The lack of evidence lockdowns actually worked is ...

[mickojak]

I guess we will find out when rational analysis has been done,

Rational analysis of the predictions has already been done.
They were extremely over exaggerated, "extremely"

Why would we listen to them now?

[jackspratt]

Well Thinker
as you feel it's not over yet, what's your decisive solution
should we all skulk until there hasn't been a reported case for 1 month, 3 months or perhaps 10 years or ?
I'll defer to your superior medical and scientific knowledge.

Is that a snipe?

absolutely not, you gave an opinion and I'm asking for your criteria on how long the world should be shut down until we (me) rabbits can venture forth and perhaps get run over by a Thai driver or motorcyclist

You refer to my "superior medical and scientific knowledge."

Which of course, I have never claimed, nor would be silly enough to do so.

Unlike, for example:

in the history of the world there have been countless disasters and pandemics IMHO the aftermath of this enforced lock down in both social and economic terms will make the current unfortunate deaths seem insignificant and I'm not being flippant or uncaring

[stattointhailand]

And like I mentioned on the other thread, early on it was clear that certain age groups were virtually non affected.
The shutdowns could have been more focused on the vulnerable, and should be now also.
Mick

Does not matter one jot how old you are, you still catch and spread the virus at the same rate.
In fact due to the lifestyle of younger people they are far more likely to catch & pass the virus on

By far the safest way would have been to make the young and active stay at home whilst allowing the elderly out into the fresh air where there is less risk of catching it. The elderly would also be more likely to conform to social distancinng whilst out and about

[jackspratt]

I guess we will find out when rational analysis has been done,

Rational analysis of the predictions has already been done.
They were extremely over exaggerated, "extremely"

Link?

[cjd01]

Well Thinker
as you feel it's not over yet, what's your decisive solution
should we all skulk until there hasn't been a reported case for 1 month, 3 months or perhaps 10 years or ?
I'll defer to your superior medical and scientific knowledge.

Is that a snipe?

absolutely not, you gave an opinion and I'm asking for your criteria on how long the world should be shut down until we (me) rabbits can venture forth and perhaps get run over by a Thai driver or motorcyclist

You refer to my "superior medical and scientific knowledge."

Which of course, I have never claimed, nor would be silly enough to do so.

Unlike, for example:

in the history of the world there have been countless disasters and pandemics IMHO the aftermath of this enforced lock down in both social and economic terms will make the current unfortunate deaths seem insignificant and I'm not being flippant or uncaring

as usual when confronted to put up or shut up deflect deflect and piffle piffle
do you ever have any factual data
have to recall Thinker tag
perhaps go sit in the corner, I'll call when you can come out
your right about one thing couldn't make it up.

[Udon Map]

Quarantine' is when you restrict the movement of sick people.
'Tyranny' is when you restrict the movement of healthy people.

Sure, but in the absence of testing, how do you know who's who? Better safe than dead.

point taken, however every time we leave our homes we are at risk of death or injury from something or somebody

Agreed. However, I see no reason to add avoidable risk to what we already face.

[cjd01]

Quarantine' is when you restrict the movement of sick people.
'Tyranny' is when you restrict the movement of healthy people.

Sure, but in the absence of testing, how do you know who's who? Better safe than dead.

point taken, however every time we leave our homes we are at risk of death or injury from something or somebody

Agreed. However, I see no reason to add avoidable risk to what we already face.

agree everybody has the right to feel safe and secure, but the initial computer models had predicted massive deaths world wide for example Australia 150,000 dead, I believe it's now 103. My inconvenient question is when do we stop, if the answer is wait for an antidote will 'there be anything left to open for.

[Whistler]

Guys and gals.

None of us know. What troubles me is this, if we open up, people will die. If we don't open up, the economy will die.

Nobody has a clue where the balance is.

[cjd01]

Guys and gals.

None of us know. What troubles me is this, if we open up, people will die. If we don't open up, the economy will die.

Nobody has a clue where the balance is.

Whistler
correct again, I don't know the number of deaths and personal tragedies that are as a direct result of the lock down, we don't get those figures it doesn't fit the narrative also as crass as it sounds we all die one day and some unfortunately before their time. I certainly can't pretend to have the answer maybe we should let the statistically less vulnerable out to work perhaps when the virus "burns out" or there's an antidote there will be some economy left.

[jackspratt]

as usual when confronted to put up or shut up deflect deflect and piffle piffle
do you ever have any factual data
have to recall Thinker tag
perhaps go sit in the corner, I'll call when you can come out
your right about one thing couldn't make it up.

Once again, unlike some others, I have never pretended I have the answer to whatever it is you are asking.

I am happy to leave that to people who do have an idea - mainly because I believe they are qualified to do so.

As for your corner - it seems it it already occupied.

[noosard]

as usual when confronted to put up or shut up deflect deflect and piffle piffle
do you ever have any factual data
have to recall Thinker tag
perhaps go sit in the corner, I'll call when you can come out
your right about one thing couldn't make it up.

Once again, unlike some others, I have never pretended I have the answer to whatever it is you are asking.

I am happy to leave that to people who do have an idea - mainly because I believe they are qualified to do so.

As for your corner - it seems it it already occupied.

The problem is the people making the rules dont know either

[Khun Paul]

Well it has been stated that because of this Lock-down, many people with otherwise innocuous problems are not seeking medical advice and that may hasten the demise of some, plus the ceasing of surgical operations may also have a detrimental effect on some . Not counting the mental toll of isolation on some more especially the old and mentally ill.
These deaths when occurring will not be linked to anything other than the reasons for death . We have documented stats that shoiw, Old people in care Homes have died before their time , but at what percentage higher no-one knows. Lockdown may have achieved the desired result, but the cost to human life, and economic stability is enormous .
One I feel short have been a short sharp event three weeks maybe, educates the masses and get on with life. Not this long drawn out debacle.

[Drunk Monkey]

It isnt really suprising that OPH / care homes for the elderly have seen such high infection and death numbers .. they are FULL of very old people some with preexisting illnesses thus falling into the most at risk category .. they dont call them Gods waiting room for nothing and just goes to prove C19 is far from beaten in the UK .. but the footy is ok to restart so thats ok ..NOT .

dm

[jackspratt]

The problem is the people making the rules dont know either

So best they act from an abundance of caution, and learn from the experience, and (hopefully) be better prepared for next time.

[Udon Map]

Quarantine' is when you restrict the movement of sick people. 'Tyranny' is when you restrict the movement of healthy people.

Sure, but in the absence of testing, how do you know who's who? Better safe than dead.

point taken, however every time we leave our homes we are at risk of death or injury from something or somebody

Agreed. However, I see no reason to add avoidable risk to what we already face.

agree everybody has the right to feel safe and secure, but the initial computer models had predicted massive deaths world wide for example Australia 150,000 dead, I believe it's now 103.

I'll take your word for it on the Australia figures. But the question, then, is whether the low number of fatalities is the result of preventative measures like masks, quarantine, social distancing, or unrelated to them and would have been the same even without those things. I don't want to take the chance and find out later that I was wrong.

[cjd01]

Well it has been stated that because of this Lock-down, many people with otherwise innocuous problems are not seeking medical advice and that may hasten the demise of some, plus the ceasing of surgical operations may also have a detrimental effect on some . Not counting the mental toll of isolation on some more especially the old and mentally ill.
These deaths when occurring will not be linked to anything other than the reasons for death . We have documented stats that shoiw, Old people in care Homes have died before their time , but at what percentage higher no-one knows. Lockdown may have achieved the desired result, but the cost to human life, and economic stability is enormous .
One I feel short have been a short sharp event three weeks maybe, educates the masses and get on with life. Not this long drawn out debacle.

Well we have a new norm now, "experts" with computer models predicting uncountable deaths with annual or biennial shutdowns and quarantines, if their inaccurate it's ok "rounding error next", dissenters will not be tolerated You will obey.

[Whistler]

Udon,

where it has been effective, a multi faceted approach was necessary

1. Close borders so you can stop introducing external cases, those you must let in, 14 days isolation.
2. Track cases so those who had been in contact can also be isolated.
3. testing, testing and more testing. You cannot put a carrier into isolation if you cannot identify them.
3. Social distancing.
4, Medium term lockdown.
5. Provisioning and protective health workers.
6. Getting the population on side so they co-operate
7. Taking the advise of experts
8. Co-ordination amongst all levels of government

these worked, where ALL of these or some of these were ignored, you had problems.

[Whistler]

RL Trader was wrong when he said the virus was burning out, it is still growing rapidly worldwide, in the USA it is growing in states where it was not an issue before. In all new growth areas, it was government inaction that allowed the spread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/c ... k-6a94270c

[cjd01]

I'll take your word for it on the Australia figures. But the question, then, is whether the low number of fatalities is the result of preventative measures like masks, quarantine, social distancing, or unrelated to them and would have been the same even without those things. I don't want to take the chance and find out later that I was wrong.
Paul
Unfortunately there's way to determine this argument on what should or shouldn't have happened
and there is no disputing your feelings.
I just can't comprehend how this is the new norm, I may be wrong but the excepted practice was to isolate the ill.
anyway we'll just have to agree to disagree at least we haven't had the traditional bad manner comments.

[noosard]

I liked the graphs the pollies use to roll out
and after an hour or so explaining what they mean finish off the statement that it was all based on unknown projections of what might happen

Even after 5 months of this no-one knows
1 when of if a vaccine will be made that works
2 if it can be stopped
3 what the next real step is and when it will occur