4 ms·

> https://www.benjaminborn.de/publication/bdm_lockdown_2020/ https://www.benjaminborn.de/publication/bdm_lockdown_2020/ Literally a pre-print. There's only an

> https://www.benjaminborn.de/publication/bdm_lockdown_2020/ https://www.benjaminborn.de/publication/bdm_lockdown_2020/ Literally a pre-print. There's only an abstract. I don't see the actual one on Sci-Hub or anywhere. I can read it. > https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2932034-1 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820... The full text of the 2nd paper is literally only two pages and only appears to look at regions in France and not other countries. There are literally no graphs, no detailed explanation of the methodology and the very next article is literally "Is COVID-19 being used as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil?" which speaks of this very weird identity politics finding its way into major academic journals. There are references to an Appendix that I can't seem to find the full-text of, but it bothers me the paper itself doesn't seem to have a detail methodology section, risk analysis and also lists some pretty big financial incentives/interests. The 3rd study is the only really detailed source provided, yet it only covers data up to May 5th. It also has this interesting quote: > In addition, it is claimed that, besides the positive aspects of the lockdown, people who comply with this restriction cause a weakened immune system. The main reason for this is that there is too much food consumption and limited mobility. The effect of the lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on human health may be the subject of future work It also tries to look at environmental impacts and mentions the inconsistency of lock-downs across all areas. I'm also having a hard time understand the "Transformed data" as it doesn't seem to correlate to either of the two preceding graphs at all. Also keep in mind, correlational near r=1 shows that Ice Cream sales can lead to Polio: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.springernature.com%2Foriginal%2Fspringer-static%2Fimage%2Fchp%3A10.1007%252F978-3-319-93224-8_15%2FMediaObjects%2F430194_1_En_15_Fig4_HTML.png&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... That combined with the limited window and inconsistent lock-downs should at least throw question on this study.

oblio 6y ago
I want your sources.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus," Dr. David Nabarro (World Health Orginization). You can find multiple articles that quote this from the WHO and link to the full 1 hour interview with the Spectator. The full interview goes on further to talk about how continued lockdowns will lead to move poverty and devastation. There's also this study that tears apart the models used by many: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v... Also you know that 2-million Neil Ferguson model? Here's the source code for it. It's disastrous: non-reproducible results and 3 different random seeds. They literally ran it multiple times and took averages (with ranges of fatalities varying by up to 60k). Also it has race conditions and can't be run in parallel. Fucking mess: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/blob/e8f7864ad150f4002279cff6cf8673208b5cd387/src/SetupModel.cpp https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/blob/e8f7864ad150f40022... As far as independent journalists that give you a different point of view: James Corbett (who covers the origin of the lockdown policy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc Ben Shapiro makes an excellent case as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymD9ipSm-eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymD9ipSm-eg
  - oblio 6y ago
    Which one is more likely to be right: A) Tens if not hundreds of governments, with wildly different agendas, ranging from dictatorships to ultra liberal democracies, converge on enforcing different degrees of lockdowns. Tens of different graphs I've seen have infection rates go down, like clockwork, roughly 10-14 days after stricter lockdowns are enforced. Keep in mind that they're all aware of the economic costs, mental health issues, etc. They're not doing this for fun. And they're not going to lock us forever, there is no "freedoms" slippery slope here. B) A rather fringe group of libertarians, freedom fighters and the like, who dislike government overreach, prove that models used by all those governments are all wrong, thus indirectly confirming their long held beliefs and biases. In Romanian we say: "If someone says you're drunk, ignore them. If two people say that you're drunk, go to bed even if you haven't touched a bottle of liquor." The odds of your sources being a scientific revolution are low. They're much more likely to be Nostradamuses (Nostradami?) than Galileos. Plus, using Ben Shapiro as a source? Isn't he obviously an agenda pushing hypocrite? I mean, a broken clock is right twice a day, but still :-)

oblio 6y ago

I want your sources.

djsumdog 6y ago
"We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus," Dr. David Nabarro (World Health Orginization). You can find multiple articles that quote this from the WHO and link to the full 1 hour interview with the Spectator. The full interview goes on further to talk about how continued lockdowns will lead to move poverty and devastation. There's also this study that tears apart the models used by many: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v... Also you know that 2-million Neil Ferguson model? Here's the source code for it. It's disastrous: non-reproducible results and 3 different random seeds. They literally ran it multiple times and took averages (with ranges of fatalities varying by up to 60k). Also it has race conditions and can't be run in parallel. Fucking mess: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/blob/e8f7864ad150f4002279cff6cf8673208b5cd387/src/SetupModel.cpp https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/blob/e8f7864ad150f40022... As far as independent journalists that give you a different point of view: James Corbett (who covers the origin of the lockdown policy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc Ben Shapiro makes an excellent case as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymD9ipSm-eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymD9ipSm-eg
- oblio 6y ago
  Which one is more likely to be right: A) Tens if not hundreds of governments, with wildly different agendas, ranging from dictatorships to ultra liberal democracies, converge on enforcing different degrees of lockdowns. Tens of different graphs I've seen have infection rates go down, like clockwork, roughly 10-14 days after stricter lockdowns are enforced. Keep in mind that they're all aware of the economic costs, mental health issues, etc. They're not doing this for fun. And they're not going to lock us forever, there is no "freedoms" slippery slope here. B) A rather fringe group of libertarians, freedom fighters and the like, who dislike government overreach, prove that models used by all those governments are all wrong, thus indirectly confirming their long held beliefs and biases. In Romanian we say: "If someone says you're drunk, ignore them. If two people say that you're drunk, go to bed even if you haven't touched a bottle of liquor." The odds of your sources being a scientific revolution are low. They're much more likely to be Nostradamuses (Nostradami?) than Galileos. Plus, using Ben Shapiro as a source? Isn't he obviously an agenda pushing hypocrite? I mean, a broken clock is right twice a day, but still :-)