Here in Ontario we have certain businesses shut down, except for curbside pickup, some businesses are open but you can't buy certain "non essential" items or there are only a certain number of people allowed in stores at one time, which results in line ups at grocery, drug drug stores and hardware stores, which results in having more people in less places, even though they may or may not be distancing. At stores like Costco there are certain aisles blocked off but you can still buy food and pharmaceuticals, but you can't buy clothing ( I guess we can go naked since clothing is non essential ). At Dollerama you can't buy greeting cards, but at Shoppers Drug Mart you can. At Walmart I saw a woman trying to buy shoes for her child only to be told they weren't essential. I could go on but the point is it looks like you can get Covid from buying certain items from certain stores or walking down certain aisles in certain stores. It seems like our politicians are making up the rules as they go along.
How silly are Covid restrictions
Posts
Total:
39
Here is the relevant law in effect until June 2.
ontario regulation 265/21
made under the
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
Made: April 7, 2021 (1:02 p.m.) Filed: April 7, 2021
Published on e-Laws: April 7, 2021
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: April 24, 2021
STAY-AT-HOME ORDER
Terms of Order
1. The terms of this Order are set out in Schedule 1.
Application
2. This Order applies as of 12:01 a.m. on April 8, 2021.
SCHEDULE 1
Requirement to remain in residence
1.
(1) Every individual shall remain at the residence at which they are currently residing at all times unless leaving their residence is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:
Work, school and child care
1. Working or volunteering where the nature of the work or volunteering requires the individual to leave their residence, including when the individual’s employer has determined that the nature of the individual’s work requires attendance at the workplace.
2. Attending school or a post-secondary institution.
3. Attending, obtaining or providing child care.
4. Receiving or providing training or educational services.
Obtaining goods and services
5. Obtaining food, beverages and personal care items.
6. Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an individual, including vaccinations, other health care services and medications.
7. Obtaining goods, obtaining services, or performing such activities as are necessary for landscaping, gardening and the safe operation, maintenance and sanitation of households, businesses, means of transportation or other places.
8. Purchasing or picking up goods through an alternative method of sale, such as curbside pickup, from a business or place that is permitted to provide the alternative method of sale.
9. Attending an appointment at a business or place that is permitted to be open by appointment only.
10. Obtaining services from a financial institution or cheque cashing service.
11. Obtaining government services, social services and supports, mental health support services or addictions support services.
Assisting others
12. Delivering goods or providing care or other support or assistance to an individual who requires support or assistance, or receiving such support or assistance, including,
i. providing care for an individual in a congregate care setting, and
ii. accompanying an individual who requires assistance leaving their residence for any purpose permitted under this Order.
13. Taking a child to the child’s parent or guardian or to the parent or guardian’s residence.
14. Taking a member of the individual’s household to any place the member of the household is permitted to go under this Order.
Health, safety and legal purposes
15. Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an individual, including,
i. protecting oneself or others from domestic violence,
ii. leaving or assisting someone in leaving unsafe living conditions, and
iii. seeking emergency assistance.
16. Exercising, including,
i. walking or moving around outdoors using an assistive mobility device, or
ii. using an outdoor recreational amenity that is permitted to be open.
17. Attending a place as required by law or in relation to the administration of justice.
18. Exercising an Aboriginal or treaty right as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Multiple residences and moving
19. Travelling to another residence of the individual if,
i. the individual intends to be at the residence for less than 24 hours and is attending for one of the purposes set out in this Order, or
ii. the individual intends to reside at the residence for at least 14 days.
20. Travelling between the homes of parents, guardians or caregivers, if the individual is under their care.
21. Making arrangements to purchase or sell a residence or to begin or end a residential lease.
22. Moving residences.
Travel
23. Travelling to an airport, bus station or train station for the purpose of travelling to a destination that is outside of the Province.
Gatherings
24. Attending a gathering for the purpose of a wedding, a funeral or a religious service, rite or ceremony that is permitted by law or making necessary arrangements for the purpose of such a gathering.
25. If the individual lives alone, gathering with the members of a single household.
Animals
26. Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an animal, including obtaining veterinary services.
27. Obtaining animal food or supplies.
28. Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an animal, including protecting an animal from suffering abuse.
29. Walking or otherwise exercising an animal.
(2) Despite subsection (1), no person shall attend a business or place that is required by law to be closed, except to the extent that temporary access to the closed business or place is permitted by law.
(3) This Order does not apply to individuals who are homeless.
(4) If this Order allows an individual to leave their residence to go to a place, it also authorizes them to return to their residence from that place.
(5) The requirement in subsection (1) to remain at an individual’s residence does not prevent the individual from accessing outdoor parts of their residence, such as a backyard, or accessing indoor or outdoor common areas of the communal residences in which they reside that are open, including lobbies.
(6) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits a business or place to be open if it is required by law to be closed.
(7) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits an individual to gather with other individuals if the gathering is not permitted by law.
(8) For greater certainty, individuals may only attend an outdoor organized public event or social gathering for a purpose set out in subsection (1) if the event or gathering is permitted by law.
-->
@ronjs
the point is it looks like you can get Covid from buying certain items from certain stores or walking down certain aisles in certain stores.
You've missed the point 100%. The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. The Province of Ontario has told you to go home and stay home until Jun 2nd. If you can't work from home, go to work and go straight home. If you need food and other essentials, have it delivered. If it can't be delivered, pick it up curbside. If you absolutely must go into a store, it should be for emergencies with no safer alternative. You can probably get by until Jun 2 without a new pair of shoes, therefore, yes, stay out of the shoe aisle, please, they've already sent the normal shoe helping employees home so that they get don't get sick from the illegal shoe shoppers. You can definitely get by until Jun 2 without buying a greeting card, much less shopping from store to store looking for a place that hasn't roped off the card section. You have access to the internet so you can buy a greeting card online or make your own.
It seems like our politicians are making up the rules as they go along.
The law as printed above is reasonably consistent and says nothing about greeting cards or shoes or any specifics. The inconsistency arises from various commercial responses to law-breaking individuals such as yourself. Of course, stores would like to maximize sales even if most of their in store customers are violating quarantine but you can't lay the inconsistency of availability on the politicians who have already made the rules quite clear. If you are out shopping for greeting cards, then you are the one fucking up and putting people at risk. The politicians have done what they can to protect the public from your poor hygiene.
silly
-->
@oromagi
Yes I know what the law says, what I didn't know is that there would be a lack of humour here. But, my post is not entirely meant to be humorous.
The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. That is the point, if you can't get Covid from so called non essential items , then why can't a mother by her children shoes or clothes or other items deemed by someone to be non essential. My experience with online shopping for clothes is every time my wife orders online most of it has to go back because it doesn't fit. During the first lockdown some of the businesses, including Walmart complained about the restrictions, pointing out the fact that they resulted in more people in smaller areas, thereby defeating the purpose of social distancing.
Not sure how you could possibly know that I am breaking the law by pointing out the inconsistency of the law you see as consistent and attacking my hygene is a logical fallacy.
Someone is telling these businesses what they can sell and what they can't, if not our polititions then i don't know who. At least one of those making the rules is making loads of money off of all this because his company, which makes the directional arrows (among others) that tell us which way to walk down an aisle has gone from being worth nine million before the pandemic to now being worth fifty + million.
-->
@ronjs
I would suggest that making up the rules as we go along is the only option.
Or perhaps they tell us how to deal with Covid in the Bible...LOL.
Nanny State expects it's leaders to be miracle workers....Nope, it doesn't work like that.
You need to heed ongoing advice, but also think for yourself.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Silly is as silly does Doc.
There was a woman over here, who went about hospitals protesting against the fake virus....And you've guessed it........Covid-19 killed her.
Silly woman.
-->
@zedvictor4
lie.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nope....Very true Doc.
And I've just been reading of many similar incidences in the U.S.
Though, believe what you want to believe Doc.
I will continue to be cautious.
-> @oromagiYes I know what the law says, what I didn't know is that there would be a lack of humour here.
Sometimes humor is hard to translate in text. I did not detect any jokes in your OP- could you identify which passages in your OP were meant to be humorous?
The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. That is the point, if you can't get Covid from so called non essential items , then why can't a mother [buy] her children shoes or clothes or other items deemed by someone to be non essential.
- Because you can get COVID from mothers and children and shoe store employees.
- The law does not say that mothers can't buy their children shoes,
- the law says that mothers should
- Buy shoes online or
- Buy shoes curbside or
- wait 4 days until Jun 2
- If you have trouble getting the fit right and want to try the shoes on in person, then the law says wait until Jun 2. No inconsistency there.
During the first lockdown some of the businesses, including Walmart complained about the restrictions, pointing out the fact that they resulted in more people in smaller areas, thereby defeating the purpose of social distancing.
But that is not because of any flaw in the law, right? The law say zero customers in any part of Walmart except for present emergencies that can't be solved outside of the store. All those Walmart customers crowding into smaller areas are breaking that law. The law is not endangering the people by forcing them into less social distancing, the people are endangering themselves and others by breaking the law.
Not sure how you could possibly know that I am breaking the law by pointing out the inconsistency of the law you see as consistent and attacking my [hygiene] is a logical fallacy.
- You have failed to point out any inconsistency in the law. Please identify at least one inconsistency in the law as I printed out for you above.
- My evidence for concluding "law-breaking" and "poor hygiene" is conditioned on your testimony. i.e "If you are out shopping for greeting cards, then you are the one fucking up" Obviously, I don't really know if you are telling the truth about Dollerama and Shoppers Drug Mart, I'm just relying on what you've reported seeing.
- IF you have gone into stores to buy a greeting card during a quarantine that forbids such frivolity then
- yes, by your own testimony you are breaking the law
- yes, by your own testimony you are practicing poor hygiene.
- Pls. identify the logical fallacy you allege and how it applies.
Someone is telling these businesses what they can sell and what they can't,
- False. The whole of the restrictions are printed in POST#2. There are not some secret by-laws telling Dollerama to sell greeting cards and Shoppers Drug Mart to not sell greeting cards- the rule is "everybody stay home except for really, really important shit" Buying a greeting card is never ever really important. Yes, there are some people who don't care about the law or spreading disease and go buy greeting cards anyway and yes, there are some businesses that will go ahead and sell you that card rather than piss off that careless customer but that is not, as you suppose, an inconsistency within the law- that is a failure in civic virtue and good pandemic hygiene on the part of the consumer. Blame the stupid customer and not the politicians who, in a democracy, are correctly constrained from more vigourous enforcement.
if not our politicians then i don't know who.
I think I have demonstrated the latter.
At least one of those making the rules is making loads of money off of all this because his company, which makes the directional arrows (among others) that tell us which way to walk down an aisle has gone from being worth nine million before the pandemic to now being worth fifty + million.
I...what? No idea who "he" is. No idea what you are talking about.
-->
@zedvictor4
There was a woman over here, who went about hospitals protesting against the fake virus....And you've guessed it........Covid-19 killed her.
Specifics?
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say all of them are a 10 on the silly scale because every single protocol regarding a pandemic has been broken 100,000 times over. It was all for nothing for that reason alone. Any real viral scientist is just shaking their heads in disgust as their profession is now a complete joke. They allowed politics to take over their real science. They have 0 credibility anymore based on their own documented standards regarding pandemics before covid was even a thought.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well, there is this. An Ohio man died of COVID-19 after actively voicing on his social media accounts that he would not be buying a mask and would not be “buying into the hype” of the pandemic.
Richard “Rick” Rose, 37, of Port Clinton, Ohio, was diagnosed with COVID-19 on July 1, 2020 and passed away just three days later, according to local news media.
Richard “Rick” Rose, 37, of Port Clinton, Ohio, was diagnosed with COVID-19 on July 1, 2020 and passed away just three days later, according to local news media.
-->
@sadolite
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say all of them are a 10 on the silly scale because every single protocol regarding a pandemic has been broken 100,000 times over. It was all for nothing for that reason alone.
If sadolite's reasoning here has any validity then it must follow that every law that has been broken 100,000 times is maximally silly. So for example, "Thou shalt not kill" must be a very, very silly law because that law has been broken millions of time and the Ten Commandments were all for nothing. Likewise, all laws prohibiting homicide are pointless because those laws are regularly broken.
Any real viral scientist is just shaking their heads in disgust as their profession is now a complete joke. They allowed politics to take over their real science. They have 0 credibility anymore based on their own documented standards regarding pandemics before covid was even a thought.
I see no evidence that virologists were generally guilty of allowing politics to take over science. For the most part, virologists accurately predicted the course of the disease and effectively communicated the means of prevention. That many people ignored their advice in no way reflects on the professionalism of the experts. I think history will note that virologists rose to the challenge of COVID-19 by producing a highly effective vaccine in less than a year- a feat unmatched in the annals of Virology to the everlasting credit of molecular biologists and the global cooperation fostered by those worthies.
-->
@FLRW
statistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
-->
@zedvictor4
ok zed, give me a zedku
I think all covid restrictions should be eliminated. If your not vaccinated now, your either young enough to have a low shot of dying of covid, or old enough to where you have made your decision and if you get covid, it’s on you. I hate having to wear masks for people who refuse to vaccinate.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
even yllis applies.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
--> @FLRWstatistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
It will probably take a few years to collate the correlations in great detail but the preliminary data is undeniable- states with more restrictions suffered fewer coronavirus cases.
The present standard for comparing differences in US State restrictions comes from the Variation in US states’ responses to COVID-19 working paper at Oxford's Blavatnik School in the UK which has been applying a 1-100 stringency index number to government responses worldwide for the purpose of side-by-side comparison. Let's compare Oxford's ranking to the May 5th NY Times estimates of number of COVID cases per 100,000.
Oxford ranked North Dakota as the state with the least stringent restrictions in the US over the course of the last year and North Dakota was also the worst hit state in the Union.
50th North Dakota — 14,165 covid cases per 100,000 population
South Dakota had the second least stringent restrictions and had the 3rd most Coronavirus cases
48th South Dakota — 13,901 per 100,000
Utah was the third least restrictive and the 4th worst state for COVID
Oklahoma and Wisconsin were 4th and 5th least and suffered the 11th and 10th worst pandemics respectively.
That is quite decisive. The other end of the scale is just as clear.
Oxford ranks Vermont as the state with the most stringent pandemic restrictions and Vermont suffered the second least number of cases per capita.
1st Vermont — 3,717 per 100,000
while the second most restrictive state had the least number of cases of any state
Hawaii — 2,340 per 100,000
Oregon was 3rd most restrictive and had the 3rd best case numbers
Oregon — 4,448 per 100,000
Washington State and Washington DC were the 4th and 5th most restrictive and the 5th and 6th least cases per capita respectively.
The top 3 least restrictive states were in the top four worst outcomes
The top 3 most restrictive states were also the top three best outcomes
Of the ten least restrictive states, ND, SD, UT, OK, WI, AL, IA, TX, SC, NH, 8 are in the 16 worst outbreaks.
Of the ten most restrictive states, VT, HI, WA, DC, NY, NM, NC, CT, MA, CA 9 were in the 17 best results and all were in the top 25.
One in 7 people got sick in North Dakota, the least restrictive state.
One in 27 people got sick in Vermont, the most restrictive state.
I'm sure a statistician would be more cautious but I call that significant correlation- you were about four times more likely to catch COVID in the states with the least restrictions than you were in the states with most restrictions. Yes, we should probably wait a couple of years until all the numbers are crunched but I'm ready to say
that Dr.Franklin's unevidenced claim:
statistically speaking, states with restrictions arent doing better
is utter horseshit and the opposite of a fairly obvious conclusion.
Statistically speaking, states with more restrictions fared significantly better than states with fewer restrictions.
-->
@oromagi
Your "OPINIONS" are noted. You will never convince me that sending infected people back home to infect non infected people is pandemic protocol.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Here is another one. A Colorado sheriff's deputy died from COVID-19 complications shortly after sharing a string of anti-vaccination posts on his social media, according to MailOnline.
Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday with his family by his side, Denver's Sheriff Department said on Twitter.
Three weeks before his death, Trujillo had updated his Facebook profile picture to include a border that read, "I have an immune system," the MailOnline said.
Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday with his family by his side, Denver's Sheriff Department said on Twitter.
Three weeks before his death, Trujillo had updated his Facebook profile picture to include a border that read, "I have an immune system," the MailOnline said.
-->
@FLRW
your way off topic, were not talking about random cases of anti vaxxers dying from covid, were talking about restrictions!
-->
@oromagi
"“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
"“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”
"A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”
"“Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”
-->
@fauxlaw
i dont get it
-->
@FLRW
--> @Dr.FranklinHere is another one. A Colorado sheriff's deputy died from COVID-19 complications shortly after sharing a string of anti-vaccination posts on his social media, according to MailOnline.Daniel 'Duke' Trujillo, 33, died on Wednesday with his family by his side, Denver's Sheriff Department said on Twitter.Three weeks before his death, Trujillo had updated his Facebook profile picture to include a border that read, "I have an immune system," the MailOnline said.
In fact, we have lost 2 anti-vax sheriff's deputies in the past month with others sick or hospitalized. One of the leading local radio hosts promoting anti-vax rhetoric, Steffan Tubbs was hospitalized with COVID last night.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Silly, backwards
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks for the fulsome reply, Dr.Franklin.
Importantly, all four of your studies date from last spring, at best tracking less than 3% of total US infections. That is, your conclusion is drawn from papers speculating about what might happen while my data is drawn from what did happen, the actual event.
"“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
Taken out of context. Here is that same data in context:
"It was determined that viral transmission declined when social distancing and other measures were implemented. In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population. These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."
That is, your study found that while lockdowns did not impact the percentage of infected who got very sick and died (why would it?), lockdowns did very effectively reduce the overall number of cases which kept healthcare from being overwhelmed and so lockdowns were strongly associated faster recovery rates, LESS transmission and better outcomes overall. Even a year ago, this paper was strongly promoting the benefits of a full lockdown.
NOTE the warning at the top of this paper:
"Preprints are early versions of research articles that have not been peer reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive and should not be reported in news media as established information."
A year later, this paper is still not published but the paper's primary speculation, that herd immunity from coronavirus can be achieved when 17%-20% of the population is infected has been resoundingly disproved by actual events and doesn't seem to comprehend how herd immunity actually works. How would 1 person in 5 break the chain of transmission? Kuhbandner, et al. based that speculation on Diamond Princess cruise, although the fact that so many of the crew got infected compared to relatively few passengers ought to serve more as evidence that isolating passengers was an important protective measure.
Another pre-print. That is, no body of scientists has yet been willing to call this paper good science.
Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field.
So this paper makes no inference regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns, but suggests that the public was already self-quarantining and so reducing infection rates before the lockdowns began- which does not seem unreasonable supposition.
This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases.
So here is a non-scientist predicting in mid-April of 2020 that the coronavirus just naturally plays itself out after 70 days and will no longer be a problem by mid-May. What actually happened was that the number of total cases more than doubled from 2 million to 4.5 million. One year later the disease has not played itself out and in fact continues to mutate into increasingly tough variants. There are now 171 million cases and that number will continue to increase for the next couple of years. This speculation was thoroughly discredited more than one year ago.
The American Institute for Economic Research is best known for the Great Barrington Declaration of last October which called on governments to halt all prevention and vaccination programs and allow herd immunity to solve the epidemic which statement was almost universally condemned by healthcare professionals, noting that libertarian economists are not healthcare experts. The US's leading infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense" and "unscientific."
fatemperor/Ivor Cummins was an engineer promoting Keto diets before coining the term CASEDEMIC last summer, which is shorthand for a theory that COVID-19 is entirely harmless and the only reason we are tracking increased infections is due to increased testing, which theory scientists dismiss as conspiracy mongering and disinformation.
I should point out that while your evidence is thoroughly discredited, each submission contradicts the others. Did public panic do more to prevent the disease's spread than lockdowns or did the disease just die out after 70 days? Is COVID actually harmless or is herd immunity achieved at 17% infection rates? It is as if you don't care whether your sources are consistent or in agreement, just so long as the scientific consensus is brought into question, no matter how disreputable or obviously wrong the claimant.
-->
@oromagi
That is, your study found that while lockdowns did not impact the percentage of infected who got very sick and died (why would it?), lockdowns did very effectively reduce the overall number of cases which kept healthcare from being overwhelmed and so lockdowns were strongly associated faster recovery rates, LESS transmission and better outcomes overall. Even a year ago, this paper was strongly promoting the benefits of a full lockdown.
As you said, these articles were written in the spring, I was ok with short term spring lockdowns in order for the medical supplies to get ready, it does make sense with faster recovery rates would come from a lockdown with that original purpose, but as the lockdown continued and the medical techniques only got better, I doubt the lockdown was associated with higher recovery rates now,
for transmission, the fact that a lockdown is the primary culprit of low transmission is a lie, the paper isn't making the claim itself, rather its citing a study referring to hong kong that found that practices like quarantine, social distancing, and border restrictions led to lower transmission.(which is true), Hong Kong actually avoided a lockdown thus there is no relation. The paper also only mentions "public health measures" and isn't particularly pro-lockdown.
A year later, this paper is still not published but the paper's primary speculation, that herd immunity from coronavirus can be achieved when 17%-20% of the population is infected has been resoundingly disproved by actual events and doesn't seem to comprehend how herd immunity actually works. How would 1 person in 5 break the chain of transmission? Kuhbandner, et al. based that speculation on Diamond Princess cruise, although the fact that so many of the crew got infected compared to relatively few passengers ought to serve more as evidence that isolating passengers was an important protective measure.
First, preprints are actually really reliable and credible-https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/do-preprints-improve-peer-review-little-one-study-suggests
The most important thing is the fact is that Germany's lockdowns did not aid the end of the covid spread. The paper is merely suggesting a reason why, I dont know much about herd immunity so i cant comment on that, no matter the cause, the facts remain
So this paper makes no inference regarding the effectiveness of lockdowns, but suggests that the public was already self-quarantining and so reducing infection rates before the lockdowns began- which does not seem unreasonable supposition.This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases.
the conclusion isnt pulled from march 24 itself, it was published in august last year and even updated last week, it uses the data and after the lockdown using models, im not quite the technical details behind it but i doubt it pulls it exclusively from before mar 24
So here is a non-scientist predicting in mid-April of 2020 that the coronavirus just naturally plays itself out after 70 days and will no longer be a problem by mid-May. What actually happened was that the number of total cases more than doubled from 2 million to 4.5 million. One year later the disease has not played itself out and in fact continues to mutate into increasingly tough variants. There are now 171 million cases and that number will continue to increase for the next couple of years. This speculation was thoroughly discredited more than one year ago.
now obviously his prediction of how covid played out was wrong(granted, the heavy majority of predictions were)but it does contain data about patterns and lockdowns. His observation is correct, he just though that after the initial wave, there would not be another wave in the fall.
The US cases is entirely dependent on how states do, his pattern of initial 6 week transmission followed by decline stands true. Texas, NY, MA, all states and nations follow this rule
The American Institute for Economic Research is best known for the Great Barrington Declaration of last October which called on governments to halt all prevention and vaccination programs and allow herd immunity to solve the epidemic which statement was almost universally condemned by healthcare professionals, noting that libertarian economists are not healthcare experts. The US's leading infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense" and "unscientific."fatemperor/Ivor Cummins was an engineer promoting Keto diets before coining the term CASEDEMIC last summer, which is shorthand for a theory that COVID-19 is entirely harmless and the only reason we are tracking increased infections is due to increased testing, which theory scientists dismiss as conspiracy mongering and disinformation.I should point out that while your evidence is thoroughly discredited, each submission contradicts the others. Did public panic do more to prevent the disease's spread than lockdowns or did the disease just die out after 70 days? Is COVID actually harmless or is herd immunity achieved at 17% infection rates? It is as if you don't care whether your sources are consistent or in agreement, just so long as the scientific consensus is brought into question, no matter how disreputable or obviously wrong the claimant.
The barrington declaration is certainly interesting with some good points and bad points but thats not the subject
Second, covid isnt harmless but it does make sense that more testing = more cases found, right?
I dont think the sources contradict. the 70 day model was a false prediction but the pattern stayed the same and isnt debunked. I also panic lead to some covid cases for sure,
-->
@fauxlaw
ah,ok
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-As you said, these articles were written in the spring, I was ok with short term spring lockdowns in order for the medical supplies to get ready, it does make sense with faster recovery rates would come from a lockdown with that original purpose, but as the lockdown continued and the medical techniques only got better, I doubt the lockdown was associated with higher recovery rates now,
Read your own literature. Lockdowns improved recovery rates because it helped prevent transmissions, which kept hospitals from getting overrun. If you believe lockdowns made for faster recovery rates last spring there is no reason to suppose the same measures did not provide the same benefits in the following fall and winter.
for transmission, the fact that a lockdown is the primary culprit of low transmission is a lie, the paper isn't making the claim itself,rather its citing a study referring to hong kong that found that practices like quarantine, social distancing, and border restrictions led to lower transmission.(which is true), Hong Kong actually avoided a lockdown thus there is no relation. The paper also only mentions "public health measures" and isn't particularly pro-lockdown.
primary culprit is awkward wording. Your paper says, "This suggests that full lockdown.... may lessen the peak of transmission" Your paper is clearly making that claim and not referring to Cowling, et al. (that earlier Hong Kong study)
First, preprints are actually really reliable and credible-https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/do-preprints-improve-peer-review-little-one-study-suggests
Well, that's just nuts. Although most legitimate scholarly and scientific papers do spend some time in pre-print- particularly if the findings are controversial or sensational or commercial, literally any findings can be (and in the age of fake news, are) put out there as preprints. A preprint means that it has not yet been peer reviewed and published which means that the findings have not yet been vetted as legit- that's why the papers actually have that warning at the top saying don't treat this as reliable and credible. Scientists can't cite preprints in their CVs or grant applications, etc. because it doesn't count until its published. Sometimes, all it means is that somebody paid $25 to make a lie look more credible. The longer a preprint goes unpublished (and for early COVID studies, a year is a super long time) the less likely it contains any data worth knowing.
In the case of the paper that says we can achieve COVID immunity at 17% infection, that guy is never going to get published because we know that's false. In the case of the paper that says English people started staying home a week or two before the first lockdown became official- that's probably true but there's nothing scientific or suprising about his claim, its just a fairly pedestrian observation one could pick up from a newspaper.
The most important thing is the fact is that Germany's lockdowns did not aid the end of the covid spread. The paper is merely suggesting a reason why, I dont know much about herd immunity so i cant comment on that, no matter the cause, the facts remain
That's not a fact, that is a claim made by Christof Kuhbandner, et al. He is specifically refuting
Dehning, et al, Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions
which did get published in Science Magazine and finds a well defined correspondence between the lockdown in Germany and the subsidence of cases.
Kuhbandner does this again with
Flaxman, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe
(which finds that COVID restrictions were the essential factor in curbing the spread of disease across Europe)
which was published in Nature.
- A little research shows that Kuhbandner is a psychologist challenging epidemiologists and mathematicians in their fields of expertise and outside of his own.
- Kuhbandner's methodology seems superficially whack, like making the incubation period 5 days when most scientists say the incubation period is 2-14 days and inferring herd immunity based on the single unrepresentative example of the Diamond Princess Cruise Liner. Can't we assume that COVID spread through Europe rather differently than it did through a luxury liner?
- Kuhbandner can't find a publisher for his ideas while the people who he says are wrong are getting peer reviewed and published in some of the most prestigious venues possible for scientific papers.
That is the value of relying on peer reviewed, published science over non-peer reviewed, non-published claims- a lot of people have cross checked those claims, a lot of people have a reputational stake in that science. Kuhbandner's stake in his claims may be no more than the $25 he paid for the pre-print. He certainly doesn't seem to have invested much in research. That's why Kuhbander's paper has a warning at the top that says don't report this as legit.
the conclusion isnt pulled from march 24 itself,
I didn't say it was. I said "This paper's conclusion are drawn from data prior to Mar 24, 2020 and so studied less than 1/10th of 1% of all 5 million UK cases."
Again, this guy couldn't get published either.
now obviously his prediction of how covid played out was wrong(granted, the heavy majority of predictions were)but it does contain data about patterns and lockdowns. His observation is correct, he just though that after the initial wave, there would not be another wave in the fall.
Which even biology majors in college were predicting because that's how all the other coronaviruses (such as the common cold) work.
The barrington declaration is certainly interesting with some good points and bad points but thats not the subject
It is the central point, in fact. Libertarian economists loudly broadcasting epidemiological recommendations as if they had any credibility on the subject is exactly the kind of disinformation campaign that has folks like you so badly deluded about the value of COVID restricitions.
Second, covid isnt harmless but it does make sense that more testing = more cases found, right?
No it is totally greedy bullshit cranked out for the same gullible folks that bought his diet books and vitamin supplements. Telling naive and credulous people that coronavirus is harmless just to make a buck when the disease is actually the leading cause of death in much of the world is immoral in the extreme. It may not be a crime but scumbags like Cummins certainly deserve the torture of everlasting damnation that's coming to them. I would strongly discourage you from linking to his website in future.
Can I also just say that we've moved the goalposts quite a bit? We started with all COVID restrictions are silly but you have conceded now that some lockdowns were useful in the early part of the pandemic so your position is obviously more nuanced than "all restrictions are silly" in spite of your earlier posts. You're focused on lockdowns but masks and social distancing and quarantines and border closures and work from home, etc are also all restrictions which you are obliged to demonstrate as "silly" or else explain which restrictions are silly and which are not.