Lead Foil Hat wrote:
I am sorry you think you not being convinced means only one other person is convinced and that being able to mock somebody else means that you are right. You were never right, and that was the whole point, and your response has always been to mock and provide shifty evidence. Your claim that the only things we know is lock downs work, is not supported by the data, and barely even suggestive by model oriented data manipulations provided by some recent studies, while the basic data relating lock down and eventual deaths, a child could see there is no relationship.
So we finally got some evidence out of you. Evidence that uses the same "model oriented data manipulations" (whatever that means) that you seem to dismiss offhand.
The preprint you posted seems interesting. It doesn't deal with the USA, but lets us make some interesting comparisons.
"We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of face masks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."
The USA never had a true stay at home order, for those keeping score. Compare with places like Italy, people were effectively free to move as much as they wanted. The USA is basically following exactly their recommendations now. Most business are open, schools are closed, no mass gatherings. Only difference is the face-mask order. In effect the USA was closer to the measures that this study says worked the best, vs those it found little effect for.
Of course, this study has the same limitations (naturally) that you use to off-hand dismiss everyone else: "Because of this variety in how interventions are implemented and described, the results for the potential of stay at home advisories especially may be under-estimated. All models are simplifications of the complex nature of reality; our modelling was unable to capture many subtle variations in how control measures were implemented. We acknowledge that lack of direct observation of these variations may have biased our results."
You're the one going around saying "it's obvious to a child that lockdowns didn't work," and all the scientists are saying, "this is our best model, it shows x-y-z, don't over interpret ."
To summarize:
You talk with way too much confidence about lockdowns clearly being the incorrect policy choice. People present a lot of evidence showing otherwise. You dismiss it all despite observation and modelling being the only tools at our disposal right now. You finally present some evidence that uses all the same methods that make every study disagreeing with you priors "bad," and that study supports all the primary interventions the USA used.
I'll admit that if you change your argument to: "we don't know for sure about lockdowns, evidence can only be from observational and modelling which isn't gold-standard," then sure, that's reasonable. But, you're over here ending every post with "if you look at a graph of deaths it's obvious to a child that lockdowns don't work." So, I still think you're a dogmatic moron.