4 ms·

There is literally no scientific evidence they've been effective at all. If you really dig, you find things like the Flaxman, et. al. paper (https://www.nature

There is literally no scientific evidence they've been effective at all. If you really dig, you find things like the Flaxman, et. al. paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7) which falls apart if you try to apply it retroactively (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v...) not to mention the huge issues with the methodology (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.580361/full#B1 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.58036...) On social media, people pass around pre-prints like this (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248802v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248802v...) on the "long COVID" narrative, which uses the mythology of self reporting on online forums. There is zero science on the effectiveness of lockdowns what so ever. the Great Barrington Declaration is a scientific counter to any pro-lockdown arguments as well. Everyone is saying "We didn't lockdown long and hard enough" .. which is just fucking insane at this point. Unless you're an island nation like NZ, there is literally no way to stop a virus that has entered our ecosystem at this scale. It took over 160 years between the development of the Jenner/Smallpox vaccine and its elimination, with a huge 20 year push in the 60s/70s. This thing will be with us for at least a decade or more to come, and we can't continue fooling ourselves into thinking we can just turn off society like gears in a machine with little to no consequences. Humans are not batteries with an on off switch.

NickNameNick 6y ago
People keep saying that lockdown and elimination strategies only work on islands, but I've yet to hear a compelling narrative why that should be the case. The only variations in the effectiveness of a lockdown strategy should be due to - Household size - Compliance levels - Duration Covered population, and population density should be completely irrelevant. You also need a seperate and ongoing strategy to prevent re-introduction, and an outbreak management strategy, but those are seperate concerns. Ideally, if your neighbouring countries/states/whatever were similarly effective, then re-introduction management shouldn't be too difficult (cf 'pacific travel bubble', etc).
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > but I've yet to hear a compelling narrative why that should be the case. Why does that matter? We can be confident that something is true without being sure why. We aren't sure what dark energy is, but just from empirical evidence we've observed, we do know that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. How is this situation different?

NickNameNick 6y ago

People keep saying that lockdown and elimination strategies only work on islands, but I've yet to hear a compelling narrative why that should be the case. The only variations in the effectiveness of a lockdown strategy should be due to - Household size - Compliance levels - Duration Covered population, and population density should be completely irrelevant. You also need a seperate and ongoing strategy to prevent re-introduction, and an outbreak management strategy, but those are seperate concerns. Ideally, if your neighbouring countries/states/whatever were similarly effective, then re-introduction management shouldn't be too difficult (cf 'pacific travel bubble', etc).

josephcsible 6y ago
> but I've yet to hear a compelling narrative why that should be the case. Why does that matter? We can be confident that something is true without being sure why. We aren't sure what dark energy is, but just from empirical evidence we've observed, we do know that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. How is this situation different?