The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Age Infection Survival Rate

0-19 99.9973%
20-29 99.986%
30-39 99.969%
40-49 99.918%
50-59 99.73%
60-69 99.41%
70+ 97.6% (non-inst.)
70+ 94.5% (all)

Dr. John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, and Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University.

He was labeled "one of the most influential scientists alive" by The Atlantic and is one of the top cited scientist in the world averaging >6,000 new citations per month.

Since COVID-19 began, Dr. Ioannidis has argued that lockdowns cause more deaths and do not save lives.

IS BEATING A DEAD HORSE THE PROPER APPROACH?


There was never a national lockdown, so johnforbes' dishonest premise is moot.

There were brief, isolated lockdowns in some areas in 2020 to keep the health care system from collapsing. They worked.

There haven't been any lockdowns in over a year, so again, johnny's point is moot.

A few isolated lockdowns may be needed again to save the health care system from collapse again if things continue to get worse in the exponential manner that is occurring today.

Trust me, towns left without hospitals and emergent care facilities(as is happening right now around America) will absolutely (not theoretically) cause more deaths.

First, understand the nature of the discussion.

It seems likely that some amount of lockdown might have helped limit contagion. However, in an era of international jet travel, did that happen here?

Next, obviously there was no consistent national policy, so some states did lockdowns, and looking at those which did or did not, it is pretty difficult to say that there is much empirical evidence that lockdowns worked.

Following the science means being curious about such matters, not just accepting what hack politicians with law degrees say about the science.

But there IS some evidence that lockdowns reduced, not increased, mortality, johnny.

Here's just one case:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 7/fulltext

When people say "Follow the Science," that has to mean follow science -- not leftist politics.

Couldn't something more intelligent have been done?

Didn't closing so many things merely enable spread from central places like grocery stores and the big box retailers who had powerful lobbyists to keep them open?

"When people say "Follow the Science," that has to mean follow science -- not leftist politics."-johnflubs

That's why I posted some science for you, dimwit. It showed a lockdown that not only worked, but actually decreased mortality. You really should follow the science.


"Couldn't something more intelligent have been done?"-johnfoibles

No, dimwit, New Zealand has been more successful against COVID than any other country in the world. Criminy, how much smarter than that can you get, dummy?


"Didn't closing so many things merely enable spread from central places like grocery stores and the big box retailers who had powerful lobbyists to keep them open?"-johnflubs

You mean you would rather have broad-based, untraceable spread from everywhere instead of limiting the exposure?

Geezus, johnny, you really are a partisan hack, suggesting that everyone spreading COVID without restriction is better than limiting opportunities for spreading COVID.

You really need to learn the basics about how epidemics spread.

Costs have to be weighed against benefits.

Hippocrates, writing about epidemics, said "First do no harm."

America first harmed the economy, and at least arguably concentrated the sources of spread such as grocery stores and the big box stories which remained open because they had pro lobbyists working in DC.

Science requires looking at the actual evidence -- not the political spin for senile Joe.

johnny, advocating for closing grocery stores and starving people is not a tenable position if you want to follow the science, dummy.

It has been scientifically proven many times that people need to eat to live.

Remember, fist do no harm. And that means don't starve people to death while taking prudent steps to stop a pandemic, such as lockdowns to prevent unnecessary spread of the virus when needed.

Clown's brain needs more oxygen to function.

Nobody suggested that the global popultion did not need foot to survive.

The question was whether locking down small stores, and placing a focus on big ones, did more harm than good.

johnny, virtually no one in America shops at "small" food stores, and you know it. They don't really exist any more.

Closing stores not critical to survival was necessary. Leaving the "big box" stores open didn't change anything as far as exposure. People were already shopping there in large numbers. But people could wear masks there and keep distant there. It's in the name-- "big" box stores.

So there was no increased spread because of them, but there was much less spread due to briefly closing millions of death traps like indoor dining at restaurants where people are packed together in small spaces without masks.

You are pretending the shutdowns concentrated people. They didn't. You made it up.

Or should I say "Your handlers made it up" for you.

These are not inherently political questions, and ideally they should all have been medical.

I agree with Clown that most, but not all, grocery shopping is now done in big stores.

The same is true of Home Depot and Lowe's versus the historical example of many small hardware stores.

But the fact remains that there are many small food and hardware stores, and it remains true that lockdowns did focus and concentrate human activity which a smart medical person would not want to happen during a pandemic.

Also, there were enormously dumb decisions such as closing beaches and parks where fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and distance would have been available.

Power tends to corrupt, as Acton said, and that happened with lockdowns.

"...it remains true that lockdowns did focus and concentrate human activity which a smart medical person would not want to happen during a pandemic."-johnfibs

No, it DOESN'T "remain true", dummy. There is no evidence whatsoever that the brief lockdowns "concentrated human activity" at all. A continued constant level of activity is not a "concentrated" level of human activity. It's just the SAME activity as before. You made it up.

None of the several Home Depots I regularly shop at had any more cars in the lot or shoppers in the aisles during the lockdowns. I know. I was there. Some even had fewer cars in the lots during the lockdowns. You made it up.

But it actually DOES remain true that closing superspreader venues like bars, restaurant indoor dining, nightclubs, concerts, etc. stopped a LOT of transmission of the virus and kept our hospitals open.

Of course, the tack of leaving open big box stores like Sam's and Lowe's and Home Depot and the big grocery chains did indeed focus and concentrate human activity.

It could easily be argued that that helped spread covid.

Open your mind and ponder the science.

"Of course, the tack of leaving open big box stores like Sam's and Lowe's and Home Depot and the big grocery chains did indeed focus and concentrate human activity."-johnfibs

Of course, the tack of leaving open big box stores and big grocery chains indeed did not focus and concentrate human activity. The people shopping there were the same people who shopped there before the shutdowns. The difference is, this time they were masked and distanced and used hand sanitizer.


"It could easily be argued that that helped spread covid."-johnfibs

No, it couldn't. You would need actual facts and evidence to argue that, but you don't have any to support your purely non-scientific, partisan position.

Open your mind and ponder the science instead of your political partisanship, dummy.

It is undeniable that any approach which funnels people to the same places would spread more covid.

Lockdowns had that unfortunate side-effect.

Big box stores like Walmart and Sam's and Lowe's and Home Depot had the DC lobbyists to remain open.

johnny, you are simply arguing a bunch of things that aren't true.

NO food store, large or small, was closed.

No lumber yard, large or small, was closed.

People who shopped at small boutique clothing stores didn't suddenly decide to shop for clothes at Walmart because their favorite stores were closed. They stayed home and went online.

Closing superspreader bars, nightclubs, indoor dining, indoor church services, indoor concerts, etc. didn't "funnel" people to Home Depot to drink , praise God, listen to Muzac, or pick up girls. You're making it up. (Which of your handlers came up with that idiotic word "funnel" to get you to get your panties in a bunch over?)

No one was "funneled" anywhere. If you owned any Amazon stock, you would know this already.
If you shopped at Home Depot you would know this already. (Some were like ghost towns during the brief shut down.)



"Big box stores like Walmart and Sam's and Lowe's and Home Depot had the DC lobbyists to remain open."-johnfoibles

It would be stupid to shut down essential businesses like food stores and building/home maintenance. You didn't need lobbyists in D.C. to do that when there was no national shutdown, dummy. Everything was done by states.

Do you see how your handlers are jerking you around on this one? "DC lobbyists"--criminy...you'll regurgitate ANYTHING.

What you've said is simply untrue.

Small restaurants and bars and all sorts of other food service establishments were indeed closed via order.

Lobbyists in DC worked well to allow big box stores like Walmat to remain open, and the same was true for Lowe's and Home Depot and all sorts of other business endeavors.

The net effect was to channel human activity into ways that, at least arguably, enhanced the likelihood of covid transmission.

Meanwhile, healthy places like beaches and parks were closed with ZERO science to support that.

"What you've said is simply untrue.
Small restaurants and bars and all sorts of other food service establishments were indeed closed via order."-johnfibs

Since that is exactly what I said, and you agree, how could what I said be untrue, dimwit?

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that closing those superspreader venues somehow "funneled" people into grocery stores, as if those people only ate at restaurants all the time and didn't switch to take out instead.

But you can't, because it didn't. People switched to take out, and virtually everyone already shops at food stores, none of which were closed down. No one was "funneled" anywhere except into drive thrus at McDonalds, dummy.


"Lobbyists in DC worked well to allow big box stores like Walmat to remain open,..."-johnfibs

Geezus, dimwit, Walmart is one of the largest grocery retailers in the country. They didn't need "lobbyists in DC" to stay open. They were always going to stay open because people need to eat. Why do you persist in repeating that obvious lie? Even sillydummy knows it's a lie.


"... and the same was true for Lowe's and Home Depot and all sorts of other business endeavors."-johnfibs

Apparently johnny is oblivious to the fact that you can't live in a dwelling with burst pipes or leaking roofs. DC lobbyists had nothing to do with states allowing those vendors to stay open, just as they had nothing to do with allowing small hardware/lumber yards to stay open.

No food stores, large or small, were closed, so obviously no consumers were "funneled" into large food retailers. That's just where 99% of Americans already shop. The rest just switched to take out. johnfibs simply made it up.

I agree with Mr. Forbes for a number of reasons, not the least of which are his undeniale charm, wit, wisdom, and amiable demeanor.

^^^^See? When johnfibs knows he's caught lying without any evidence, he resorts to his vaudeville soft shoe routine and shuffles off the stage before the hook comes out.

It is undeniably true that small restaurants and bars and all sorts of other food service establishments were indeed closed via executive order.

Lobbyists in DC worked well to allow big box stores like Walmat to remain open, and the same was true for Lowe's and Home Depot and all sorts of other business endeavors.

The net effect was to channel human activity into ways that, at least arguably, enhanced the likelihood of covid transmission.

Meanwhile, healthy places like beaches and parks were closed with ZERO science to support that.

johnforbes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:08 am Age Infection Survival Rate

0-19 99.9973%
20-29 99.986%
30-39 99.969%
40-49 99.918%
50-59 99.73%
60-69 99.41%
70+ 97.6% (non-inst.)
70+ 94.5% (all)

Dr. John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, and Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University.

He was labeled "one of the most influential scientists alive" by The Atlantic and is one of the top cited scientist in the world averaging >6,000 new citations per month.

Since COVID-19 began, Dr. Ioannidis has argued that lockdowns cause more deaths and do not save lives.

That ironically was actually a highly flawed and bogus study for many reasons.

Refer to Texass ,Florida and those other red states to see how their cavalier attitude to mask wearing and vaccinations is working out for them

Refer to Sweden, which is doing no worse over time than lockdown areas.

QED.

Lockdowns probably at vast cost merely slowed herd immunity, but I will follow the science and await further data.

It is undeniably true that small restaurants and bars and all sorts of other food service establishments indeed remain open due to a lack of executive order. Schools have also been opened.

The net effect is to allow human activity to continue without restrictions which inarguably enhanced the likelihood of covid transmission as demonstrated by failure of various hospital systems around the country.

Idaho has enacted "Crisis Standards" and hospitals are now rationing care, which means many will not receive some medical treatments in favor of those considered more likely to survive. Texas has closed some emergency rooms to new cases because they have no place to put patients, some waiting up to 12 hours to get a bed. The national shortage of nurses is making providing proper medical care impossible. Louisiana and Florida hospitals are overwhelmed with more cases than they can handle. 1,400 schools were closed down after just a week because of COVID outbreaks among staff and children. North Dakota infections have reached the highest level ever in the pandemic despite vaccine availability. South Dakota is flying patients out of state because they have no more capacity left to treat them. And things are still getting worse.

Were lockdowns the proper approach?

ABSOLUTELY.

"Refer to Sweden, which is doing no worse over time than lockdown areas."-johnfibs

This is great news---except for the fact that Sweden is doing MUCH WORSE than neighboring "lockdown areas"


"Overall, Sweden’s COVID-19 death rate of 142.5 per 100,000 population is well above neighbors Denmark (43.89), Finland (17.84), Norway (15.03) and Iceland (8.3), according to Johns Hopkins University.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ores-othe/



"A year and a half after Sweden decided not to lock down, its COVID-19 death rate is up to 10 times higher than its neighbors"

"It now has up to 10 times as many COVID-19 deaths per capita as its Nordic neighbors.
Sweden also didn't fare much better economically, suggesting its gamble didn't pay off."
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden- ... ate-2021-8



"Refer to Sweden, which is doing no worse over time than lockdown areas."-johnfibs

johnforbes is a lying partisan sack of shit.

QED.

But that was an inaccurate summary.

Look at the costs versus the benefits.

In America, for example, billions were spent on stimulus in the wake of lockdowns, and America didn't have that money to spend.

Kids lost 2 years of schooling, and child psychologists will be working for decades on the damage.

The economic damage alone was shocking.

See the difference between my post and yours, johnny?

Mine contains facts. Yours contains nothing but your worthless unsupported opinions.

When you start to produce some evidence to support your idiotic opinions, then maybe someone will pay attention to you.

Until then, just go away. Your constant droning of regurgitated partisan bullshit is boring.

Until we met, on a gray morning in April of 1938, Clowntoker had never heard of a single famous philosopher or physicist or economist or author.

Several decades were spent attempting to repair the yawning gaps in Clown's educational background in order to commence fruitful dialogue.

Alas, Clownswisher has merely descended into fruity discourse related to the bawdy baths of fetid Frisco.

And your humorless and simpleminded attempts at wit are even MORE boring.

I'm just being realistic about the history of this fine -- nay, peerless -- forum.

Until we met, on a gray morning in April of 1938, Clowntoker had never heard of a single famous philosopher or physicist or economist or author.

Several decades were spent attempting to repair the yawning gaps in Clown's educational background in order to commence fruitful dialogue.

Alas, Clownswisher has merely descended into fruity discourse related to the bawdy baths of fetid Frisco.

Johnnie....

What did I tell you about the dumb jokes.....over and over again.

If you want to come up with some bullshit. At least take the time to make it good and believable bullshit. And you don't even bother to do either.

I'm thinking that nothing can ever be so awful that Conservatives can't make it worse. If all of those assholes would have been vaccinated by now then we would have been out of this God forsaken pandemic. But conservatives keep on finding new and innovative ways to fuck shit up.

What jokes are you referring to?

As you know, I'm here doing post-doctoral research as part of the University of Yahoo's Distinguished Scholar in Public Policy program.

your here doing research for russia perhaps is more truthful...

Twice yesterday johnfrottage has brought up his descending into fruity discourse related to the bawdy baths of fetid Frisco when no one else mentioned it at all.

Why is johnforbes desperately trying to draw attention to his deviant fruitiness?

No one is interested in your perverse proclivities, johnny.

Please keep them down at the truck stop parking lot where they belong--with all the other vociferous conservative Trump-supporting "macho men".

I have steadfastly refused to condemn Clownswisher for his deviant, demented, dastardly deeds in the fetid fetish-ridden frolics of Frisco.

We merely ask that Clown confine his foolish forays into simpering sissydom to his private email with Elkin.