3 ms·

I didn't say they do nothing, lockdowns clearly cause massive harm and suffering yet there is no obvious benefit when compared to places that didn't lock down.

by collyw 6y ago

I didn't say they do nothing, lockdowns clearly cause massive harm and suffering yet there is no obvious benefit when compared to places that didn't lock down. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84092-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84092-1

nmca 6y ago
I've seen this claim bandied about, but if you look at Sweden and its neighbors the no-lockdown case has 1000s more deaths. There are perhaps subtle arguments, but "no obvious benefit" seems extremely tenuous.
- collyw 6y ago
  Do you know what Finland and Norways lockdown involved? They closed schools and public buildings. They didn't force people to stay at home. They didn't stop people travelling, or force them to wear masks. They treated their populations as humans. Their responses were a lot closer to Sweden than to most European countries "lockdown" responses. And did you know that for whatever reason, Finland has 5 times more flu deaths per capita than Sweden on a normal year. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza-pneumonia/by-country/ https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza... You will also notice the the two countries where masks are apparently the norm, South Korea and Japan have relatively high rates of flu death for developed countries. That implies that the masks don't help. To use Sweden as an example of lockdown being effective is grasping at straws. Where is the spike after Texas opened up a month ago? Why is Florida doing better than California, despite an older population?
- bnralt 6y ago
  Looking at the stats now, it seems like it's doing better than a number of European countries, many of which had lockdowns (France, Belgium, Italy, etc.). Then you have countries like Japan, which people have been complaining about being lax for a year but still has lower rates than almost all Western countries. That's not to say lockdowns aren't effective, but the data doesn't seem to fit any neat narrative at the moment.

by collyw 6y ago

nmca 6y ago

I've seen this claim bandied about, but if you look at Sweden and its neighbors the no-lockdown case has 1000s more deaths. There are perhaps subtle arguments, but "no obvious benefit" seems extremely tenuous.

collyw 6y ago
Do you know what Finland and Norways lockdown involved? They closed schools and public buildings. They didn't force people to stay at home. They didn't stop people travelling, or force them to wear masks. They treated their populations as humans. Their responses were a lot closer to Sweden than to most European countries "lockdown" responses. And did you know that for whatever reason, Finland has 5 times more flu deaths per capita than Sweden on a normal year. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza-pneumonia/by-country/ https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza... You will also notice the the two countries where masks are apparently the norm, South Korea and Japan have relatively high rates of flu death for developed countries. That implies that the masks don't help. To use Sweden as an example of lockdown being effective is grasping at straws. Where is the spike after Texas opened up a month ago? Why is Florida doing better than California, despite an older population?
bnralt 6y ago
Looking at the stats now, it seems like it's doing better than a number of European countries, many of which had lockdowns (France, Belgium, Italy, etc.). Then you have countries like Japan, which people have been complaining about being lax for a year but still has lower rates than almost all Western countries. That's not to say lockdowns aren't effective, but the data doesn't seem to fit any neat narrative at the moment.