914 replies to this topic

[Mr Serendipity]

You mean your freedom to infect others who didn’t ask for it ( and who might die from it ) ?

People were infecting each other all the time with all sorts before the lockdown, ever heard of the flu? Or the common cold? People didn’t ask for them but they still caught it. If people are so scared of dying, or are vulnerable, then they can stay in lockdown to protect themselves, but forcing everyone to stay in lockdown is tyrannical.

 

At the end of the day it’s not my responsibility to protect others. It’s their responsibility to protect themselves. Life has always been like that. Don’t want heart disease, take preventative steps like exercise and diet. Want a better immune system, take preventative steps like exercise, diet, and supplements. Don’t want to catch disease, become a germaphobe, wear a mask, wash your hands regular, avoid people and crowded places I.e it’s you’re responsibility. And if you still catch it, then there are just some thing that are out of your control, don’t take it out on everyone else.

 

You can’t live your life in fear, otherwise no one would ever leave their homes.

Edited by Jesus is King, 20 April 2020 - 02:02 PM.

[ymc]

I too think a full lockdown is too much for everyone to bear. It is a lazy policy that was inspired by Wuhan.

 

There are success stories in South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong that are able to contain the disease with a semi-lockdown. These countries should be emulated as oppose to the lazy approach of full lockdown.

[pamojja]

Originally in its own thread, now sadly subsumed under such tags as: idiotic thread covidiots coronavirus deniers coronavirus conspiracy theorists conspiracies conspiracy theories. And thereby even promoting hate speech. Shame on longecity.org

 

Thanks for being sensible and removing those tags from this thread now. Please also edit this quote out, and than delete this post too.
 

[Hip]

Other than you, always arguing on account of ad hominems, I actually testeed Wittkowski's explanations here and at PR:

 

Not only are your coronavirus ideas completely wrong, but your understanding of the Latin term ad hominem is incorrect too:

 

The dictionary definition of ad hominem is: "an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining".

 

If I call your ideas or views on the coronavirus pandemic bizarre and crazy (which they are), then that is not arguing against you personally, it is arguing against the views or ideas you have presented.

 

Whereas if someone were to call another individual themselves bizarre and crazy, then that would be ad hominem statement. 

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 02:26 PM.

[BlueCloud]

 

Infections that were 'due' without lockdowns were not avoided entirely as 'saving lives' implies. They were postponed to a later time. If not March-April, then May-November. If not this year then next. This realization is lacking in frequently repeated mainstream slogans, to the point that they have become brainwashing propaganda tools.

Once again, that is the whole point of all these temporary measures, whether it is partial lockdown, full lockdown, or just social distancing and widespread use of masks : to avoid having everyone that is going to be infected coming in at the hospital AT THE SAME TIME , because no country in the world is equippped to handle that many patients AT THE SAME TIME. If you need an urgent heart operation and there are no beds available, there are chances you might die. If you get infected only 10 months from now, maybe science would have progressed and new prophylactic or treatments will be discovered, and so you will have an additional chance of staying alive if you develop serious symptoms.

 I don't know how more clearly to put this.

 

Also, I don't know why people here seem to be scared shitless that we are all going to be confined for the rest of our lives. Stop being paranoid. Or maybe stop getting your information from conspiracy websites and flat-earthers. IT IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Relax, breathe. There not a single country on the planet that plans to do this. Any measure that has been taken so far is temporary. Even full lockdowns have been for 2 months and then they are being lifted as we speak, or projected for the month of May ( for europe )

 

 

Edited by BlueCloud, 20 April 2020 - 02:32 PM.

[pamojja]

I too think a full lockdown is too much for everyone to bear. It is a lazy policy that was inspired by Wuhan.

 

There are success stories in South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong that are able to contain the disease with a semi-lockdown. These countries should be emulated as oppose to the lazy approach of full lockdown.

 

Actually only the later countries without brute lockdown had sufficient countermeassures very timely in place. While all the less examplary lockdowns, including Wuhan were only implemented when the numbers suddenly rose, and thereby far too late.

 

Comparing each country shows.
 

[BlueCloud]

 

At the end of the day it’s not my responsibility to protect others. 

Actually if you live in society, you do HAVE a responsability in not harmig others. You could go to prison for that type of negligence. If you want all the benefits of living in society without any of the responsibilities , that's usually tolerated while you're a child, but not once you become an adult.

 

Even isolated tribes in Amazonia still have some sense of responsibility to their groups.

If you don't want any of that responsibilty, then you should live in a desert or a far away forest with no humans or social structures around you. Make your own energy, your own food,your own tools and your own medications if you need them. 

Edited by BlueCloud, 20 April 2020 - 02:42 PM.

[pamojja]

Not only are your coronavirus ideas completely wrong, but your understanding of the Latin term ad hominem is incorrect too:

 

The dictionary definition of ad hominem is: "an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining".

 

If I call your ideas or views on the coronavirus pandemic bizarre and crazy (which they are), then that is not arguing against you personally, it is arguing against the views or ideas you have presented.

 

Whereas if someone were to call another individual themselves bizarre and crazy, then that would be ad hominem statement. 

 

It was in reference on how you dismantled Knut Wittkowskis argument: By questioning and ridiculing his professional status. Without any factual counterargument. Which is ad hominem!

 

While I tested his arguments with very extensive calculations. And thereby couldn't find any argument against, nor for his stance. Because in average all countries identified with lockdown the deaths plataued after 14 days. Which is roughly what should happen if the lockdown would have worked (since it takes in average 17 from infection to death).

 

However, the countries without lockdown also did not differ significantly from those with lockdown. 33 days for the former, and 30 days the later, from first death untill daily deaths plateauing. Therefore I actually could disprove him in one respect, but could test it true with an other, in that a brude-lockdown, especially too late and wrongly - as done by most countries - would not lead to much better outcome than without.

 

Though I have to recalculate soon again. Since so much more data becomes available by the day. And of course by stating lies about my personality - while not adressing my arguments with counterarguments and verifyable sources (real data) - you of course constantly use ad hominems against me. By assasinating my character and motives only. Despite complete lack of any logic counterargument supported by data.
 

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim a, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument a is wrong".

The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage and typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them while not assenting to the validity of those beliefs and arguments.

 

But as usual, you just twist it to fit your bias.

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2020 - 02:52 PM.

[Hip]

I too think a full lockdown is too much for everyone to bear. It is a lazy policy that was inspired by Wuhan.

 

There are success stories in South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong that are able to contain the disease with a semi-lockdown. These countries should be emulated as oppose to the lazy approach of full lockdown.

 

Exactly. While lots of people in the West are running around like headless chickens, arguing about whether lockdown is appropriate, several Asian countries have already found the solution to living with SARS-CoV-2, without needing to shut down society and the economy. 

 

The Asian countries have shown us how we can easily handle coronavirus. But these arguing headless chickens in the West have failed to notice.

 

These Asian countries have avoided lockdowns because nearly 100% of the population wear masks, and also because they have organized excellent testing and contact tracing. When someone is found positive for coronavirus, they trace all their contacts, and ask the contacts to go into self-quarantine for a short while. That is far better than lockdown.

 

In this way, the Asian countries carry on with business as usual, while here in the incompetent Western countries, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by implementing lockdown, when there are much better options available.

 

 

 

One of the reasons the West is making itself look foolish and incompetent is because Western countries did not take this pandemic seriously. Even when there clearly was a devastating outbreak in Wuhan, in the dozy Western countries we had lots of people downplaying the seriousness of the coronavirus outbreak that nobody prepared for or made plans for it. And even now, we still have these naysayers and downplayers on this thread.

 

It's embarrassing how stupid the West has become. We have really shown that we are second rate and decadent. Maybe this is the moment when Asia will become the dominant force in the world, and the West will go into second place.

 

In Taiwan, they had the intelligence to see this pandemic coming from miles away, and prepared for it in advance by opening up over 60 new factory production lines to make face masks for the whole of the population. The also intelligently orchestrated hundreds of action points which were designed to keep the pandemic under control.

 

So far Taiwan have had no lockdown, and only 6 deaths. 

 

But you could write the above facts about Taiwan in 6 foot high letters, but people in the West will still be too wrapped up in their own arguments to notice.

[pamojja]

Once again, that is the whole point of all these temporary measures, whether it is partial lockdown, full lockdown, or just social distancing and widespread use of masks : to avoid having everyone that is going to be infected coming in at the hospital AT THE SAME TIME , because no country in the world is equippped to handle that many patients AT THE SAME TIME. If you need an urgent heart operation and there are no beds available, there are chances you might die.

 

That actually is the situation in much of Europe: Most hospital are precautionary emptied. Alledgedly all urgent heart operation unexplainably have been going down!

 

- Of course not. They are most probably counted as covid-19 deaths now. Since most are too affraid to go to hospital with really pressing issues now in time.

 

Actually if you live in society, you do HAVE a responsability in not harmig others.

 

The whole point in looking at real data. Because unneccessary panic is harming. Sensible countermeassures in time save lifes.
 

[Hip]

It was in reference on how you dismantled Knut Wittkowskis argument: By questioning and ridiculing his professional status. Without any factual counterargument. Which is ad hominem!

If you remember, I explained to you why Knut's arguments were totally nutty. Your arguments, which are based on his ideas, are equally untenable.

I've never come across any arguments that are so incompetent as the ones you have presented from Knut.

You (as well as Knut) are arguing that because the pandemic is slowing down, that it must because it is naturally coming to an end, and so there is nothing to worry about.

I have never heard anything so stupid as that argument.


All around the world, hundreds of measures, large and small, have been taken to control viral spread. Some of these measures were implemented by governments, others were spontaneously implemented by individuals themselves. For example, in Asia people automatically started to wear masks, without needing be told to do so.

Thus when you look at the pandemic slowdown that has been happening over the last month or so, it's obvious to anyone that you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is slowing down of its own accord. You cannot ingore the 100s of countermeasures that have been taken.


I am really flabbergasted that I should have to explain this obvious point to you. A 12 year old would understand it. How can you possible promote the views of Knut, who is claiming that the slowdown we are now seeing in the pandemic is not due to the countermeasures, but because the pandemic is coming to an end.

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 03:42 PM.

[pamojja]

Exactly. While lots of people in the West are running around like headless chickens, arguing about whether lockdown is appropriate, several Asian countries have already found the solution to living with SARS-CoV-2, without needing to shut down society and the economy. 

 

The Asian countries have shown us how we can easily handle coronavirus. But these arguing headless chickens in the West have failed to notice.

 

That was the argument against brute lockdowns from the beginning. My posting history proves. Just an other of those unnecceessary ad hominems and straw man without any substance.

[pamojja]

Thus when you look at the pandemic slowdown that has been happening over the last month or so, it's obvious to anyone that you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is slowing down of its own accord. You cannot ingore the 100s of countermeasures that have been taken.

I am really flabbergasted that I should have to explain this obvious point to you. A 12 year old would understand it.

 

Again straw man arguments. I nowhere ignored countermeasurs. I differentiated between sensible taken by a view countries, against brute lockdown (including more sensible meassures), and found no difference. Which of course is questioning any added values of brude lockdowns.

 

 

[BlueCloud]

Yes, asian countries dealt with this far better than most western countries. One could argue that they had 2 previous epidemics that made them more cautious, and more experienced. They had ample stocks of masks, and no one complained about wearing them. In the west, all governments were scrambling at the last minute looking where to buy millions of masks for their population. In France there are still none available for non-health professionals, despite the government ordering millions of them from China. There is a real cutthroat bidding war between many countries in securing masks.
Also, at the start of the epidemic, unlike in Asia, people would look at you funny if you were wearing a mask, as if you were an alien. It’s going to take a lot to educate people in the west into making masks a part of their life for the next few months.
 

Edited by BlueCloud, 20 April 2020 - 03:15 PM.

[Hip]

That was the argument against brute lockdowns from the beginning. My posting history proves. Just an other of those unnecceessary ad hominems and straw man without any substance.

 

Your previous posts show that you have just been running around like all the other headless chickens, endlessly talking about whether this pandemic really is serious or not, or whether people really are dying from coronavirus or not, and so forth. 

 

In the advanced Asian countries, they knew months ago that this pandemic was serious, and had no need to keep discussing these details that you bring up again and again. The sorted all that out, and devised a solution.

 

 

In your previous posts, you have barely ever mentioned anything about the vital importance of face masks and contact tracing and other highly effective measures used in Asia.

 

While you focused on your never ending arguments, you missed the actual solution.

[Hip]

They had ample stocks of masks, and no one complained about wearing them. In the west, all governments were scrambling at the last minute looking where to buy millions of masks for their population. In France there are still none available for non-health professionals, despite the government ordering millions of them from China. 

 

Short supply of masks is no excuse. In the UK, when the government asked industry to make ventilator machines on an emergency schedule, over 60 engineering companies immediately volunteered to help. There was clearly an enormous enthusiasm to help.

 

If the government had asked industry to make face masks on the same emergency schedule, I am sure there would have been the same enormous enthusiasm, and very soon we would have ample masks for everyone.

 

So the problem is not a lack of masks, but the fact that Western governments have been to incompetent to understand that masks may be one of the key factors in controlling this pandemic. Once they start to understand that (and they are very stupid, so it may take several more months for the understanding to sink in), and once we start making masks for everyone, and pass laws requiring masks to be worn in public, the pandemic will no longer be a problem.

 

It's not just masks we need though: we also need good testing and contact tracing systems put in place.

[Hip]

At the end of the day it’s not my responsibility to protect others. It’s their responsibility to protect themselves. Life has always been like that.

 

I'd suggest never having children then, as children require a lot of care and protection supplied by their parents, until they are adults. And even as adults they will often benefit from the protective help of parents.

 

Lots of people do care for others: nurses and doctors in hospitals are currently dying while caring for coronavirus patients.

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 03:44 PM.

[BlueCloud]

At the end of the day it’s not my responsibility to protect others.

Also, for someone whose name is “ Jesus Is King”, that’s not a very christian attitude, isn’t it ?  Even as an atheist myself, I don’t think Jesus would agree with you. 

[Mind]

 

 

One of the reasons the West is making itself look foolish and incompetent is because Western countries did not take this pandemic seriously. Even when there clearly was a devastating outbreak in Wuhan, in the dozy Western countries we had lots of people downplaying the seriousness of the coronavirus outbreak that nobody prepared for or made plans for it. And even now, we still have these naysayers and downplayers on this thread.

 

Perhaps because the WHO said it was no big deal. Remember, Taiwan health authorities tried to warn the rest of the world that there was human-to-human transmission, and the WHO ignored the warnings. When did the WHO finally declare a "pandemic"....late February?

 

Remember the WHO and CDC said "don't wear masks" as well. Place the blame where it belongs, not on "The West", but upon the health bureaucracies.

[xEva]

Once again, that is the whole point of all these temporary measures, whether it is partial lockdown, full lockdown, or just social distancing and widespread use of masks : to avoid having everyone that is going to be infected coming in at the hospital AT THE SAME TIME , because no country in the world is equippped to handle that many patients AT THE SAME TIME. If you need an urgent heart operation and there are no beds available, there are chances you might die. If you get infected only 10 months from now, maybe science would have progressed and new prophylactic or treatments will be discovered, and so you will have an additional chance of staying alive if you develop serious symptoms.

 I don't know how more clearly to put this.

 

Also, I don't know why people here seem to be scared shitless that we are all going to be confined for the rest of our lives. Stop being paranoid. Or maybe stop getting your information from conspiracy websites and flat-earthers. IT IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Relax, breathe. There not a single country on the planet that plans to do this. Any measure that has been taken so far is temporary. Even full lockdowns have been for 2 months and then they are being lifted as we speak, or projected for the month of May ( for europe )

 

I wonder why you assume that someone with a half a brain has not understood back in Feb. that lockdowns were necessary "to avoid having everyone that is going to be infected coming in at the hospital AT THE SAME TIME". You don't seem to realize that we are already past that point. Now we are at the point when we should be questioning how good were the estimates and how effective were the measures based on them at "saving lives".

 

The whole point of my post was to emphasize that, having built makeshift hospitals and acquired enough ventilators and equipment, the NYC actual experience showed that the additional measure of a 2-month lockdown may not have been necessary -- i.e. maybe just a couple of weeks would suffice? Or, alternatively, with the 2-months lockdown in place the numbers of needed hospital and ICU beds were grossly overestimated.  Turned out, no lives were lost due to lack of beds, ICUs, ventilators or med personnel -- much of which has remained unused.

 

The models have lied. The numbers were inflated. At what cost? I don't know how more clearly to put this.

 

 

You seem to assume that people with a different opinion must be inherently stupid and get their info from conspiracy sites. You must have missed Fauci's answer at the press briefing last week when he said that, for him, the right time to lift a lockdown is when 'zero threat of the virus remains'.

 

Surely we all agree that an epidemiologist should not be calling the shots here, especially after it became obvious that they all, from WHO to CDC, have grossly mismanaged the pandemic. From the very start. Turns out, they were not even close with their models and numbers.

 

So please stop perpetuating the same old slogans about 'saving lives' on us halfwits. When it's all over there will be the chance to calculate how many lives were saved and how many were lost due to this or that measure or lack thereof.

Edited by xEva, 20 April 2020 - 05:59 PM.

[zorba990]

What make ye of this?

https://www.cdc.gov/...D-19-deaths.pdf


"Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)"

Seems like statistical dishonesty at least.

[BlueCloud]

I whole point of my post was to emphasize that, having built makeshift hospitals and acquired enough ventilators and equipment, the NYC actual experience showed that the additional measure of a 2-month lockdown may not have been necessary -- i.e. maybe just a couple of weeks would suffice? Or, alternatively, with the 2-months lockdown in place the numbers of needed hospital and ICU beds were grossly overestimated.  Turned out, no lives were lost due to lack of beds, ICUs, ventilators or med personnel -- much of which has remained unused.

 

The models have lied. The numbers were inflated. At what cost? I don't know how more clearly to put this.

 

So the lockdown reduced the number of beds needed, and this proves that... the lockdown was not needed ? Strange circular argument...

 

Also, the NYC experience doesn’t represent the situation in the rest of the world. Not even close. You can’t just conclude that lockdowns are “brainwashing propaganda” because it was not needed in NYC. I know that americans like to believe that NYC is the center of the universe, but actually it’s not. 
 

like i said earlier, full  or partial lockdowns are not a necessity everywhere, because  the population of some countries are already disciplined enough to keep their going outside to a minimum , and some entire populations wear masks, and thus  don’t need such measures as lockdowns being enforced on them.

Edited by BlueCloud, 20 April 2020 - 06:31 PM.

[xEva]

What make ye of this?

https://www.cdc.gov/...D-19-deaths.pdf


"Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)"

Seems like statistical dishonesty at least.

 

 

It does not matter, because the deaths that were not counted as covid, will be apparent in the end, when all deaths per week are compared with numbers from the previous years. iow, either way the deaths are counted, the previous years statistics will reveal the true numbers due to covid. That will be the number above the normal overall death rate for the given population in the previous years.

 

 

So the lockdown reduced the number of beds needed, and this proves that... the lockdown was not needed ? Strange circular argument...

 

Also, the NYC experience doesn’t represent the situation in the rest of the world. Not even close. You can’t just conclude that lockdowns are “brainwashing propaganda” because it was not needed in NYC. I know that americans like to believe that NYC is the center of the universe, but actually it’s not. 

 

You keep missing the point. The facts show that either the lockdown was too long or too many beds were estimated as needed. Have you considered that the same death statistics could have been achieved with a two-week lockdown only?

 

Don't recall mow, they could have needed those 2 weeks to build the additional beds and get ventilators (coz they caught up rather late, didn't they?) . But then, why not stop the lockdown right after they got the beds and equipment they needed?  because their models lied. And because they did not want to admit that they had started rather late.

 

Worst part, they are still at it. Nobody that I heard of admitted that they had overestimated. Instead they patronize the 'great American people who did an amazing job'. 

[zorba990]

It does not matter, because the deaths that were not counted as covid, will be apparent in the end, when all deaths per week are compared with numbers from the previous years. iow, either way the deaths are counted, the previous years statistics will reveal the true numbers due to covid. That will be the number above the normal overall death rate for the given population in the previous years.



You keep missing the point. The facts show that either the lockdown was too long or too many beds were estimated as needed. Have you considered that the same death statistics could have been achieved with a two-week lockdown only?

Don't recall mow, they could have needed those 2 weeks to build the additional beds and get ventilators (coz they caught up rather late, didn't they?) . But then, why not stop the lockdown right after they got the beds and equipment they needed? because their models lied. And because they did not want to admit that they had started rather late.

Worst part, they are still at it. Nobody that I heard of admitted that they had overestimated. Instead they patronize the 'great American people who did an amazing job'.

It matters because curves displayed and decisions made from them are incorrect.
Correcting this after the fact isn't good enough.

https://www.timesofi...4ODSRDtBh6XbJ28
A similar pattern – rapid increase in infections to a peak in the sixth week, and decline from the eighth week – is common everywhere, regardless of response policies

"The following is the text of a study by Prof Isaac Ben-Israel, first published on April 16, 2020. (Ben-Israel discussed his research on Israeli TV on April 13, saying that simple statistics show the spread of the coronavirus declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it.)

The following article aims at examining the development of the coronavirus disease in Israel since its inception 56 days ago (8 weeks)."

[lancebr]

New Stanford Data Suggest the Coronavirus Isn’t as Deadly as We Thought

 

https://www.wsj.com/..._mobilewebshare

 

I guess the Wall Street Journal article is behind a paywall but here is an article that summarizes it:

 

https://www.collecti...onal-influenza/

Edited by lancebr, 20 April 2020 - 08:26 PM.

[Hebbeh]

The trouble with the Stanford test is that the antibody test can't differentiate between coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and coronavirus that causes the common cold and that makes the data worse than worthless... Unless you want to know if you've had a cold in the past. I don't have time to post references but for anybody that is interested, the info on this well known issue with the antibody test is easily found.

Edited by Hebbeh, 20 April 2020 - 08:45 PM.

[Hip]

Perhaps because the WHO said it was no big deal. Remember, Taiwan health authorities tried to warn the rest of the world that there was human-to-human transmission, and the WHO ignored the warnings. When did the WHO finally declare a "pandemic"....late February?

 

Remember the WHO and CDC said "don't wear masks" as well. Place the blame where it belongs, not on "The West", but upon the health bureaucracies.

 

The WHO are certainly culpable for certain major errors; their insistence that face masks are of no proven benefit for the general populace and only work for doctors and nurses is a huge mistake. I think that singe piece of bad advice about masks is arguably responsible for most of the 170,000 coronavirus deaths so far, and will also be responsible for the many $trillions of economic damage that lockdown causes. 

 

It is not often that a single decision leads to the death of so many people, and costs the world trillions of dollars. But the mask advice from the WHO is probably one such case.

 

The WHO argue that there is no proven benefit for masks in controlling a pandemic, and that's why they do not recommend masks (plus they  want to protect the limited supply for frontline medics). However, common sense will tell you that if masks are vitally important in preventing medics from contracting coronavirus, then it stands to reason it will help prevent viral transmission in the public too.

 

But common sense seems to be lacking in the WHO's advisory panel. The WHO's advisory panel comprise experts from various countries; so the WHO's advice reflects what those experts say. I expect most experts will come from Western nations, because if the WHO had more experts from Asian nations, with their long experience of using masks to combat pandemics, I imagine the WHO would have recommended masks for everyone.

 

That's why the failure to recommend masks is failure of the West. Even the Chinese ambassador to the UK has stated that he finds it incomprehensible that the West has not used masks to help combat the pandemic. 

 

 

I agree that it is Western systems and bureaucracies that have been far too slow to respond to the pandemic. But it is the West itself which has set up these systems and bureaucracies. If our systems are not nimble enough to respond to the pandemic, then it is the West which is to blame.

 

We have to ask ourselves some soul-searching questions of why Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong were all quite capable of intelligently dealing with the pandemic, while we in the West are behaving like a bunch of headless chickens. 

[xEva]

It matters because curves displayed and decisions made from them are incorrect.
Correcting this after the fact isn't good enough.

https://www.timesofi...4ODSRDtBh6XbJ28
A similar pattern – rapid increase in infections to a peak in the sixth week, and decline from the eighth week – is common everywhere, regardless of response policies

"The following is the text of a study by Prof Isaac Ben-Israel, first published on April 16, 2020. (Ben-Israel discussed his research on Israeli TV on April 13, saying that simple statistics show the spread of the coronavirus declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it.)

The following article aims at examining the development of the coronavirus disease in Israel since its inception 56 days ago (8 weeks)."

 

 

Yes agree with you, the data  serving as input for models on which the current policies are based, it is very important.  ..though in most cases, the previous year statistics are readily available (and if not 2019, then 2018 for sure). 

 

Even without covid, it is very hard to determine the exact cause of death, especially when an old person had several comorbidities, as often is the case. I  read that with covid, opinions differ on how the deaths should be attributed. I leave it to the experts, though I personally would choose the simplest method and count all deaths above the historic norm as covid.
 

[Hip]

I wonder why you assume that someone with a half a brain has not understood back in Feb. that lockdowns were necessary "to avoid having everyone that is going to be infected coming in at the hospital AT THE SAME TIME". You don't seem to realize that we are already past that point. Now we are at the point when we should be questioning how good were the estimates and how effective were the measures based on them at "saving lives".

We are not actually past that point. Antibody testing of the general population has produced difference results in different areas, but they indicate that so far only small percentage of the population has contracted coronavirus. For example, a study in Santa Clara in the US found only 3% of the population had been infected.

 

It will not be until around 80% are infected that we will reach herd immunity and the pandemic will then be over. So we have a long way to go. 

 

Lockdowns have achieved a flattening of the curve of daily deaths for the moment, but as soon as restrictions are lifted, the daily deaths will surge up again. 

 

So we are not past that point.

 

If you have not got a mathematical brain it's probably hard to understand this, because to understand pandemics you have to understand not only medical science, but mathematics too.

 

 

 

The whole point of my post was to emphasize that, having built makeshift hospitals and acquired enough ventilators and equipment, the NYC actual experience showed that the additional measure of a 2-month lockdown may not have been necessary -- i.e. maybe just a couple of weeks would suffice? Or, alternatively, with the 2-months lockdown in place the numbers of needed hospital and ICU beds were grossly overestimated.  Turned out, no lives were lost due to lack of beds, ICUs, ventilators or med personnel -- much of which has remained unused.
 
The models have lied. The numbers were inflated. At what cost? I don't know how more clearly to put this.

 

The models have not lied. They were pretty accurate. The only reason we have spare ICU bed capacity at the moment is because (a) we built more makeshift hospitals very quickly, and (b) we imposed a series of drastic viral transmission control measures which greatly reduced the speed of the pandemic, and thus reduced the number of people who get infected at the same time. With both these strategies in place, we fortunately have some spare ICU capacity. 

 

But if it had not been for those models, then we would not have imposed control measures, nor built those hospitals, then right now we would have total pandemonium and a totally broken healthcare system.

 

So no, the models did not lie. The models were fine.

 

 

The thing we did wrong in the West was not preparing enough for the pandemic in advance, and not adopting more intelligent control measures like universal mask wearing, that I think would have been much more effective than lockdowns, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 09:37 PM.

[Hip]

What people do not seem to understand is that we often live by the skin on our teeth when it comes to pandemics. 

 

We had the SARS coronavirus outbreak in 2003, we have the MERS coronavirus outbreak of 2012, we had the African Ebola outbreak in 2013–2016. Fortunately all of these were eventually contained by the work of governments and organizations like the WHO, and so remained local epidemics, and did not hit the whole world as a pandemic.

 

But containment of such outbreaks is never guaranteed, and so each time any outbreak occurs which has the potential to become a pandemic, countries around the world should start preparing themselves. Especially with something as devastating as the Wuhan outbreak, which clearly looked worse than normal from the start.

 

You hope that the outbreak can be contained, and in many cases it will. But you should always prepare for the worst.  

 

 

Pathogen experts say it is a case not of if but when further pandemics hit us. We are a highly globalized planet now, so novel viruses newly transmitted from animals to humans can appear anywhere, and rapidly transmit to the whole globe.

 

This SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should be a wake-up call to governments throughout the world. We are actually very luck that the death rate is relatively low this time, so hopefully we can learn our lesson without too much devastation. But next time the death rate might be 30%, or 60%. Those sort of pandemic can end whole civilizations.

 

There are actually 6 more coronavirus in bats at present which are just waiting to cross over into humans. Plus the Bird Flu virus is circulating in poultry, again just waiting to jump over to humans. Plus lots of unknown viruses that could hit us from anywhere.

 

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 09:34 PM.