3 ms·

Yes, that's correct, your sarcasm is misplaced. It was clear within a month or two that lockdowns weren't working, because when examining all the available data

Yes, that's correct, your sarcasm is misplaced. It was clear within a month or two that lockdowns weren't working, because when examining all the available data from all countries: 1. Waves peaked and went into decline at the wrong times for lockdowns to have been the cause. 2. There was no correlation between lockdown severity and outcomes. It also became clear that having committed to such a disastrous and stupid policy, public health people couldn't then admit it had failed despite the clarity of the data, so they simply ignored it all, then told everyone it was a great success and we had to keep on doing it. The press fell into line and now, even two years later, we have the problem of people like yourself who assume that if we are doing it, it must therefore work. Oh, how easy life would be if that were so. The reality is lockdowns are still sporadically happening and they're slow to let go of WFH, because public health is an institutionally corrupt and unethical profession at every level. Because you can't do something like lock down a country and then admit it was a bad idea, in a reputation based field, whilst keeping your status and career. Because lying is easier than admitting the truth. Because lots of people like having an excuse to WFH instead of going to an office. Because, because, because. But it's not because they work.

Aachen 5y ago
Point 1 is missing the word "only" before "cause" > The press fell into line and now, even two years later, we have the problem of people like yourself who assume You realize this sounds very conspiratorial? The government's ego got in the way, the press is in on it, all the sheeple just swallow it! Anyway no I'm not following much mainstream media, no idea what they say about lockdowns. I didn't hear it being called a success or failure anywhere honestly. I do follow OWID data daily, looking at the various stats like excess deaths, deaths directly attributed to covid, share or positive tests, vaccinations, etc. I mostly make choices based on data, not media coverage (I don't even know what the current official rules in my country are anymore, they're always way behind the facts anyway). Furthermore, elsewhere in this thread I wrote: > In my circles (Netherlands/Germany) the people that go out all got covid, the people that could stay at home didn't. Not everyone has a choice here, like if you have school-age kids then you're almost guaranteed to get it through them. That's what I'm basing this on. Idk if rules from the government help when the only ones following them are the people with a brain who'd have stayed at home anyway. Maybe it does because it creates a legal reason to keep your children at home during the worst of it (namely before we had vaccinations and keeping kids home actually saved lives). > It was clear within a month or two If that's so, what was this based on? Was there a single statistician on this earth that said they had sufficient and reliable data to draw such a conclusion after just one month? Or two? With a confidence high enough to say we might as well go and party rather than keep doing lockdowns, knowing that, if wrong, they'd kill a million people by the time we had enough counter-data? By all means, share a link to such a post/comment if it was so clear to you and yours back then already.

Aachen 5y ago

Point 1 is missing the word "only" before "cause" > The press fell into line and now, even two years later, we have the problem of people like yourself who assume You realize this sounds very conspiratorial? The government's ego got in the way, the press is in on it, all the sheeple just swallow it! Anyway no I'm not following much mainstream media, no idea what they say about lockdowns. I didn't hear it being called a success or failure anywhere honestly. I do follow OWID data daily, looking at the various stats like excess deaths, deaths directly attributed to covid, share or positive tests, vaccinations, etc. I mostly make choices based on data, not media coverage (I don't even know what the current official rules in my country are anymore, they're always way behind the facts anyway). Furthermore, elsewhere in this thread I wrote: > In my circles (Netherlands/Germany) the people that go out all got covid, the people that could stay at home didn't. Not everyone has a choice here, like if you have school-age kids then you're almost guaranteed to get it through them. That's what I'm basing this on. Idk if rules from the government help when the only ones following them are the people with a brain who'd have stayed at home anyway. Maybe it does because it creates a legal reason to keep your children at home during the worst of it (namely before we had vaccinations and keeping kids home actually saved lives). > It was clear within a month or two If that's so, what was this based on? Was there a single statistician on this earth that said they had sufficient and reliable data to draw such a conclusion after just one month? Or two? With a confidence high enough to say we might as well go and party rather than keep doing lockdowns, knowing that, if wrong, they'd kill a million people by the time we had enough counter-data? By all means, share a link to such a post/comment if it was so clear to you and yours back then already.