 |
Sad. Many thousands of small businesses are shut down never to reopen.Quote:
People, businesses, and communities were destroyed because some public health “experts” were certain this was needed to save lives. They saved no lives but made people miserable and poorer in return for nothing.
From the link:
Then;Quote:
At the U.S. state-level, excess mortality increases in the immediate weeks following SIP introduction and then trends below zero following 20 weeks of SIP implementation.
So which is it?Quote:
We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of SIP policies based on pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.
In the first case, excess mortality is to be expected after signs of the virus spreading cause a lockdown - here called a "SIP" - shelter-in-place. An odd use of a term usually reserved for other phenomena. Why not use the common term "lockdown"?
The areas that followed the expert's advice were and are showing a much lower infection rate than areas that didn't.Quote:
People, businesses, and communities were destroyed because some public health “experts” were certain this was needed to save lives.
They significantly reduced the numbers getting Covid-19 leading to hospitalization and death. They did this by wearing masks, social distancing, and vaccination. The lockdowns were to keep people from gathering in groups to prevent/slow down infection.Quote:
They saved no lives but made people miserable and poorer in return for nothing.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented social distancing and SIP policies. These policies are designed to slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting physical interaction. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021). We used data from 43 countries and all U.S. states and find the introduction of SIP policies did not lead to reductions in excess deaths. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality. However, total mortality can also suffer from measurement error. For example, there could be a lag in registering deaths and upward revision of mortality data is common in many countries. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources. Second, enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects—although the country by country and state by state event studies suggest that the findings were qualitatively similar other than for a few island countries and Hawaii. For this reason, we emphasize that our results should be interpreted using an intent-to-treat framework. We do not estimate the effect of “ideal” SIP policies or of improved compliance with SIP policies, but rather evaluate the “real world” impact of SIP 16policies that were implemented. Third, it is possible that SIP policies were implemented with other policies related to the pandemic and we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies. Finally, the counterfactual trajectory of the pandemic in the absence of SIP policies is difficult to estimate and might vary across countries and states, which could bias estimates.However, we do not find differences in the impact of SIP policies based on the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic when policies were implemented. Nonetheless, the implementation of SIP policies does not appear to have met the aim of reducing excess mortality. There are several potential explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that SIP policies do not slow COVID-19 transmission. As discussed earlier, prior studies find only a modest effect of SIP policies on mobility. A potential reason for the modest impact on mobility may be that individuals change behavior to avoid COVID-19 risk even in the absence of SIP policies. It is also unclear whether modest reductions in mobility could slow the spread of an airborne pathogen. Second, it is possible that SIP policies increased deaths of despair due to economic and social isolation effects of SIP policies. Recent estimates in the U.S between March and August 2020 show that drug overdoses, homicides, and unintentional injuries increased in 2020, while suicides declined (Faust et al. 2021). Third, existing studies suggest that SIP policies led to a reduction in non-COVID-19 health care, which might have contributed to an increase in non-COVID-19 deaths (Cantor et al. 2020; Ziedan, Simon, and Wing 2020). For example, one study in the United Kingdom predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Maringe et al. 2020). In light of this evidence, continued reliance on SIP policies to slow COVID-19 transmission may not be optimal. Instead, the best policy response may be pharmaceutical interventions in the 17form of vaccinations and therapeutics when they become available. Early evidence suggests that initial vaccination efforts have led to large reductions in COVID-19 incidence (Christie 2021; X. Chen et al. 2021; Haas et al. 2021). Policy efforts to promote vaccination are thus likely to have large positive impacts.
w28930.pdf (nber.org)
I agree that shutdown policies have destroyed businesses. In my country, infection rates have been incredibly low despite no vaccines for twelve months, so maybe shutdown did something, but I think border closures have done more to stop the spread since most cases have been travellers
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The facts on the ground dispute this entire study. It is a fact that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are effective.
Yes, Tom. How dare you introduce a study that merely used, "data from 43 countries and all U.S. states". Did they use all of those "facts on the ground" that are evidently so important?
Up yours, jack - why don't you mind your own business and stop stalking me?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Agreed. We must read the "fine print" in this report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
1. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021)
2. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality.
3. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources.
4. ...enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects....
5. ...we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies.
And so on....
Quote:
from Athos
The facts on the ground dispute this entire study. It is a fact that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Nice to have someone who can read and analyze. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who can't.
I was just reading the health column in one of our morning newspapers. Because the Delta variant has now appeared in all 50 US states -- and we don't know its effect, even fully vaccinated people are encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
And yet another well-reasoned, rational response.Quote:
Up yours, jack - why don't you mind your own business and stop stalking me?
Poor Athos. Thankfully (for you), WG seems to adore you and would never raise her voice about your crude response.
Yeah. Shame it wasn't you. At any rate, WG managed to just breeze by this.Quote:
Nice to have someone who can read and analyze
" In light of this evidence, continued reliance on SIP policies to slow COVID-19 transmission may not be optimal. Instead, the best policy response may be pharmaceutical interventions in the 17form of vaccinations and therapeutics when they become available. Early evidence suggests that initial vaccination efforts have led to large reductions in COVID-19 incidence (Christie 2021; X. Chen et al. 2021; Haas et al. 2021). Policy efforts to promote vaccination are thus likely to have large positive impacts."
And you breezed by this that I said in that same post:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"[Because of the Delta variant] even fully vaccinated people are encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes."
What makes you think I "breezed" by it? I didn't comment on it since it was not a part of the article in question, but I did see it. I actually have no problem with masks. I'll wear one when I'm told to. I can even social distance if need be. The point of the article was lockdowns, identified in the article as shelter in place (SIP).
Now be honest. Don't you think Athos's response to me was really crude? Stand up and be a (wo)man. Wasn't it clearly a crude comment??
Yes but I can understand why you attract such a response
Me too. It's been well reported that some areas and regions are less vaccinated than others and that just makes the potential for a spike in infections and transmissions more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Screw you, you moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Stick around, I'll show you crude. Arse-hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's unanimous.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
a far cry from a mandated lockdown.Quote:
encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.
And the Delta variant is largely an unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Oh calm down, Athos. Not good to get the ole blood pressure up so high. You'll come up with some answers sooner or later.Quote:
Screw you, you moron.
Exactly. One is relatively painless while the whole SIP thing is economically devastating.Quote:
encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.
a far cry from a mandated lockdown.
Ok back to the original thread. Today the Australian government announced the way forward out of the covid crisis and at the same time reduced the arrivals cap from overseas. It is unsaid but clear they understand this crisis is not of our making but it is a crisis to be solved by reducing exposure to the source until there is a high level of vaccination. Meanwhile lockdown is to be a last resort
https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...101808d3f95ae6
As I understand it you are 8% vaccinated now. What seems to be the holdup? Vaccine supply, maybe?
Perhaps a strong push to get the over 40 crowd vaccinated would work? The under 40's don't have nearly the risk.
Yes vaccine supply is one problem we are at the end of the que as we put reliance on local supply of AstraZeneca and there are problems with blood clots, also getting manufacture takes time. As I explained earlier; an Australian developed vaccine gave false positive for HIV and was abandoned so forcing us to look to overseas manufacture. We have high numbers in the older population but the young considered themselves bullet proof until delta came along. Most of our cases were from travellers who were quarantined and so very low community transmission. the vaccine rollout concentrated on older people particularly those in aged care as these were the most vulnerable and responsible for most deaths. Personally I have had my first shot of AstraZeneca. I understand that last week there were 1 million vaccinations so the target is everyone vaccinated by the end of the yearQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You can take my answers and choke on them, jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Come on, calm down now, we have more important things to talk about. You don't need to respond to himQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Seek treatment. Your irrational anger is a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I learned you were making snide smarmy remarks to my posts after I was ignoring you. You are a sniveling coward. Afraid to make them to my face, now you are getting a taste of your own medicine.
Enjoy it, creep.
Just an annoying little sound who big and brave from a distance.
No, that's your mo - I won't take it away from you. This "little sound" apparently is getting loud in your ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nah. Just a mosquito. I know your kind. Big and brave when hundreds of miles away.
At any rate, why not get back to a serious discussion.
Getting too hot for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nah. Not even close.
Oh, yes, you're starting to feel a bit hot under the collar. Not admitting it won't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Fraid not.
In case you missed it ----------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
This is the clown who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.
You are still lying about that, Mr. Aquinas?
Well, this has become silly. I regret having allowed myself to be dragged down to your level. Fire your lies away. Enjoy, I guess.
You don't need much dragging down - you're already there as witnessed belowQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
..................
Quote:
Jlisenbe is the clown who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.
I've lived in the basement with you long enough. Looking at these posts, I can scarcely believe I've allowed myself to be dragged down to this level, a mistake for which I am completely at fault. So I'll just offer my apologies for any way in which I have been offensive. I will continue to call you out when you lie, and I will continue to confront false statements you might happen to make. I will also encourage you to do the same with me, but I will do so in a civil manner. How you behave is up to you.
As to the quote of YOURS that you keep posting, I'm pretty sure everyone here sees it for what it is. "I know JL lied because I've quoted Athos to prove it." What???
Ha ha - LOL. This part is rich. "I apologize, etc., etc., and I will continue to call you out when you lie". Ya can't make stuff up like that. Priceless!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This part is almost as good - "I will continue to confront false statements ....... in a civil manner.....". The head-slapping part here is that Jl has been uncivil and mean-spirited and nasty since the day he arrived. Now that he's in the hot seat, he's all apologetic.
How you behave is your problem. I only control myself. But if I become uncivil, then by all means call me out on it. Just be prepared to be specific. You do have the Aquinas history behind you, so I tend to not trust your allegations.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 AM. |