Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118617692#Comment_118617692

You have to look towards Bergamo, Italy and Spain in the early days to see what unabated spread would have looked like, vaccines changed the picture entirely.

There is a lot of revisionism going on.

walus, pretty much all your points were refuted and you've ran to other topics, that's more telling than anything else.

I mean this is an entirely vacuous sentence that says precisely nothing that you made in response to a point by point refutation of everything you tried to say:

I've not seen this amount of rubbish since the last time RTE news was on in my house. And that was Nov 2020.

I guess critical thinking is also missing from those that parrot the "JH" report:

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19? (forbes.com)

Yeah, the University itself didn’t write the paper, because buildings can’t type on laptops without crushing them. Heck, the paper even stated that, “views expressed in each working paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions that the authors are affiliated with.” Therefore, if folks really want to mention Johns Hopkins, they should instead be referring to this working paper as being “from a professor at Johns Hopkins University,”

Moreover, Maher didn’t clarify that the three authors were economists rather than medical, epidemiology, or public health experts.

Claims that a “Johns Hopkins study” showed lockdowns are ineffective at reducing COVID-19 mortality are based on a working paper with questionable methods - Health Feedback

But if we were to go with the authors’ initial definition of a lockdown, which is the application of any NPI, then “the reality is that virtually all research shows a (short-term) mortality benefit from at least some restrictions,” concluded Meyerowitz-Katz.

In fact, the working paper itself demonstrated this in their review:

So, eh, yea, medical paper not from John Hopkins (who've had their names dragged through the mud by it), written by economists, who, true to being economists, came up with multiple different conclusions from the same sets of data.

In addition, Meyerowitz-Katz noted the paper’s anomalous results which were at odds with the studies that made up their meta-analysis. 

walus

Astro, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove there.

There are a number of other publications that failed to find any tangible benefits of lockdowns.

https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=false - “I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development. …The results suggest that stricter lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33400268/ - “we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.”

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118618065#Comment_118618065

The first is another analysis by economists (which only looks at data up to mid-2020 when most countries had a spike then a drop, except for countries like Sweden of course).

The second one is saying that lesser restrictions may have worked but doesn't really have any conclusions beyond accepting that restrictions made a difference. In the fullness of time, we will probably find a more effective way to have dealt with SARS-COV2, unfortunately the next disease (hopefully a hundred years away) will have different characteristics.

Are you going out trying to find random papers to try and back up this narrative? raind did a pretty good job of refuting all your points and you've presented nothing that changes it, but you're acting to the contrary.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118617864#Comment_118617864

”let’s just drop in ‘orders of magnitude’ in place of ‘times’ and pretend that because it’s not several ‘orders of magnitude’ it’s nothing in the face of evidence of 20x mortality”

Laughable

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118618273#Comment_118618273

As far as I’m concerned the onus is on raind to present evidence that refutes what I said in my post. He is yet to produce that and has proven nothing so far. Other than maybe that he does not have a clue what ‘several orders of magnitude greater’ means.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118618583#Comment_118618583

What do you define several as? Even "an" order of magnitude worse than flu for a highly transmissible disease is a pretty sh*tty situation to be in. "Several" would have most of the world already dead.

But this seems to be your latest tangent to distract from previous nonsense.

Penfailed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118618583#Comment_118618583

As far as I'm concerned, you spouted a load of nonsense and are focusing on one single point rather than admit that it was mostly (all) nonsense.

CalamariFritti

If you criticise walus and the JH study you need to remain fair.

The idea of posters that lockdowns saved many many lives is first of all an emotional one. Like OMG Bergamo! Where the media sold the idea that the army was hauling coffins by the thousands around which was nonsense and the doctors were intubating people for whom that procedure alone was enough to kill them off.

Because whether you agree with the JH numbers or not there certainly is no proof out there that lockdowns and stringent measures did save many lives. Only the word of the politicians and health officials who - guess what - prescribed those very lockdowns. And you must admit they hardly gonna make a case otherwise in hindsight. Way too much is and was at stake economically, psychologically, politically, socially so they'll remain married to that idea no matter what.

Like I said previously the only way available to us to get any idea is to look at control groups; countries that did not apply such stringent measures. And the fact remains that the outcome there didnt differ much or at all from countries with the most stringent measures. Some countries with no or less measures did worse than some countries with them and some did better than many countries with even the most stringent ones. Its a more or less random splattering, suggesting that other factors like demographics and general population health are much much more at play.

In Europe we only have Sweden and Belarus to look at AFAIK and I can't see much of a difference between their outcomes and for example ours or many others in Europe. People are very unhappy about Sweden for that very reason, for them providing a control group. And so they come out with all sorts of statistical gymnastics to prove they had x number of more deaths than others.

I have no intention of repeating the silly Sweden debate here again, but Sweden certainly did not have tens or hundreds of thousand of deaths. And if you carefully observe their age pyramid you will find they didnt have more than many many others including ourselves at all.

So if we strip away the emotional stuff what remains is maybe the idea that lockdowns were the prudent choice but that's about all there is. And if we take the aforementioned economical, psychological, political and social fallout into account then the onus of proof that lockdowns did indeed save many many lives and was all worth it is IMHO certainly on those who imposed lockdowns not on those who question them. But of course that will never happen.

Croohur1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118617864#Comment_118617864

😂😂😂Several would usually mean at least three. Which is a thousand times the usual rate of flu. That's what you meant? Really? Thats why you have been arguing with people, because they fail to understand that Covid is not 1000x more fatal than the flu? Oh that is delightful

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619442#Comment_118619442

I have been accused of lying, and am yet to see a proof of that. It seems that it is ok for people to accuse others of lying without providing any evidence to support that. That is not ok. And that is all I’m arguing - these are not lies, these are facts. Mortality rate is only one of the examples that I decided to argue on as a matter of principle.

They are already looking to take out death with covid numbers from the death toll and count only those who truly died of covid. In UK reckon that the actual dearth toll will be around 12% of the total number (158k I think it is right now, so about 19k). The narrative that covid has been very deadly will fall apart shortly too.

Croohur1

Walus, you asked for up to date scientific proof that Covid was more deadly than the flu. I provided data that was just released showing that it started off being twenty times more deadly. You then say, well actually I was talking about several orders of magnitude deadly, the mathematical description of the the term, so I'm still right.

So, you were arguing with people that Covid wasn't 1000x more deadly. Which everyone knows. So you are claiming that people are calling you a liar because you keep telling everyone that Covid isn't 1000x more deadly than the flu. I think you were just caught out. You asked for proof, you got it, and then you started claiming you were using a phrase in a completely different way than how you and everyone else had been using it. Maybe not lying, certainly disengenous.

What you have been claiming doesn't make sense, it makes you sound like a lunatic shouting into the wind at the top of the mountain. "See, I was right all along, it was never orders of magnitude more deadly, why does no one believe me, I don't understand".

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619386#Comment_118619386

The negative health and economic implications of lockdowns already are coming up to the surface:

• missed cancer treatments and diagnosis (millions of cancer cases went undetected globally, in US over 1m new cases were not detected in 2020)
• physical abuse cases (children an women)
• deferred treatment of many other diseases
• Organ transplants were down 70-85%
• Almost 100 m people where thrown into an extreme poverty in 2020 because of lockdowns of Western Europe and US
• 30m million people in India from middle class were thrown under the poverty line
• Bangladesh lost $3Bn of revenue and 4.1m families their income due to order's cancelation
• For roughly 370m kids around the world shutting down schools meant not getting proper food as schools meals were not available (up to 1.5B kids were shut out of education as some stage during pandemic)

Thee list of collateral damage to health and economy from lockdowns is virtually endless. The abundance of caution has its price to pay in monetary terms as well as lives as economic hardship means deaths. The lockdowns most likely caused or will cause more deaths than they have saved.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619599#Comment_118619599

I did not ask for a proof that covid is more deadly than flu. Stop twisting my words. I'm very well aware of IFR numbers for both diseases. Once again I have been accused of lying openly here without any proof provided.

early on in the pandemic the so called experts were claiming exactly what i said that covid was several orders of magnitude more deadly than flu. That is the fact. I think those 'experts' were predicting 200k dead in Ireland alone. Every country had its own 'expert' blowing the 'we are all going to die' trumpet and Ireland was no different. I stand by my words and claim yet again (as per my previous post) that:

• Fatality rate of covid is much higher than the flu by several orders of magnitude

Has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue. Those experts have been proven time and time again to be grossly wrong. It is a fact.

If raind and others here claim that what i say is a lie, I want to see evidence that covid is several orders of magnitude more deadly than flu and that it shows in the actual death toll. If they cannot produce the evidence, apologies should be due. Period.

Croohur1

If that is what you genuinely thought, then you have wasted many countless hours tapping away on your keyboard. Trying to convince people of something they didn't believe themselves. Absolutely nuts.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619740#Comment_118619740

Countless hours? Nothing more than 20 minutes. Stop dramatizing.

Accusation of lying is very inappropriate in my book especially when not supported by any evidence.

Croohur1

You have just said

"I did not ask for a proof that covid is more deadly than flu."

Yesterday you said :

"Can you please quote IFR numbers to support what you say that the fatality rate of covid is several orders of magnitude greater than flu?"

You wrote that yesterday. Dear God man, please stop!

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619756#Comment_118619756

it is not the same thing, how can you not see that? I know that covid is more deadly than flu The question was to establish by how much. That is all.

Croohur1

Right. I'll leave it there. I don't think I have seen anyone so thoroughly self own themselves so quickly. Good luck.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619787#Comment_118619787

And I never imagined that I would have to break all this down and explain like to a 5 year old. Good luck to you too.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619787#Comment_118619787

You’re just not understanding what he’s saying.

It’s not walus that’s looking silly in this particular exchange, and I don’t know if it’s because you’re being disingenuous or you really actually don’t understand.

And for the vaccine hounds: it doesn't matter if you are more likely to get myocarditis from covid than from a vaccine (though this is far from true in young men) since the mRNA injectables don't stop you getting Covid. So the effect is cumulative, not either-or.

Croohur1

"Show me the evidence."

Shows evidence.

"I never said show me the evidence."

Shows evidence that he did.

"You don't understand me."

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619937#Comment_118619937

Is it just that you don't understand what an order of magnitude is, perhaps? Because this thing where you're being very amused and impressed with yourself while the other guy is right is weird, not gonna lie.

Croohur1

That's it. You got me. He was always talking about several orders of magnitude, 1000x the death rate of flu. And no one else was. Because that would have been utterly sane and normal and obvious. I stand corrected. Makes perfect sense to argue about that, I mean it's really something everyone just assumed. Dearie me.

MilkyToast

I mean it is literally what you quoted when you were trying to prove your point:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619756#Comment_118619756

Croohur1

Thanks. You're starting to get it.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619787#Comment_118619787

walus seems to be making a fool of themselves in one area then quickly pivoting to making a fool of themselves in a different area.

It's fine to have an opinion on something and present it as such, it's not fine to present it as fact and science when it's clearly not.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619934#Comment_118619934

Explain this "mRNA effect", mRNA and NLC are excreted from the body within days of injection, there is no cumulative effect there (there was some early studies in mice that aren't really representative of how NLC are used today, thanks to the results of that study funnily enough, because that's how scientific knowledge is advanced).

Ten of Swords

Mod - can we get back on topic and discuss things direcetly related to covid restrictions please

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118620526#Comment_118620526

Astro, again careful with the name calling.

You don't get it either, do you?

Let me break this down for you too. Hopefully for the last time. I made a series of statements that at the beginning of the pandemic were considered facts only to be later debunked and proven to be untrue. I have been accused of lying when I made those statements. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement that:

a) covid is several orders of magnitude more deadly than flu (a statement originally promoted by the likes of McConkey and Co.) is untrue

b) lockdowns were to stop, eliminate or at the very least control the virus - is also not true, lockdowns failed and I provided 3 different publications that support this, and could easily find a lot more if I wanted.

I call it a fair argumentation especially against something as weak as raind's one liners and an accusation of 'incessant lying'. And your claim that he did "pretty good job of refuting all" my points, is laughable. Period.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118620544#Comment_118620544

Give over.