Lockdowns don't work.

ginjawarrior said:

so your just going to pretend that you didnt just cliam that itally had rate over 5.5k daily new cases for weeks even though you were clearly and demonstrably wrong??????

Click to expand...

Not demonstrably wrong. There's a 5-6 day period about that outlier you're so fond of in which the average is clearly above 5k and probably above 5.5k. I just looked at that curve that looks exactly like Sweden's. Go ahead and do the math and cling to it some more. Yes, I'll definitely ignore it.

You're also completely ignoring the very reason for the lockdowns in the first place, which was to reduce the fatality rate by keeping the number of new cases (curve apex) below the threshold (healthcare capacity) which particularly in Italy, it did not. By zooming in on one outlier record of number of cases to the point of myopic nit-picking, you've avoided the entire argument. The curve did not flatten sufficiently to reduce the fatality rate and people died, alone, at home.

ginjawarrior said:

yeah unfortunatley they initiated their lockdown a week or so too late..

Click to expand...

Yet several countries never initiated lockdowns at all and almost all of the countries that did are already trying to reopen despite continuing to see thousands of new cases per day. Italy eased its lockdowns significantly, over a week ago.

ginjawarrior said:

i dont need to prove a fucking thing

Click to expand...

Whether you need to or not changes not the fact that you can't. Flat out. You simply can't.

ginjawarrior said:

same result everywhere they are implemented which is a drop in new cases in about 10 - 12 days after lockdown starts

Click to expand...

Including a bunch of countries that never locked down.

ginjawarrior said:

how hard has your portfoio been ht by this crisis???

Click to expand...

None of your business, but I suggest you invest in oil while a few countries are apparently losing money to flood the market with it.

abandonconflict said:

Not demonstrably wrong. There's a 5-6 day period about that outlier you're so fond of in which the average is clearly above 5k and probably above 5.5k. I just looked at that curve that looks exactly like Sweden's. Go ahead and do the math and cling to it some more. Yes, I'll definitely ignore it.

You're also completely ignoring the very reason for the lockdowns in the first place, which was to reduce the fatality rate by keeping the number of new cases (curve apex) below the threshold (healthcare capacity) which particularly in Italy, it did not. By zooming in on one outlier record of number of cases to the point of myopic nit-picking, you've avoided the entire argument. The curve did not flatten sufficiently to reduce the fatality rate and people died, alone, at home.

Click to expand...

your going on about how high the new cases per day were for italy and that it went on for too long after lockdown?

it went exactly as it should have.

imagine this scenario of a perfect lockdown

the government announces that at 4 pm everybody (including all essential workers the entire population) goes home and stays at home indefinitley until the virus disapears

now at the time of the lockdown in italy new infections were doubling roughly every 3 days and the incubation period roughly 7 days

so the initial case per days will double twice before the quarantine takes effect

now you have to take into account that even with this perfect lockdown with no body going out that these are families living together.

so 10 days after lockdown started there is still a new round of infections all within the confines of individual houses

that 1 infected person may have 3 + (italy has multi generational living) people to give it to in that house

you then have to wait another 10 days for those people to show signs of being infected

now this is all very very simple to imagine so theres no way i could imagine you wouldnt have thought of that yourself

now thats assuming a perfect lockdown and still easily explains why numbers stayed high for 20 days

the reality of it is it wasnt a perfect lockdown to start with

we're going to see a lot of lockdowns being rolled back a bit and then reintroduced over the next 18months++

its called the hammer and dance


italys just a couple of steps further down the line than the usa



very good correlation in this chart as to the countries that lockdown well and soon enough verses ones that didnt.

whilst sweden is

ginjawarrior said:

your going on about how high the new cases per day were for italy and that it went on for too long after lockdown?

it went exactly as it should have.

Click to expand...

It went the same way as the country with no lockdown at all. The curve trajectories look exactly the same:
View attachment 4540792View attachment 4540793View attachment 4540794

I read the rest of your bullshit, but it lacks an argument. It's just this hypothetical where you continue to ignore my actual argument. I'm not "going on and on", I made my argument short and simple, you have to this point completely avoided it:

The very reason for the lockdowns in the first place, was to reduce the fatality rate by keeping the number of new cases (curve apex) below the threshold (healthcare capacity) which particularly in Italy, it did not. The curve did not flatten sufficiently to reduce the fatality rate and people died, alone, at home, at an extremely high rate.

ginjawarrior said:

we're going to see a lot of lockdowns being rolled back a bit and then reintroduced over the next 18months++

Click to expand...

If they do go ahead with the "break pumping", as I have previously mentioned which is that same idea, I forrecast (opinion) there will be herd immunity long before there's a vaccine. The economic toll will be massive and will include food shortages and it will become painfully obvious that not only do the lockdowns not work in the sense that I have laid out in my argument, but that they don't save lives at all because:

there were more than 8,000 non-coronavirus deaths reported within NYC from March 11-April 13. For comparison, the city health department confirmed there were 5,167 deaths during that same time span last year — meaning there would've been a sudden, nearly 66 percent spike in deaths unrelated to the pandemic year-over-year, which would be unheard of.

Click to expand...

estimate is 28 to 55 times higher

USC-LA County Study: Early Results of Antibody Testing Suggest Number of COVID-19 Infections Far Exceeds Number of Confirmed Cases in Los Angeles County

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

estimate is 28 to 55 times higher

Preliminary results of USC-LA County COVID-19 study released

createsend.com

Click to expand...

Here's the problem, the seasonal flu does not fill hospitals and and kill 40,000 Americans over a 3 month period, so either the mortality rate is higher,- or the asymptomatic numbers are lower. There appears to be an unaccounted for factor(s) that is skewing many results and causing the resultant wide ranges.

I gotta take a cat break here, I got one one the keyboard now!

" While Ferrer portrayed the study as proof of the need for aggressive control measures, a fatality rate as low as the Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County tests suggest also changes the calculus of those policies' costs and benefits. If COVID-19 really is only a bit more lethal than the seasonal flu, the benefits that can be expected from continued lockdowns, in terms of deaths prevented, are much lower than most projections assumed. If these results are confirmed, they should play an important role in discussions about when and how to reopen the economy. "

DIY-HP-LED said:

Here's the problem, the seasonal flu does not fill hospitals and and kill 40,000 Americans over a 3 month period, so either the mortality rate is higher,- or the asymptomatic numbers are lower.

Click to expand...

The seasonal flu is not a novel virus that is bursting on the scene like wildfire. If you're going to compare this to flu, it has to be compared to the 1918 pandemic in which a new influenza virus, to which there was no herd immunity and no epidemiological data suddenly spread worldwide.

I shared this because it is yet another example among the very many showing that SARS-CoV-2 infection is FAR more widespread than the number of confirmed cases.

The latest data from Johns Hopkins show a mean incubation period of 5-6 days with a range of 2-12. This clearly disputes the notion that any of the curve inflections in Europe have coincided with the lockdowns.

Incubation period

• Mean of 5-6 days, range 2–12.

Click to expand...

Official Alleges The U.S. Has Deported Many COVID-19-Positive Migrants To Guatemala
there was one flight in which "75% of the returned migrants tested positive for the virus."

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

The latest data from Johns Hopkins show a mean incubation period of 5-6 days with a range of 2-12. This clearly disputes the notion that any of the curve inflections in Europe have coincided with the lockdowns.

Coronavirus COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) | Johns Hopkins ABX Guide

Up-to-date Coronavirus COVID-19 guidance for physicians & pharmacists from Johns Hopkins ABX. Disease spectrum, testing, and clinical trials for vaccines, remdesivir, dexamethasone discussed.

www.hopkinsguides.com

Click to expand...

no it still fits my example of what you should expect from in numbers when you introduce a perfect quarantine (a tip for you: none of the quarantine in europe would be classed as perfect)

maybe you should explain with your big boy words exactly why the above numbers wouldnt fit italys numbers

abandonconflict said:

I read the rest of your bullshit, but it lacks an argument. It's just this hypothetical where you continue to ignore my actual argument. I'm not "going on and on", I made my argument short and simple, you have to this point completely avoided it:

Click to expand...

its not a hypothetical. Its exactly what you would expect in infections when you introduce a quarantine

i.e. the numbers of new cases per day will not drop until you had a chance for infection to happen between household memebers

all of this screaming of yours about the numbers being wrong in italy i dont think ive seen coherent argument about what the numbers should be and why.....

The very reason for the lockdowns in the first place, was to reduce the fatality rate by keeping the number of new cases (curve apex) below the threshold (healthcare capacity) which particularly in Italy, it did not. The curve did not flatten sufficiently to reduce the fatality rate and people died, alone, at home, at an extremely high rate.

Click to expand...

already answered this one and its so unbelievably simple a fucking answer

ITALY STARTED THEIR LOCKDOWN A WEEK OR SO TOO LATE TO CATCH THE CURVE IN TIME........

WITHOUT THE LOCKDOWN EVEN MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED AT HOME ALONE>>>>

If they do go ahead with the "break pumping", as I have previously mentioned which is that same idea, I forrecast (opinion) there will be herd immunity long before there's a vaccine.

Click to expand...

thank you for your opinion

i dont think you've been capable of processing the information in a suitable way for me to have any confidence in you aforementioned opinion.

whilst normally i get all my life changing info from idiot geniuses on pot forums i feel at this time i will listen to the experts who can understand things like how an actual quartine works

The economic toll will be massive and will include food shortages and it will become painfully obvious that not only do the lockdowns not work in the sense that I have laid out in my argument, but that they don't save lives at all because:

Click to expand...

cool story bro

ginjawarrior said:

ITALY STARTED THEIR LOCKDOWN A WEEK OR SO TOO LATE TO CATCH THE CURVE IN TIME........

Click to expand...

That's just nonsense, so now you're saying that the lockdown didn't work because they started it too late? Quite a shift from insisting it worked.

ginjawarrior said:

no it still fits my example of what you should expect from in numbers when you introduce a perfect quarantine (a tip for you: none of the quarantine in europe would be classed as perfect)

maybe you should explain with your big boy words exactly why the above numbers wouldnt fit italys numbers

Click to expand...

More nonsense. Now you have not only failed to address my primary argument, which stands, but you've acknowledged that the curve didn't flatten in the time you have insisted. I don't agree that there was an inflection at the 12 day mark as you say. That is when they peaked. With a mean incubation period of 5-6 days, it sould have inflected at 5-6 days. Even the 7 days you claimed in your bullshit hypothetical "what you should have seen". As you have demonstrated very clearly, cases peaked on the outlier 12th day of lockdowns. The curve does not actually inflect until long after and it certainly doesn't flatten until about the day the lockdowns were eased. That's not to say easing the lockdowns caused the flattening, but it demonstrates clearly that the lockdowns had no effect, really at all.

As I said, the lockdowns did not sufficiently suppress case growth to keep the total number of cases within the healthcare capacity.

You can't even prove they effected case growth at all.

ginjawarrior said:

WITHOUT THE LOCKDOWN EVEN MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED AT HOME ALONE>>>>

Click to expand...

This is also asinine. To insist this is to simply declare the very conclusion you've failed to argue. The apex was above the baseline. Cases grew beyond healthcare capacity. Now you're saying "yeah but they only failed somewhat." The whole point of the lockdowns was to prevent the healthcare system from being overloaded. It was overloaded. The only curve the lockdowns flattened was the damn economy.

So now it's been over a week since the lockdowns were eased, longer than the mean incubation period and cases have not subsequently spiked.

@abandonconflict do you still think the chinese numbers are nerfed down? Because, if it's true that tracking + testing is more effective than strict social isolation this could explain some increments of thier current status. I've seen pictures of their air traffic which is much more than over Europe, it has been increased from back their lockdown drastically. Let's see how their numbers will develop in the future but if they don't experience another rise it could mean lockdown isn't necessary, but I'm afraid the infringement on personal data in western countries will find resistance.

ginjawarrior said:

whilst normally i get all my life changing info from idiot geniuses on pot forums i feel at this time i will listen to the experts who can understand things like how an actual quartine works

Click to expand...

And yet you've accepted, with absolutely no evidence at all, that the measures which have flattened the economy and threatened global supply chains, are slowing the spread of a virus that is not only not in check, we don't even know by how much it is outpacing all efforts to forstall it.

Kassiopeija said:

@abandonconflict do you still think the chinese numbers are nerfed down? Because, if it's true that tracking + testing is more effective than strict social isolation this could explain some increments of thier current status. I've seen pictures of their air traffic which is much more than over Europe, it has been increased from back their lockdown drastically. Let's see how their numbers will develop in the future but if they don't experience another rise it could mean lockdown isn't necessary, but I'm afraid the infringement on personal data in western countries will find resistance.

Click to expand...

Yes, for one thing, it is demonstrable that detection rates everywhere are lacking. The German study which I will link again, gives excellent and methodical data. China, in particular since almost all of the antibody tests are defective.

Insufficient and delayed testing may explain why some European countries, such as Italy and Spain, are experiencing much higher casualty numbers (relative to reported confirmed cases) than Germany, which has detected an estimated 15.6% of infections compared to only 3.5% in Italy or 1.7% in Spain. Detection rates are even lower in the United States (1.6%) and the United Kingdom (1.2%) – two countries that have received widespread criticism from public health experts for their delayed response to the pandemic.
In sharp contrast to this, South Korea appears to have discovered almost half of all its SARS-CoV-2 infections. The authors estimate that on 31 March 2020, Germany had 460,000 infections. Based on the same method, they calculate that the United States had more than ten million, Spain more than five million, Italy around three million and the United Kingdom around two million infections. On the same day the Johns Hopkins University reported that globally there were less than 900,000 confirmed cases, meaning that the vast majority of infections were undetected.

Click to expand...

For another thing, yes they're almost certainly lying for political reasons about the data in the People's Republic of China.

ginjawarrior said:

no it still fits my example of what you should expect from in numbers when you introduce a perfect quarantine (a tip for you: none of the quarantine in europe would be classed as perfect)

maybe you should explain with your big boy words exactly why the above numbers wouldnt fit italys numbers

Click to expand...

It counters your argument. You've thus far hinged your rants about the notion that the curves inflected 12 days after lockdowns were implemented and that this was to be expected. You even made a hypothetical bullshit spew about this idea.

With this John's Hopkins dataset, I can simply reject your major premise. If the lockdowns had worked, the curve trajectories would have inflected at 5-6 days.

Instead, in the case of Italy, as you say yourself, they peaked, with an outlier record of new cases after twice that period. The outlying peak explains the inflection in the curve, which you say you see (I don't) and cases did not flatten until the lockdown was eased. No, I reject your premise, one would not expect the change you describe 12 days into a lockdown, perfect or otherwise.

whilst it is abundentley clear that you have got no intention of carrying on this discussion in good faith i will still ask you to stop with the strawmanning of arguements i have not made

abandonconflict said:

That's just nonsense, so now you're saying that the lockdown didn't work because they started it too late? Quite a shift from insisting it worked.

Click to expand...

"could have worked better" for those reading this thread honestly

More nonsense. Now you have not only failed to address my primary argument, which stands, but you've acknowledged that the curve didn't flatten in the time you have insisted. I don't agree that there was an inflection at the 12 day mark as you say. That is when they peaked. With a mean incubation period of 5-6 days, it sould have inflected at 5-6 days. Even the 7 days you claimed in your bullshit hypothetical "what you should have seen". As you have demonstrated very clearly, cases peaked on the outlier 12th day of lockdowns. The curve does not actually inflect until long after and it certainly doesn't flatten until about the day the lockdowns were eased. That's not to say easing the lockdowns caused the flattening, but it demonstrates clearly that the lockdowns had no effect, really at all.

Click to expand...

why should it inflect after 5-6 days? what about passing on infections within the household???

i think you are getting confused between the daily new cases and the current active cases graphs

daily new cases did indeed drop in the right time period for quarantine and then subsequent transmission within household

the total cases continued to rise because it can up to a month++ for the sick person to get out of hospitol meaning you'll get a backlog of patients building up

As I said, the lockdowns did not sufficiently suppress case growth to keep the total number of cases within the healthcare capacity.

Click to expand...

no just checked the thread title again. you clearly are saying that lockdown doesnt work at all

This is also asinine. To insist this is to simply declare the very conclusion you've failed to argue. The apex was above the baseline. Cases grew beyond healthcare capacity. Now you're saying "yeah but they only failed somewhat." The whole point of the lockdowns was to prevent the healthcare system from being overloaded. It was overloaded. The only curve the lockdowns flattened was the damn economy.

Click to expand...

you claim the lockdown did nothing. i claim italy lockdown did something but fell far short of perfection

other countries that jumped in earlier than italy did much much better

So now it's been over a week since the lockdowns were eased, longer than the mean incubation period and cases have not subsequently spiked.

Click to expand...

the onset of symptoms happens about a week into infection

its normally after about 7 days of infection that it goes downhill and people get ill enough that they need to goto hospital

so you got another 7 days.

not to mention its not a full easing of lockdown so we might not get a large spike maybe just a leveling off of new cases

abandonconflict said:

It counters your argument. You've thus far hinged your rants about the notion that the curves inflected 12 days after lockdowns were implemented and that this was to be expected. You even made a hypothetical bullshit spew about this idea.

With this John's Hopkins dataset, I can simply reject your major premise. If the lockdowns had worked, the curve trajectories would have inflected at 5-6 days.

Instead, in the case of Italy, as you say yourself, they peaked, with an outlier record of new cases after twice that period. The outlying peak explains the inflection in the curve, which you say you see (I don't) and cases did not flatten until the lockdown was eased. No, I reject your premise, one would not expect the change you describe 12 days into a lockdown, perfect or otherwise.

Click to expand...

repeat very carefully after me..

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE IN HOUSEHOLD INFECTIONS TO DEAL WITH AFTER THE START OF ANY QUARANTINE

ginjawarrior said:

whilst it is abundentley clear that you have got no intention of carrying on this discussion in good faith i will still ask you to stop with the strawmanning of arguements i have not made

Click to expand...

Ha!
Your first comment in this thread was nothing more than that. You took what I said completely out of the context of the study I cited in the post. You made it seem that I was fabicating numbers for my own benefit when in fact I was applying verified stats to a scientific model described in a peer-reviewed study. You did this by highlighting words like "if", "estimate" and "extrapolate" and then actually flat out said I pulled shit out of my ass. It was clear that I was applying verified stats to a scientific model. You set that tone.

I did not strawman at all. You went from insisting the lockdowns worked to explaining why they didn't. That is all that can be drawn from the very words you composed. You're the one backtracking and you don't even have the courtesy to lose the debate with humility.

So to be clear, your position has shifted from "they worked" to "they helped".

ginjawarrior said:

you claim the lockdown did nothing. i claim italy lockdown did something but fell far short of perfection

Click to expand...

You could have left all the rest of the condescention out and just said this. You'd still be wrong but at east you wouldn't also be a cunt.

I said:

the very reason for the lockdowns in the first place, which was to reduce the fatality rate by keeping the number of new cases (curve apex) below the threshold (healthcare capacity) which particularly in Italy, it did not.

Click to expand...

As I said, the lockdowns did not sufficiently suppress case growth to keep the total number of cases within the healthcare capacity.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

repeat very carefully after me..

Click to expand...

You're making excuses and they sound exactly like my premises.

@ginjawarrior


Now to rebut your claim that the lockdowns help:

You can't PROVE they did fuck-all.

They smash the economy.

Deaths from all non-covid19 causes are way up.

Except traffic accidents.

abandonconflict said:

Ha!
Your first comment in this thread was nothing more than that. You took what I said completely out of the context of the study I cited in the post. You made it seem that I was fabicating numbers for my own benefit when in fact I was applying verified stats to a scientific model described in a peer-reviewed study. You did this by highlighting words like "if", "estimate" and "extrapolate" and then actually flat out said I pulled shit out of my ass. It was clear that I was applying verified stats to a scientific model. You set that tone.

I did not strawman at all. You went from insisting the lockdowns worked to explaining why they didn't. That is all that can be drawn from the very words you composed. You're the one backtracking and you don't even have the courtesy to lose the debate with humility.

Click to expand...

please do go ahead and quote that chain.wont be hard i havent posted many messages

maybe even the process of reading through them you might actual read them properly this time.

So to be clear, your position has shifted from "they worked" to "they helped".

Click to expand...

is this in the context of lockdowns in general or italy?