I won't say that at this point that you have to be a moron to believe that lockdowns have produced any benefits for the US population (they've produced incalculable benefits for the ruling class) but you certainly can't claim the mantle of science! when advocating for lockdowns:
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
Links to studies are in the article.
What are the benefits to the "ruling class" you mention? Please be specific so I can understand.
ReplyDeleteI'm so tired of people using the phrase "The SCIENCE IS SETTLED" to end debates. The science is always evolving and never settled. It doesn't work like that which is why peer review is crucial. That's also why Climate Change, When Life Begins in Utero, and countless other things will probably never be settled-because we're always learning something new. The Lockdowns and even wearing masks are all open for debate. Even the number of deaths are being used incorrectly as they love to flash up big numbers but ignore that the percentages of deaths from COVID are still lower than many other viruses that have swept through the populations of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: they now know there are too many people like you--people who will accept being told *not* to live their lives, who will do exactly as they're told whether it makes sense or not. In a related vein I'm reminded of this Theodore Dalrymple quote:
ReplyDelete“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear that up for you.
Quarantines go back to biblical times. I remember my grandfather telling me about his childhood in a small western mining town. He spoke about the town doctor and the sheriff working to put a lockdown in place during disease outbreaks. There was no pushback. Infectious diseases were common in those days, as was bible reading. People understood that it could be necessary to isolate and that this had been done since ancient times.
ReplyDelete"prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence" That is a quote from one of the studies cited in the article. The man who gathered the studies must have been in a hurry because many of the studies do not actually conclude that lockdowns don't work.
I know that you have been critical of Trump for ending flights from hot spots and insisting on masking for airlines, but the evidence is clear that he was right. In March, before Trump's mandate, one passenger with covid flew in from Vietnam. She infected over half the passengers. In April, after the mandate, seven passengers later found to be infected flew in from Saudi Arabia on a plane with strict masking. Zero of the other passengers were infected.
Oh right, I forgot about the giant government conspiracy you uncovered. Let me know if you'd like to buy some snake oil!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious -- what do you think of the results the military is acheiving with their lock downs?
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with those results, except to note that isolated West Point seems to be doing well at keeping the rona from cadets.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: does it have to be a "giant government conspiracy", or could it just be not letting a crisis go to waste?
ReplyDeleteOther anonymous:
ReplyDelete"I know that you have been critical of Trump for ending flights from hot spots and insisting on masking for airlines...."
Have I???
https://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2020/04/chronology-of-us-coronavirus-response.html :
ReplyDeleteChronology of the US Coronavirus Response
A dispassionate view shows that President Trump comes out looking pretty good in response to coronavirus, considering that the actions he took early on (say, in January and February) were mocked as excessive, xenophobic, and/or racist. Even more, he took action even when the CDC was downplaying the threat, which helped feed the "excessive" storyline.
I wrote that in April.
I supported "2 (or 3) weeks to bend the curve", by mid-April I realized that our efforts were ineffective and decided the cost of trying and failing to limit this virus were higher than the cost of the virus.
I don't recall questioning President Trump's halting of flights from China and Europe; I do recall lefties trying to brand him as racist when he halted flights from China first. I remember de Blasio and Pelosi telling people to go out and have a good time in February. My, how times have changed.
@Anonymous Historically quarantines were applied just to infected persons and their immediate families. During the worst of the AIDS Epidemic we didn't even do contact tracing-because it was viewed as POLITICALLY unfeasible, not because it didn't work to track down potential cases with communicable viruses. Now we even must allow people who are HIV+ to donate blood despite the potential for that to cause infection in recipients with weak immune systems. Right now California and Chicago and New York have some of the most stringent lockdowns in the nation. So how come lower infection rates aren't corresponding? Or, is it that the reluctance of Newsom and other Democrats to enforce laws equitably is allowing certain groups to slide on their lockdowns because to cite them for refusing to comply would be POLITICALLY perilous to Democrats in charge? If you'll watch the news, it is mostly white and Hispanic owned businesses being busted by the Lockdown Cops. How come we're not seeing black owned businesses as well because I've driven by some and seen they are open too! Sorry, but this is the world we live in now and politicians are going to seize any opportunity to oppress those who don't support them in order to allow others to get away with it.
ReplyDeleteIn NY we are not locked down in the same sense that say, a military unit is. People are gathering in very large undistanced, unmasked groups for several hours at a time indoors -- weddings, parties, etc. The asymptomatic spread continues alongside the spread from those who know they are ill and continue to go out. Remember the UIUC model ? Initially the modelers assumed those who knew they were positive would isolate. Then they met reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is reality: the US has a lot of people who are sick, know they are contagious, and want to take others down with them. I learned the hard way -- pinkeye from the school, all sorts of fevers from parents who throw an ibuprofen in their offspring and send them to school, as well as elderly who are contagious with pnuemonia and 'just have to get out of the house'. The teachers and most middle class here moved their own children to private or home school - the silent spreading combined with inability to wash hands before lunch was a bit too much even with their no cost Cadillac health care plan. The middle class left the library -- who needs whooping cough or pneumonia because ill people want are bored at their home and want to hang out in public? The US has a huge hygeine problem with a large portion of its residents.
And yet locked-down California, with just about everyone wearing masks and many even when walking down the street or driving in their cars (!!), leads the nation:
ReplyDeletehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/29/and-lockdown-crazy-california-jumps-into-the-lead/
When the facts contradict your expectations, believe the facts. At some point you just have to, or else the cognitive dissonance drives you mad.
Ellen K, where do you think it is a requirement to allow HIV+ people to donate? The Red Cross screener questions ask if you are HIV or could be HIV+ and a positive response means they won't take your blood. Then they test the blood and if HIV+ they discard it.
ReplyDeleteI found places in the US where it is illegal to knowingly donate if you are HIV+. I found nothing about requiring a donation site to knowingly take HIV+ donations.
Steve, perhaps Ellen K was confusing HIV+ for eliminating the ban on blood donation for gay/bisexual men?
ReplyDeleteEllen, that's as close as I came to verifying what you said. From the redcrossblood.org FAQ site:
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
From a different redcrossblood.org page:
The FDA guidance “Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products” states, “Defer for 3 months from the most recent sexual contact, a man who has had sex with another man during the past 3 months.” All U.S. blood collection organizations must follow this federal requirement.
The Red Cross recognizes the hurt this policy has caused to many in the LGBTQ+ community and believes blood donation eligibility should not be determined by methods that are based upon sexual orientation. We are committed to working toward achieving this goal.
However, as a regulated organization, we cannot unilaterally enact changes concerning the MSM deferral policy. The Red Cross has a history of advocating for the FDA to revise their policies regarding men who have sex with men (MSM). Over the past several years the Red Cross, in collaboration with other U.S. blood providers, has collected data related to the safety of the current 3-month MSM deferral. Additionally, we continue to assist in evaluating alternative donor eligibility criteria and the expanded use of new technologies to work toward elimination of donor eligibility questions based on sexual orientation that would no longer be necessary.
The Red Cross is supportive of FDA’s current evaluation of modifying donor eligibility questions by sponsoring studies that engage the MSM community interested in blood donation. Such studies will begin to consider whether specific behavioral questions are able to identify individuals who may have HIV or other infectious diseases, or are at increased risk, and should not give blood.