3 ms·

Okay thank you that makes more sense. But from an outsider reading the conversation as is, that is not very clear at all. Do you have any proof that shutting

Okay thank you that makes more sense. But from an outsider reading the conversation as is, that is not very clear at all. Do you have any proof that shutting down schools was huge? Everything I have seen says the exact opposite. Little to no benefit with massive decades long consequences. You said originally you feel that lockdowns worked but again the actual world data does not agree with you. I listed two countries that as examples in my previous comment. Here is a very comprehensive report on the lockdowns that looks at mortalities as well as economic impacts in the states: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 Page 18 shows no correlation between lockdowns and mortality. This is using real world data. Edit: missing words

Retric 4y ago
That’s a long way from a comprehensive report, it’s not even a peer reviewed paper and has serious flaws. It aggregates things at the state level and condenses it all to a single datapoint which throws away mounds of useful data. Not just that but excludes state level data that doesn’t fit it’s conclusion and ignores cofounders like population density and feedback loops from low rates of transmission reducing the need for lockdowns. I don’t mean mean this as an attack but read up on the backgrounds of the authors they all have political backgrounds. It’s an odd collaboration, I how it came about. Here’s a vastly more rigorous study: The differences between weights estimated by common and individualized models, although present, do not lead to drastically different conclusions—indeed, both models indicate that school closing has a large impact on virus transmission https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2
- keneda7 4y ago
  You keep linking this study likes it proves your point but it does not. It has similar issues to the ones you listed above. It ignores things like repeat infections, feedback loops, and population structure. Using the same logic your study is serious flawed. Also all the authors of your study seem to have an agenda of being pro lockdowns and push that. You absolutely meant it as an attack. In fact the FIRST time I commented in a thread about 6 feet of social distancing, you jumped at me about how I only want to talk about 6 feet of social distancing. If I wanted to talk about the other stuff I probably would have commented somewhere else.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I don’t actually mind that the authors you linked have an agenda, their arguments are independent of themselves. I just thought the entire things was odd compared to any of the actually peer reviewed studies I had seen on the subject. If I wanted to attack the paper I would have pointed out their anti school lockdown examples actually locked down schools thus invalidating their argument. It’s an argument that state governments could have opened schools and restaurants more frequently, not that closing them was never useful. There are hundreds of peer review studies you can chose from and the vast majority show closing schools was useful. The better ones point out that they could have been open sooner in most areas as long as they where willing to close them should cases rise.

Retric 4y ago

That’s a long way from a comprehensive report, it’s not even a peer reviewed paper and has serious flaws. It aggregates things at the state level and condenses it all to a single datapoint which throws away mounds of useful data. Not just that but excludes state level data that doesn’t fit it’s conclusion and ignores cofounders like population density and feedback loops from low rates of transmission reducing the need for lockdowns. I don’t mean mean this as an attack but read up on the backgrounds of the authors they all have political backgrounds. It’s an odd collaboration, I how it came about. Here’s a vastly more rigorous study: The differences between weights estimated by common and individualized models, although present, do not lead to drastically different conclusions—indeed, both models indicate that school closing has a large impact on virus transmission https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2

keneda7 4y ago
You keep linking this study likes it proves your point but it does not. It has similar issues to the ones you listed above. It ignores things like repeat infections, feedback loops, and population structure. Using the same logic your study is serious flawed. Also all the authors of your study seem to have an agenda of being pro lockdowns and push that. You absolutely meant it as an attack. In fact the FIRST time I commented in a thread about 6 feet of social distancing, you jumped at me about how I only want to talk about 6 feet of social distancing. If I wanted to talk about the other stuff I probably would have commented somewhere else.
- Retric 4y ago
  I don’t actually mind that the authors you linked have an agenda, their arguments are independent of themselves. I just thought the entire things was odd compared to any of the actually peer reviewed studies I had seen on the subject. If I wanted to attack the paper I would have pointed out their anti school lockdown examples actually locked down schools thus invalidating their argument. It’s an argument that state governments could have opened schools and restaurants more frequently, not that closing them was never useful. There are hundreds of peer review studies you can chose from and the vast majority show closing schools was useful. The better ones point out that they could have been open sooner in most areas as long as they where willing to close them should cases rise.