now that we have an idea that it [a lockdown policy] did not work as
>regards COVID-19, we ought not try that again, as it won't do us much
>good.
>
>[I don't know if this data can be generalized to other pandemics or
>not. I would guess it "probably" can, but that's for somebody way
>smarter than I am.]
>

>In your scenarios, we would not have locked down, and had about

>850,000 dead in the US alone, and always wondered if we could have
>prevented some/many of those deaths via a lockdown.
>

>You cannot have it both ways, Mike.


You missed the point yet once again:

[Socrates]

On 2/1/2022 10:50 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> Just another example of the government being wrong and having no clue
> what to do....
>
> ----------------------
>
> Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing
> deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at
> Johns Hopkins University.

> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/

Was it actually THE government? Or were they just following the advice
of medical professionals?

From your link:

"Early on, many states and 186 countries imposed bans on work,
socialization, in-person schooling, travel and other restrictions to
limit the spread of the disease, citing recommendations by top health
care experts."

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 2/1/2022 6:15 PM, Rob D. wrote:

>
> In the future, you'll take what John's Hopkins says as worth serious consideration and as good policy, yes?

Well, at least until you pull out their study declaring homosexuality
is a standard component in the range of human sexual behavior, or that
being transsexual is a legitimate condition.

[Ted H]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:52:14 -0600,
Charlie M. 1958 <alw...@impatient.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 12:50 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> > Just another example of the government being wrong and having no clue
> > what to do....
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing
> > deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at
> > Johns Hopkins University.

> I'm not sure how much lockdowns did or did not reduce the total
> number of deaths. It would seem to me that any way you arrived
> at those numbers (whether pro or anti lockdown) would involve a
> lot of speculation.
>
> I did like this comment, though:
>
> "Common sense predicted as much. But that was never the purpose
> of the lock downs. The purpose of the lock downs was to
> facilitate the stealing of a national election by allowing them
> to declare a "national emergency" to justify arbitrary changes
> to election law, the blanketing of states with unsolicited
> absentee ballots, setting up unlawful drop boxes, denying
> republican poll watchers access to counting rooms, etc, etc,
> etc."

Oh lord. <rolls eyes>

> Pass the tin foil hats, please. :-)

Indeed.

--
Ted H.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 2/1/2022 7:17 PM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>>
> I don't care who took the data...I'm calling bullshit on this...Anybody
> with a shred of common sense could figure out that less exposure to
> crowds means less infections.
>

Actually, if you think about it, I can see a scenario in which lockdowns
didn't really prevent a lot of deaths (in terms of percentages).

If you recall, it was repeated many times in the early days of the
pandemic that the purpose of lockdowns was to /slow/ the spread of the
virus, thereby keeping hospitals from being completely overrun. In other
words, with such a highly contagious disease, they never expected to
stamp it out before a lot of people were infected. They just wanted
those infections to be spread out over a longer period of time. In
theory, people who were going to get it and die from it would still get
it and die from it eventually.

The key question is how many more lives would have been lost if the
lockdowns had not taken place and the hospitals /had/ been totally
overrun with COVID patients, and how many lives were saved because
treatments improved over that period of time. I'm not sure whether that
was factored into the statistics in Mike's article (or how it even
/could/ be accurately factored in).

[Rob D.]

This.

I suppose MetLife or some company such as that would have the actuarial tables, Eric to calculate all this.

IIRC, part of the problem early on was that hospitals were having to limit or restrict surgery of all kind nds, because of the potential for infection, combined with the hospital's being full of COVID cases.

Of course, you will have the Mikes and Freds who are somehow convinced it was all a liberal plot to make Trump look bad, wreck the economy, or both.

Can't do much with such folks.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Nonetheless, if you don't mingle, your chances are down.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 2/2/2022 11:47 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>
> Nonetheless, if you don't mingle, your chances are down.
>

But eventually, the lure of the Bilsteins will prove irresistible. Then
you're screwed, in more ways than one.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

For sure...For amply proportioned gals, they do have a certain charm.

[badgolferman]

Neither one of us ever said such a thing. There you go making up shit
again…

[Fred Exley]

Rob's feeling pouty today, frustrated because he shot himself in the
foot making up shit about others. So he assuages his bruised ego by
making up more shit about others.

Here's an actual photo of Rob D. taken just this morning:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ifMBVlo-YqY/R1BNboONhWI/AAAAAAAAAEU/y-1gAgvsFo8/s1600-R/kvb+1269.jpg

[Socrates]

Not easy to get anything questionable past you two sharpies, but who is
Eric? I know but I'm sworn to secrecy. ;)

[badgolferman]

I am finally understanding why he thinks the way he does. He’s living in
the metaverse!

[Rob D.]

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-6, Socrates wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 11:19 AM, Fred Exley wrote:
> > On 2/2/22 10:48 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> >> Rob D. <tulsa.r.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:27:43 AM UTC-6, Charlie M. 1958
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>>> I

> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course, you will have the Mikes and Freds who are somehow
> >>> convinced it
> >>> was all a liberal plot to make Trump look bad, wreck the economy, or
> >>> both.
> >>>
> >>> Can't do much with such folks.
>
> >> Neither one of us ever said such a thing. There you go making up shit
> >> again…
>
> > Rob's feeling pouty today, frustrated because he shot himself in the
> > foot making up shit about others. So he assuages his bruised ego by
> > making up more shit about others.
> >
> > Here's an actual photo of Rob D. taken just this morning:
> >
> > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ifMBVlo-YqY/R1BNboONhWI/AAAAAAAAAEU/y-1gAgvsFo8/s1600-R/kvb+1269.jpg


> Not easy to get anything questionable past you two sharpies, but who is
> Eric? I know but I'm sworn to secrecy. ;)

Heh.

Yeah. This iPad I use for araa allows me to see 8 lines--*maybe*--of a post I am replying to. (Fully have of the screen is filled with the keyboard.) I have to stop typing and scroll downward every time I think I *might* have made a typo. And don't get me started on autocorrupt.

As I type this right now, all I can see of the post is "On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:26:04 PM UTC-6, Socrates wrote:"

Annoying as hell.

On an unrelated note, do you ever contemplate how we were probably all much more horrible people when we were still drinking?

Some of the exchanges with a couple of folks in this thread make me marvel at how someone could actually be *worse* than they present here.

[shudder]

[Rob D.]

"have"

Ugh. See how annoying this is?

[Socrates]

On 2/2/2022 4:46 PM, Rob D. wrote:

> On an unrelated note, do you ever contemplate how we were probably
> all much more horrible people when we were still drinking?

Yes, I've mentioned before that araa sometimes reminds me of my old
watering hole Butch Cassidy's Saloon after a few rounds.

> Some of the exchanges with a couple of folks in this thread make me
> marvel at how someone could actually be *worse* than they present here.
>
> [shudder]

Yep! :)

Of course there's a good chance they are not the rulers of their /own/
roosts so they feel compelled to grasp for masculinity here on araa to
compensate. (hope I didn't mispel any words)

[badgolferman]

Rob D. <tulsa.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the exchanges with a couple of folks in this thread make me
> marvel at how someone could actually be *worse* than they present here.
>
> [shudder]
>

Yes, you reap what you sow.

You don’t see any verbal confrontations between Fred, Ted H, Ted W,
Charlie, LaRocca, and myself. But when my character is constantly attacked
by the likes of you, Dexter, Frankie, and even Mark, I’ve decided to stop
letting it go and give it back to you. Years of ignoring it only has made
it worse.

[Socrates]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9gVc9ggZg

[Ted H]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:34:20 -0000 (UTC),
badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob D. <tulsa.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Some of the exchanges with a couple of folks in this thread
> > make me marvel at how someone could actually be *worse* than
> > they present here.
> >
> > [shudder]
>
> Yes, you reap what you sow.
>

> You don???t see any verbal confrontations between Fred, Ted H,

> Ted W, Charlie, LaRocca, and myself. But when my character is
> constantly attacked by the likes of you, Dexter, Frankie, and

> even Mark, I???ve decided to stop letting it go and give it

> back to you. Years of ignoring it only has made it worse.

You're just lucky neither Ted L or Ted F post here any longer.

--
Ted H.