4 ms·

i don't know if you missed it but there was a 2 month worldwide lockdown just recently. when is the last time there was a lockdown for flu? even if the curves a

i don't know if you missed it but there was a 2 month worldwide lockdown just recently. when is the last time there was a lockdown for flu? even if the curves are shifted versions of each other up until now do you really think that lockdown had absolutely zero effect on the covid curve? so how do you explain the many people that haven't contributed to the covid curve (flattening the curve duh) yet (unfortunately).

rurban 6y ago
The effect of the lockdown on the IFR is zero. That's a rate. Only certain categories affect the IFR, like density, age distribution, obesity, air pollution, health system. The lockdown could have an impact on the number of absolute deaths, but the question is still out of its positive or negative. Flattening the curve kept the virus longer alive than necessary, it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU beds. Not many countries were in that desperate situation. Then we have 7 countries who didn't do these lockdowns, which do have the very same curves. Then we do have the countries where the curves already went down before the lockdown. Seeing the lockdown measures in the curves is pretty hard. You mostly see it with manipulated curves, as the NY times curves. Then you also get curves not from actual data, but calculated data from estimation models. And we know you bad those models were. Like the famous Imperial College model, which was totally off. Or the German RKI model which always points up for the very last week, but with the real data coming in next week it was still going down. Wrong model. And it's getting worse, not better. They don't give away the data, but you can see the wrong models at their web page. Since April 24 also on the previously serious euromomo.eu stats. Now it also went to the false model data. You do those drastic measures to keep the ICU's working but not much more, as too much lockdown will only lead to more deaths, not less. Keeping people in their homes is counterproductive, as this is their natural habitat. There it will be kept alive. Of course lockdowns do help with the spread, to keep the R rate down not becoming too exponential. Esp with an initial R0 of 5. But this only helps in the very first week, afterwards you cannot run after each single case anymore. When was the last lockdown for flu? Spanish flu famously. Massive immunosystem overreaction, like with the critical MERS virus, with an IFR of 50%. Was there a MERS lockdown, even if it was the most critical flu event recently? No, it was for an medium harmless SARS-2 variant, with an high R0 and a low IFR (of about 0.3, with 0.02% for <65 year olds). Remember, this rate is lower than using your car driving to work. The economy crash is due to a huge media panic to save a couple of fat old men, who would have died with the next flu anyway, to say it overly bluntly. The comparison to computer viri might be interesting. Why is there always a panic on more harmless viri with an extremely high distribution rate, and not with the extremely harmful ones with a much lower distribution rate? that's the strategy of terror. for an effective computer virus you do make it spreading, harmless, unpredictable to keep the media circus rolling, and you need play the media. Destruction rate of 0.3% sounds perfect.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Flattening the curve kept the virus longer alive than necessary, it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU beds. Not many countries were in that desperate situation. Are you joking? Spain is hardly a third-world country and it not only was forced to comandeer hotels to serve as ICUs but also Spain's armed forces were forced to setup an emergency hospital with a capacity for 5k beds in Madrid's convention center just to be able to handle all the covid19 cases. On top of that, Spain also had to comandeer an ice ring in Madrid to be able to have a spot to store all the dead bodies. What exactly leads you to believe that "it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU"?
  - rurban 6y ago
    Spain falls into the "not enough" section obviously. But there was no 10x excess mortality as predicted. Did you see all the dead bodies from the last flu season on TV? all the ventilator patients then? I believe in nothing, I'm just looking at the numbers. virology experts do the expertise. politicians do the ignoring. media is doing the twisting. Lockdowns were not necessary in most of the countries as you will see, and most experts already agree on. Selective lockdowns in some herds, yes. protecting the nursing homes, yes. but closing the schools, certainly not, in hindsight. a.s.o. It's not like the flu where the kids are spreading the virus around.

rurban 6y ago

The effect of the lockdown on the IFR is zero. That's a rate. Only certain categories affect the IFR, like density, age distribution, obesity, air pollution, health system. The lockdown could have an impact on the number of absolute deaths, but the question is still out of its positive or negative. Flattening the curve kept the virus longer alive than necessary, it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU beds. Not many countries were in that desperate situation. Then we have 7 countries who didn't do these lockdowns, which do have the very same curves. Then we do have the countries where the curves already went down before the lockdown. Seeing the lockdown measures in the curves is pretty hard. You mostly see it with manipulated curves, as the NY times curves. Then you also get curves not from actual data, but calculated data from estimation models. And we know you bad those models were. Like the famous Imperial College model, which was totally off. Or the German RKI model which always points up for the very last week, but with the real data coming in next week it was still going down. Wrong model. And it's getting worse, not better. They don't give away the data, but you can see the wrong models at their web page. Since April 24 also on the previously serious euromomo.eu stats. Now it also went to the false model data. You do those drastic measures to keep the ICU's working but not much more, as too much lockdown will only lead to more deaths, not less. Keeping people in their homes is counterproductive, as this is their natural habitat. There it will be kept alive. Of course lockdowns do help with the spread, to keep the R rate down not becoming too exponential. Esp with an initial R0 of 5. But this only helps in the very first week, afterwards you cannot run after each single case anymore. When was the last lockdown for flu? Spanish flu famously. Massive immunosystem overreaction, like with the critical MERS virus, with an IFR of 50%. Was there a MERS lockdown, even if it was the most critical flu event recently? No, it was for an medium harmless SARS-2 variant, with an high R0 and a low IFR (of about 0.3, with 0.02% for <65 year olds). Remember, this rate is lower than using your car driving to work. The economy crash is due to a huge media panic to save a couple of fat old men, who would have died with the next flu anyway, to say it overly bluntly. The comparison to computer viri might be interesting. Why is there always a panic on more harmless viri with an extremely high distribution rate, and not with the extremely harmful ones with a much lower distribution rate? that's the strategy of terror. for an effective computer virus you do make it spreading, harmless, unpredictable to keep the media circus rolling, and you need play the media. Destruction rate of 0.3% sounds perfect.

rumanator 6y ago
> Flattening the curve kept the virus longer alive than necessary, it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU beds. Not many countries were in that desperate situation. Are you joking? Spain is hardly a third-world country and it not only was forced to comandeer hotels to serve as ICUs but also Spain's armed forces were forced to setup an emergency hospital with a capacity for 5k beds in Madrid's convention center just to be able to handle all the covid19 cases. On top of that, Spain also had to comandeer an ice ring in Madrid to be able to have a spot to store all the dead bodies. What exactly leads you to believe that "it was only necessary for countries with not enough ICU"?
- rurban 6y ago
  Spain falls into the "not enough" section obviously. But there was no 10x excess mortality as predicted. Did you see all the dead bodies from the last flu season on TV? all the ventilator patients then? I believe in nothing, I'm just looking at the numbers. virology experts do the expertise. politicians do the ignoring. media is doing the twisting. Lockdowns were not necessary in most of the countries as you will see, and most experts already agree on. Selective lockdowns in some herds, yes. protecting the nursing homes, yes. but closing the schools, certainly not, in hindsight. a.s.o. It's not like the flu where the kids are spreading the virus around.