2 ms·

> This paper argued that lockdowns work using a statistical model, but they actually don't work Sorry, cite for "actually don't work"?! I don't know what you

> This paper argued that lockdowns work using a statistical model, but they actually don't work Sorry, cite for "actually don't work"?! I don't know what you mean by "lockdown". That's not a term of art, it's something used mostly among right wing people arguing against mitigation strategies via hyperbole. Are you talking about mask requirements? Restaurant closures? Hard curfews? Obviously "lockdowns" (in this sense of "broad covid mitigation strategies") do work. Arguing otherwise is nonsensical. Just look at the data for what is happening in influenza in areas where mitigation was common. Flu cases and deaths fell through the floor. Clearly mitigation worked, just not perfectly (in large part because of poor compliance by people who believe "lockdowns don't work").

mike_hearn 6y ago
Here are 32 studies, papers and articles of varying quality that support that claim: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... I don't know what you mean by "lockdown". That's not a term of art, it's something used mostly among right wing people arguing against mitigation strategies via hyperbole. The word lockdown has been widely used for the entire past year by people across the political spectrum, to refer to mandatory stay-at-home orders, business closures and so on. You know this already of course, but are determined to view this through ideological lenses. As for obviously working and being nonsensical to claim otherwise, it's the opposite: the data is extremely clear that they have no effect whatsoever and quite a lot of all-country statistical analyses have been done that show that rigorously. For example, here is one such paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... "Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people" But again, to see this, you don't really need sophisticated analysis. You can just look at the case curves for different regions that did or did not use these tactics. Re: influenza. We're talking about COVID here, so influenza is irrelevant, controlling the flu wasn't the goal of lockdowns. However, there is some evidence that suggests you can't be infected with more than one respiratory virus at once, so it's possible SARS-CoV-2 simply kicked influenza out. But given the extremely lax symptom classification of COVID it's also possible influenza cases have simply been reclassified. Regardless of the explanation it's not actually relevant: neither lockdowns nor mask mandates had any impact on COVID and there is abundant evidence to this effect. The real question we should be asking is why not, and there unfortunately there are quite a few plausible explanations but nothing conclusive. And the people who are paid to figure that out (epidemiologists) all seem to be in denial and still pretending their models were never invalidated, so they're not much help.

mike_hearn 6y ago

Here are 32 studies, papers and articles of varying quality that support that claim: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... I don't know what you mean by "lockdown". That's not a term of art, it's something used mostly among right wing people arguing against mitigation strategies via hyperbole. The word lockdown has been widely used for the entire past year by people across the political spectrum, to refer to mandatory stay-at-home orders, business closures and so on. You know this already of course, but are determined to view this through ideological lenses. As for obviously working and being nonsensical to claim otherwise, it's the opposite: the data is extremely clear that they have no effect whatsoever and quite a lot of all-country statistical analyses have been done that show that rigorously. For example, here is one such paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... "Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people" But again, to see this, you don't really need sophisticated analysis. You can just look at the case curves for different regions that did or did not use these tactics. Re: influenza. We're talking about COVID here, so influenza is irrelevant, controlling the flu wasn't the goal of lockdowns. However, there is some evidence that suggests you can't be infected with more than one respiratory virus at once, so it's possible SARS-CoV-2 simply kicked influenza out. But given the extremely lax symptom classification of COVID it's also possible influenza cases have simply been reclassified. Regardless of the explanation it's not actually relevant: neither lockdowns nor mask mandates had any impact on COVID and there is abundant evidence to this effect. The real question we should be asking is why not, and there unfortunately there are quite a few plausible explanations but nothing conclusive. And the people who are paid to figure that out (epidemiologists) all seem to be in denial and still pretending their models were never invalidated, so they're not much help.