Over 1 out of every 800 Americans have died of COVID

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

[quote]2600 bro wrote:

1.) Trump could've provide funding and guidance/coordination

2.) Restrictions follow on from bad outbreaks - circular logic either way.

3.) Doing nothing hasn't worked either. Some things do work see: China, Taiwan, SK, Japan, NZ, Aus.

4.) It's entirely under the federal umbrella to coordinate a "warp speed" vaccination campaign - hope Biden can do it

5.) Only the Spanish Flu was worse

6.) It worked in China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

[quote]Lead Foil Hat wrote:

1.) Trump did provide funding and guidance with the help of congress; in reality he provide guidance with the guidance of Anthony Fauci, actually he was pretty much in lock-step with Fauci from January on until Fauci started to get political and even then the guidance was there. Who do you think pushed the vaccine effort. Efforts to route out common drugs effective at treating covid were then stalwarted by left politicians and the media.

2.) What; no good data exists showing the restrictions are extremely beneficial at all

3.) If doing nothing, save closing the border prior to the virus arrival, produces the same bad results (compare Sweden and Italy or Spain or the UK or Belgium) then what is the point? Citing China is a joke right? You can't be stupid enough to believe the information coming out of China. The other short list of nations you provide is also a joke of a lie; these are all island nations that closed their borders...of course they have minimal outbreaks....see Denmark as ell they also closed their border very very early and actually did not have extremely harsh or prolonged "lockdowns", mostly targeted protection of the elderly, a brief school closure (2-3 weeks) and recommendations to people to try to work at home....that is a great approach actually; hey did not even promote mask citing that they were not helpful. Anyway, feel free to keep lying to yourself using a small selection of data points

4.) You are correct, and that has been underway for an entire year almost!

5.) You might be right, and even then they did not shut down many businesses...strange thing that they were able to think beyond 1-dimensional 100 years ago and some of you can't now

6.) Again, China? Really? Are you dumb? Then 2 island nations. No

In the end you can argue all you want here using small selections of island nations, or weak correlations in modeling studies, but the fact is that there is no strong set of evidence to warrant continued business shutdowns and crippling restrictions nor to keep the schools closed and without that strong evidence it is just a farcical effort and the American public is not going to put up with it much longer now that we have many vaccine rolling out and plans to have 30% of the population vaccinated over the next few months. I am sorry, but you might just have to go outside again to earn your huge salaries and your loud-mouthed fear pedestal is no longer going to be allowed to keep pushing poor people deeper into poverty, despair and even homelessness. This is the point where nations are going to just say, yep this is good enough and we have more important things and people to take care of now. At some point the whole big picture needs to return to our view, and soon before it becomes too late for too many. Yes there will still be risks going forward, but life is a balance of risks; this might be hard to accept for you but thankfully it will likely not be your choice.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

trashcan wrote:

4) we don’t have vaccines we can give to anyone who wants it. I don’t see why having an approved but inaccessible vaccine should alter our Current policy. In April/May my opinion may change

5) what flu outbreaks are you referring to and how do you come to that conclusion. Right now I have the 1919 epidemic and nothing else for its effect in the U S

6) this article below indicates that shutting down restaurants and other high risk businesses like bars and gyms slows fatality growth rates. It did not find a consistent correlation for schools and medium-to-low risk businesses. Interestingly, it didn’t find benefit in limiting gatherings from 11-100 people.

Here it is

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=Restaurant+closures+Covid&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D_7g78EpOwJwJ

I skimmed through this. This is a typical model study that assumes a lot and cuts out most of the big data sets. How can you eliminate the top 5 most populous counties? Going further, it seems obvious that government impose restrictions when things are spiking, but these outbreaks always come back down shortly after. So presence of a decline is certain making it impossible to draw any legitimate connect between measures enacted prior to things coming down naturally. I have seen a few studies like this so far. They are all really stretching with assumptions and drawing correlation where correlations are likely not indicative of anything. Not saying it is not possible, but these kinds of studies are not proving much at all. There are plenty of groups out there trying to ride to wave of the pandemic to get a few cheap papers out there and citation bumps. It may also be the best we can do, but really it just screams of squeezing a data set into a position that allows you to be able to vaguely say something.

Why are they lumping strategies such as restaurant closures and no visitors to elderly homes? Obviously the latter will help, but showing the obvious does not mean the restaurant closures were part of it. Still, in all cases declines are inevitable . Also, the paper does not address any levels of significant, only that declines or rises are significant, but significantly different then what and by how much. Small minute gains are not worth devastating cost unless you are in the mindset that only reducing covid deaths matters and all other death and destruction means nothing.