Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Global Lockdown
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
JK2006 wrote:
And to repeat my original point; if something is as lethal and epidemic as Ebola, suppression may be indeed the best way to contain it and under those circumstances strict and solid lockdowns are probably vital. But when something is NOT that dangerous it is absurd to try suppressing it. Protection of the vulnerable becomes the essential.
I agree with this.
To apply the tests in my previous post:
1. Is it justified? Yes Ebola is bloody lethal and rapacious with a death rate over 50% that no doctor in the world - unless drunk and doing a party piece - would describe as "died with" Ebola....
2. Will it work? Yes partly because of 1. It is so lethal and kills so many that it doesn't get very far; in stark contrast to the relatively harmless but ubiquitously infectious Covid-19. This is thankfully why Ebola outbreaks are rare and geographically limited. |
|
Wyot |
Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:
Wyot wrote:
If you cant do it properly there is no point at all.
We aren't a million miles away Honey.
My view - well it is not even a view it is unarguable from the data - is that there is no necessary link (when you examine different international responses) - between lockdown severity and covid deaths.
The example you give may be the reason. I have no idea; I am not a scientist.
Which is why I get so tired of people falling back on "the science" and conflating questioning the efficacy of lockdown with questioning experts on virology.
Very slow voice: they are not the same thing....
Even otherwise very intelligent commentators (on here - specifically - I include Hedda) conflate these things CONSTANTLY...
Yes, because you cant get data from something that hasn't happened.
Lockdown versus no lockdown is REALLY comparing "half hearted attempts and nonsensical rules" with "not doing much at all in varying conditions",
so they have never actually been compared, except in somebody's imagination.
True. And they shouldn't be compared you are correct. The whole debate works on the level of correlation - both sides even the "scientists" who have been highly disingenuous throughout - not causation and is not comparing like for like.
People correlate a lockdown with a reduction in A&E admissions, for e.g, because a graph is produced with the lockdown date followed by reduced admissions. Well, ok, perhaps it played a part perhaps not. Perhaps also seasonal change? Perhaps a change in treatment approach?
Equally someone like me is being equally disingenuous if I point to a graph showing that there were already reduced admissions prior to the lockdown therefore the lockdowns were superfluous. Well maybe, maybe not. Maybe admissions would have spiked upwards again without the lockdown.
I have come to my views because I believe taking away peoples human rights and causing death and misery by doing so should only be done if the level of threat is such that:
1. It justifies it?
2. The lockdowns work?
1. It doesn't justify it. Excess deaths are surely what counts? While a nasty disease for some it is harmless to the vast majority (98%). Mortality causes have been redefined quite deliberately as well so that pre Covid ways of dying and at a "dying age" have been co-opted into orbit.
2. While comparing lockdown countries with non lockdown countries is - I agree Honey - ultimately pointless; I do it to highlight the absence of anylevel of evidence - even correlative let alone causational! - that they are having an impact. |
|
JK2006 |
And to repeat my original point; if something is as lethal and epidemic as Ebola, suppression may be indeed the best way to contain it and under those circumstances strict and solid lockdowns are probably vital. But when something is NOT that dangerous it is absurd to try suppressing it. Protection of the vulnerable becomes the essential. |
|
Honey |
Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
Wyot wrote:
If you cant do it properly there is no point at all.
We aren't a million miles away Honey.
My view - well it is not even a view it is unarguable from the data - is that there is no necessary link (when you examine different international responses) - between lockdown severity and covid deaths.
The example you give may be the reason. I have no idea; I am not a scientist.
Which is why I get so tired of people falling back on "the science" and conflating questioning the efficacy of lockdown with questioning experts on virology.
Very slow voice: they are not the same thing....
Even otherwise very intelligent commentators (on here - specifically - I include Hedda) conflate these things CONSTANTLY...
Yes, because you cant get data from something that hasn't happened.
Lockdown versus no lockdown is REALLY comparing "half hearted attempts and nonsensical rules" with "not doing much at all in varying conditions",
so they have never actually been compared, except in somebody's imagination. |
|
Wyot |
Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
If you cant do it properly there is no point at all.
We aren't a million miles away Honey.
My view - well it is not even a view it is unarguable from the data - is that there is no necessary link (when you examine different international responses) - between lockdown severity and covid deaths.
The example you give may be the reason. I have no idea; I am not a scientist.
Which is why I get so tired of people falling back on "the science" and conflating questioning the efficacy of lockdown with questioning experts on virology.
Very slow voice: they are not the same thing....
Even otherwise very intelligent commentators (on here - specifically - I include Hedda) conflate these things CONSTANTLY... |
|
|
|
