| There are 50 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
he fact that countries are locking down proves that all this talk about lockdowns not working is bullshit, because they wouldn't have tried them if they haven't worked in the past. Of course it doesn't prove that they will work this time.
They didn't work last time..
|
|
|
There is a lot of talk about lockdowns not working at all, and my point was the leaders would have tried this approach if lockdowns were thought to never work.
|
|
|
this is what you said... LOL
"he fact that countries are locking down proves that all this talk about lockdowns not working is bullshit,"
You can't have it both ways Libtard.
|
|
|
Evidence lockdowns worked:
"Governments around the world are responding to the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic , caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
(SARS-CoV-2), with unprecedented policies designed to slow the growth rate of
infections. Many policies, such as closing schools and restricting populations to their
homes, impose large and visible costs on society; however, their benefits cannot be
directly observed and are currently understood only through process-based simulations . Here we compile data on 1,700 local, regional and national non-pharmaceutical interventions that were deployed in the ongoing pandemic across localities in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France and the United States. We then apply reduced-form econometric methods, commonly used to measure the effect of policies on economic growth , to empirically evaluate the effect that these anti-contagion policies have had on the growth rate of infections. In the absence of policy actions, we estimate that early infections of COVID-19 exhibit exponential growth rates of approximately 38% per day. We find that anti-contagion policies have significantly and substantially slowed this growth. Some policies have different effects on different populations, but we obtain consistent evidence that the policy packages that were deployed to reduce the rate of transmission achieved large, beneficial and measurable health outcomes. We estimate that across these 6 countries, interventions prevented or delayed on the order of 61 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting approximately 495 million total infections. These findings may help to inform decisions regarding whether or when these policies should be deployed, intensified or lifted, and they can support policy-making in the more than 180 other countries in which COVID-19 has been reported ."
|
|
|
that isn't what you said..
|
|
|
read what you just posted, opinion
|
|
|
"You can't have it both ways Libtard."
The second way I said it was more articulate and the correct way.
|
|
|
"the fact that countries are locking down proves that all this talk about lockdowns not working is bullshit,"
So, you are telling lies too?
|
|
|
^How could it be a lie if, according to you, it's just an opinion?
|
|
|
These findings may help to inform decisions regarding whether or when these policies should be deployed, intensified or lifted,
Again, opinion. Just look at the word "may".. LOL
|
|
|
Fine, it's an opinion, but it's many degrees removed from an opinion that has no basis in facts.
|
|
|
Again, please show proof to the rest of us, that you have proof that masks and lockdowns work.
If not, STFU. 
|
|
|
Correction in what I wrote in caps:
"There is a lot of talk about lockdowns not working at all, and my point was the leaders WOULDN'T have tried this approach if lockdowns were thought to never work."
|
|
|
FUCK kit car guy, you're going backwards again... You have NO FACTS to support your opinions.
|
|
|
There is a consensus among most epidemiologists that lockdowns and masks do work. That is the strongest argument you are going to get.
And no, opinions based heavily on facts and a consensus of opinion counts for something, so I won't shut the fuck up. You can't act like Donald Trump would and try to intimidate me.
|
|
|
consensus does not equal facts. Please look it up in the dictionary..
|
|
|
I didn't say that it did.
|
|
|
"consensus of opinion counts for something"
You are absolutely right, is does count as an opinion..
|
|
|
^Not all opinions are equal. I can have an opinion that lockdowns are going to bring demons into the world, but this opinion is much less credible than an opinion heavily based on the facts, as I presented to you above. And add a consensus that most epidemiologists agree with this opinion, and you have a well-regarded opinion.
Not all opinions are weighted the same.
|
|
|
an opinion is just that, an opinion..
Where did you get your education?
|
|
|
"FUCK kit car guy, you're going backwards again... You have NO FACTS to support your opinions."
I have plenty of facts to support the opinions. I just gave you an article full of facts backing up the opinion that lockdowns work.
|
|
|
"an opinion is just that, an opinion.."
That's YOUR opinion, and most would not agree.
|
|
|
facts? LOL To support opinions?
|
|
|
^Of course. An opinion or hypothesis is built on using facts as building blocks to make an argument.
|
|
|
Been asking for facts from you for days, you keep posting opinions...
|
|
|
an argument is still an opinion, correct?
|
|
|
Well, you're not going to get facts. You're going to get very well-regarded opinions that are based on data, which are facts.
|
|
|
So you can't prove masks or lockdowns work. Thought so.
|
|
|
OK, back to Santa. How can you prove Santa is not real? I got a brand new Razor 1000 turbo for Christmas.. I never paid for it...
|
|
|
You are disregarding the facts and logic that go into these conclusions, as well as the fact they are well-regarded by most epidemiologists.
|
|
|
OPINIONS
|
|
|
Other epidemiologists have their own opinions too, why not believe them?
|
|
|
^are not all equal
|
|
|
"Other epidemiologists have their own opinions too, why not believe them?"
Because when you think about the problem, what they say is refuted by the evidence.
|
|
|
who decides that, you? LOL
|
|
|
^I think most people would agree.
|
|
|
Refuted, but not by facts... Noted...
|
|
|
I see a part 3 coming.. LOL
|
|
|
Maybe you can fill us in on Santa Claus, since you can't on lockdowns and masks.
|
|
|
Ok. I'll give you an example. Epidemiologists against lockdowns claim that you don't have to shut things down to lower levels of new cases. You can just isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else live their lives. But the data show that isolating the vulnerable isn't really possible -- while new cases may start in the young and less vulnerable that doesn't isolate, they eventually tend to transmit to older, more vulnerable isolating folk. We see this through an increase in new cases in the elderly after an increase in new cases in the young.
You need to control new cases throughout the population in order to protect the vulnerable.
|
|
|
The facts refute the strategy these anti-lockdown epidemiologists are pushing. The isolating vulnerable people will eventually get the virus when you try their strategy.
|
|
|
examples are not facts..
|
|
|
But keep searching....
|
|
|
I gave you an example of why I disagree with the epidemiologists who are anti-lockdown.
|
|
|
The facts refute the strategy these anti-lockdown epidemiologists are pushing. The isolating vulnerable people will eventually get the virus when you try their strategy.
|
|
|
You have posted no facts!
|
|
|
"But the data show that isolating the vulnerable isn't really possible -- while new cases may start in the young and less vulnerable that doesn't isolate, they eventually tend to transmit to older, more vulnerable isolating folk. We see this through an increase in new cases in the elderly after an increase in new cases in the young."
|
|
|
what does that have to do with your facts?
|
|
|
Let me re-phase, lack of facts...
|
|
|
I'm done. It's like talking to am imbecile. I tried. I failed.
|
| There are 50 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
