4 ms·

Can you imagine how bad everything would have been without the initial lockdown? Fucking hell, think of a city like New York if NOTHING WAS DONE. Subsequent l

by mrlala 6y ago

Can you imagine how bad everything would have been without the initial lockdown? Fucking hell, think of a city like New York if NOTHING WAS DONE. Subsequent lockdowns would NOT have been needed if people would have listened to basic fucking things like: wear a mask, try not to go out unless you really need to, and keep some distance. But no, people are just selfish as hell and it's making it worst for the rest of us. Doesn't help that you have some certain politicians who actively made people resist doing basic things to help out.

djsumdog 6y ago
You do realize the majority of deaths in NYC were due to Cuomo sending sick COVID-19 elderly patients to be sent to nursing homes and kept in the same rooms as healthy elderly people right? Same with Gov Whitmer in Michigan. Janice Dean covers it very well when she reported on how her own family member was killed by Cuomo's orders: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305?i=1000498452028 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/i... A number of people were killed because of overuse of ventilators. Many people under 40 who were put on them would have likely survived had they not been put on high pressure vents (and they're not used very much today for that reason).
- mrlala 6y ago
  So your premise is if we had done absolutely nothing we would be better off? That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, when lockdowns stopped the deaths would have stopped or rapidly slowed down, but they certainly haven't.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    In this case, Cuomo killed thousands of people with very bad decisions. Yes, there's a good chance if he did nothing at all, there would have been a lower death count. The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. There is little to no scientific evidence they've done anything at all! So really, they've likely only done harm and zero good.
    - palae 6y ago
      > The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. I can't find a source for that claim, would you mind sharing one?
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        S/he is a bullshit artist. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-ap-fact-check-donald-trump-united-nations-284a37c388ff9ad8f8b609fcfb9ce70f https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-ap-f...
        djsumdog 6y ago
        No, I'm not. That AP article directly contradicts what the WHO envoy said > We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-world-leaders-to-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method/ar-BB19TBUo https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-... Honestly, every news organization is continually contradicting themselves at this point. Hell, the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in the same articles! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        Your comments on this and other covid stories are a long string of hyperbolic statements followed by walkbacks. Maybe if you offered arguments of narrower scope and supported them with data up front rather than after being challenged you'd find a more receptive audience. You seem like a smart person and I'm sure you can get the downsides of things like organized disinformation campaigns, the resulting impact on vaccine hesitancy, and the second-order effects like avoidable increases in measles, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/ If you could make more of an effort to communicate your ideas in a cooperative rather than an adversarial fashion that'd be great.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    No, the premise is that not locking down and not sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones would have left us better off than locking down and sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones did.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      No, that's not what I said. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should nursing homes have been used for anything, other than housing the people who originally paid to be in those homes. The Gov issues an executive order, and the nursing homes told both the NY government and the Michigan government (Whitmer did the same thing) they did not have the tools, beds or people to possible take COVID patients. The lockdowns are unrelated to the leaders of those two states arbitrarily deciding to using private nursing homes to store patients; homes that didn't have individual rooms or isolation areas. The patients could have literally been sent anywhere else, like the massive emergency shelters in NYC that were totally empty and unused.

by mrlala 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago

You do realize the majority of deaths in NYC were due to Cuomo sending sick COVID-19 elderly patients to be sent to nursing homes and kept in the same rooms as healthy elderly people right? Same with Gov Whitmer in Michigan. Janice Dean covers it very well when she reported on how her own family member was killed by Cuomo's orders: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305?i=1000498452028 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/i... A number of people were killed because of overuse of ventilators. Many people under 40 who were put on them would have likely survived had they not been put on high pressure vents (and they're not used very much today for that reason).

mrlala 6y ago
So your premise is if we had done absolutely nothing we would be better off? That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, when lockdowns stopped the deaths would have stopped or rapidly slowed down, but they certainly haven't.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  In this case, Cuomo killed thousands of people with very bad decisions. Yes, there's a good chance if he did nothing at all, there would have been a lower death count. The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. There is little to no scientific evidence they've done anything at all! So really, they've likely only done harm and zero good.
  - palae 6y ago
    > The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. I can't find a source for that claim, would you mind sharing one?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      S/he is a bullshit artist. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-ap-fact-check-donald-trump-united-nations-284a37c388ff9ad8f8b609fcfb9ce70f https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-ap-f...
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        No, I'm not. That AP article directly contradicts what the WHO envoy said > We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-world-leaders-to-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method/ar-BB19TBUo https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-... Honestly, every news organization is continually contradicting themselves at this point. Hell, the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in the same articles! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        Your comments on this and other covid stories are a long string of hyperbolic statements followed by walkbacks. Maybe if you offered arguments of narrower scope and supported them with data up front rather than after being challenged you'd find a more receptive audience. You seem like a smart person and I'm sure you can get the downsides of things like organized disinformation campaigns, the resulting impact on vaccine hesitancy, and the second-order effects like avoidable increases in measles, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/ If you could make more of an effort to communicate your ideas in a cooperative rather than an adversarial fashion that'd be great.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  No, the premise is that not locking down and not sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones would have left us better off than locking down and sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones did.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    No, that's not what I said. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should nursing homes have been used for anything, other than housing the people who originally paid to be in those homes. The Gov issues an executive order, and the nursing homes told both the NY government and the Michigan government (Whitmer did the same thing) they did not have the tools, beds or people to possible take COVID patients. The lockdowns are unrelated to the leaders of those two states arbitrarily deciding to using private nursing homes to store patients; homes that didn't have individual rooms or isolation areas. The patients could have literally been sent anywhere else, like the massive emergency shelters in NYC that were totally empty and unused.