57 COVID deaths in GA today: Post-opening spike starting?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

agip wrote:

7/23 data

It's bleak out there.

Yesterday was bad, the day before that was bad, etcetera

7 day rolling average of daily deaths.

Both the US and world hit new cyclical highs

Brazi right at all time high

India all time high

CA all time high

TX all time high

AZ 2nd highest ever

FL all time high

Add the 4 problem states together: all time high.

24% higher than a week ago.

I remember a month ago I was wondering why there were so few casualties despite the soaring cases. Well here we are.

Not good...

Florida:

https://twitter.com/DWUhlfelderLaw/status/1286674185943764993

Looking at their death/cases map we are at the bottom of the current worst of it. Expect some 150 death days (not in reporting, in date of deaths) the next week or so, and then a return to 100. What that means for reported deaths is likely 150-200 from Tuesday-Friday, and over 100 even on the slow days for next week. After that it will be like this week, and there's unfortunately not really any sign it has gotten better the last few days case-wise or positive %-wise.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Exactly.

Now let's review how we got here:

1) I assert that lockdowns are the best tool we have for stopping the spread.

2) Lead Head says that I have no evidence that lockdowns work.

3) I say there are plenty of studies that show they do work.

4) Lead Head says he can't find any.

5) I say I've found lots of studies. I give him a chance to back down.

6) Lead Head calls me a liar and says I still have no evidence.

7) I post numerous studies showing the efficacy of lockdowns.

8) Lead Head attacks the studies.

So now Lead Head has decided that he knows more about this subject than the people who published the studies. Never mind that some of the studies were published in the most highly respected scientific journals like Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Lead Head wants us all to believe that he knows more than the experts. Good luck with that.

Dude, you didn't even read the studies. None of them provide even close to clear evidecne on the efficacy of lock downs on their own, only in the context of a throw everything at it approach, which yes.....if you do as much as possible there is evidence that doing so helps, but it does not dileanate lockdowns alone, so unlesss you separate it out. The first article you post clearly states there is no clear evidence, right in the abstract; do you not believe these scientists? I don't know why I even bothered, some people just don't understand how science actually works, they thin they can read a headline that has a word that they are discussing and poof they have proof their exaggeration or lie they used to mock people is correct. Sad and this lack of analysis and click-bait meme style approach to making points is pure trash and is ruining science right before our eyes.

Fat hurts wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Dude, you didn't even read the studies. None of them provide even close to clear evidecne on the efficacy of lock downs on their own, only in the context of a throw everything at it approach, which yes.....if you do as much as possible there is evidence that doing so helps, but it does not dileanate lockdowns alone, so unlesss you separate it out. The first article you post clearly states there is no clear evidence, right in the abstract; do you not believe these scientists? I don't know why I even bothered, some people just don't understand how science actually works, they thin they can read a headline that has a word that they are discussing and poof they have proof their exaggeration or lie they used to mock people is correct. Sad and this lack of analysis and click-bait meme style approach to making points is pure trash and is ruining science right before our eyes.

I readily admitted that I didn't read through all the studies. I don't have that kind of time.

But apparently you didn't even look at all the abstracts. Some of those studies were designed specifically to tease out stay at home orders versus other interventions.

Your contention was that there was no evidence that lockdowns work. I called you on it and clearly I was right. You might not like the evidence, but you are a fool to deny it exists.

It's fine to make a counter-intuitive assertion like, "Lockdowns don't work" if you can back it up. But you have not helped your cause at all. Mostly, you've done a great job of convincing everyone that you are wrong.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I readily admitted that I didn't read through all the studies. I don't have that kind of time.

But apparently you didn't even look at all the abstracts. Some of those studies were designed specifically to tease out stay at home orders versus other interventions.

Your contention was that there was no evidence that lockdowns work. I called you on it and clearly I was right. You might not like the evidence, but you are a fool to deny it exists.

It's fine to make a counter-intuitive assertion like, "Lockdowns don't work" if you can back it up. But you have not helped your cause at all. Mostly, you've done a great job of convincing everyone that you are wrong.

Dude, nice MO. You claim you have proven you are right by posting list of articles where the first one says you are wrong....mostly you just claim you are right. It is a fine strategy to keep claiming you are right and smarter than everyone without showing proof. Yes, there are plenty of people that think lock downs work enough that they are necessary, but like the very first articles states there is no direct evidence they do; most of it is based on modeling studies. Which, is fine and provides some direction, but can easily be very wrong. Your claim is the science is settled and everyone who disagrees is just stupid,, but you don't even know what the science is, you just take a dump and the floor and say "science, see, I am right....I showed you science stuff". The science is definitely not settled on lockdowns, there are camps of scientists on both sides and the data in the middle is minimal and muddy. Please don't ever get into science, or change your approach a bit, or you are going to be leveled at every conference you go to and every time you open your mouth to present anything. In the end ,the point is not that they absolutely don't work, I don't think they work well enough to be worth the cost and there still is no direct evidence that lockdowns are effective enough to be a critical measure governments must put into place; and again, almost every nation where forced stay at home orders put in place observed greater decimation due to the virus. Maybe that is just because the virus hit them hard and other places not; but all of the places getting hit now that did not shut down are not getting hit as hard as the places that did earlier. Closing school again would be a disaster, not only for the kids but for the country; there is definitely no reason to do so other than the politics of idiots, and if you think Ivy League professors are free of idiocy and being political, I know many, you are a total lost cause to the religion of "experts"....2505 awaits you.

Fat hurts wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Dude, nice MO. You claim you have proven you are right by posting list of articles where the first one says you are wrong....mostly you just claim you are right. It is a fine strategy to keep claiming you are right and smarter than everyone without showing proof. Yes, there are plenty of people that think lock downs work enough that they are necessary, but like the very first articles states there is no direct evidence they do; most of it is based on modeling studies. Which, is fine and provides some direction, but can easily be very wrong. Your claim is the science is settled and everyone who disagrees is just stupid,, but you don't even know what the science is, you just take a dump and the floor and say "science, see, I am right....I showed you science stuff". The science is definitely not settled on lockdowns, there are camps of scientists on both sides and the data in the middle is minimal and muddy. Please don't ever get into science, or change your approach a bit, or you are going to be leveled at every conference you go to and every time you open your mouth to present anything. In the end ,the point is not that they absolutely don't work, I don't think they work well enough to be worth the cost and there still is no direct evidence that lockdowns are effective enough to be a critical measure governments must put into place; and again, almost every nation where forced stay at home orders put in place observed greater decimation due to the virus. Maybe that is just because the virus hit them hard and other places not; but all of the places getting hit now that did not shut down are not getting hit as hard as the places that did earlier. Closing school again would be a disaster, not only for the kids but for the country; there is definitely no reason to do so other than the politics of idiots, and if you think Ivy League professors are free of idiocy and being political, I know many, you are a total lost cause to the religion of "experts"....2505 awaits you.

I never said the science was settled.

You said there was no evidence.

I proved you wrong.

You really should warn those idiotic Ivy League med school professors about how lockdowns don't work. Get back to us and let us know how that goes.

Fat hurts wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Dude, nice MO. You claim you have proven you are right by posting list of articles where the first one says you are wrong....mostly you just claim you are right. It is a fine strategy to keep claiming you are right and smarter than everyone without showing proof. Yes, there are plenty of people that think lock downs work enough that they are necessary, but like the very first articles states there is no direct evidence they do; most of it is based on modeling studies. Which, is fine and provides some direction, but can easily be very wrong. Your claim is the science is settled and everyone who disagrees is just stupid,, but you don't even know what the science is, you just take a dump and the floor and say "science, see, I am right....I showed you science stuff". The science is definitely not settled on lockdowns, there are camps of scientists on both sides and the data in the middle is minimal and muddy. Please don't ever get into science, or change your approach a bit, or you are going to be leveled at every conference you go to and every time you open your mouth to present anything. In the end ,the point is not that they absolutely don't work, I don't think they work well enough to be worth the cost and there still is no direct evidence that lockdowns are effective enough to be a critical measure governments must put into place; and again, almost every nation where forced stay at home orders put in place observed greater decimation due to the virus. Maybe that is just because the virus hit them hard and other places not; but all of the places getting hit now that did not shut down are not getting hit as hard as the places that did earlier. Closing school again would be a disaster, not only for the kids but for the country; there is definitely no reason to do so other than the politics of idiots, and if you think Ivy League professors are free of idiocy and being political, I know many, you are a total lost cause to the religion of "experts"....2505 awaits you.

I never said the science was settled.

You said there was no evidence.

I proved you wrong.

You really should warn those idiotic Ivy League med school professors about how lockdowns don't work. Get back to us and let us know how that goes.