Mosy everyone did comply at the beginning, they/we were forced to. Everything was shutdown. By the end of May the infamous curve was flattened to smashed, then the protests/riots happened and went on for weeks. Surprise surprise, a spike is occurring. Lets not pretend that hasn't been the main driver in this new round of cases which, surprise surprise, is mostly impacting the younger people.
Again, What Were the Benefits of Locking Down?
- Thread starter easymon1
- Start date
Those protests were happening predominantly in Texas and Florida? California is really the only state where a significant bump in both protests and COVID. The other 15 or so states with huge increases were the one's who opened soonest and politicized pretending that COVID wasn't a big deal the most. That's pretty clear to anyone who isn't a rank partisan hell bent on continuing to politicize something that's killed 134,000 people as of today.
Point of thread, lockdown didn't work and still won't work whether implemented in full or partial. There is no magic solution, virus isn't anywhere near as deadly as first projected, even if you count the current number which is bullshit because of the number of cases in nursing homes. True number probably closer to 60K. Eliminate the very old, sickly and all of those who were in the high risk category, and always are, we probably have less than 20K as a more accurate number. IOW, not even a bad flu season.
That's an interesting line of thinking. Let me get this straight. You at least do grasp that the states with the explosion of COVID cases and deaths are predominantly the conservative state's who opened early and politicized pretending that COVID wasn't a big deal. Presumably you also agree that there weren't widespread protests in any of these states compared to what I'm sure you'd agree mostly occurred in those evil blue states. You know, the one's that predominantly haven't had a surge of COVID cases and deaths.
So, to follow your logic to it's conclusion, a bunch of people held protests in blue COVID careful states and virulent spread COVID. Then every last one of them immediately traveled to a red, COVID denying state and rampantly spread the disease, while managing to minimize infection in their original COVID careful state?
Or, Occam's Razor and all, could it be that taking precautions for COVID protects the people in your state even if they do something irresponsible like protest? And politicizing the idea of taking precautions leads to rampant infection and death even if you don't have people protesting? No, that would be too obvious, wouldn't it CaptainObvious?
Where do you get this stuff? Do you even watch the news? Are you keeping track of the numbers and the demographics?
Clearly pulled it straight out of his ass. I'm sure he does watch OAN and the Fox opinion shows....and nothing else.
There is only one number that would tell us true risk. That would be how many otherwise perfectly healthy people have died from Covid? No old and dying, no long list of preexisting conditions, no "accidental" exposure in nursing homes, just some person who got it and died who we can say with at least some certainty that they would be alive today. What is that number? They must know seeing how they are laser focused on every single death. It is my conjecture that number is very low and thereby does not fit the we're all gonna die narrative. Until I see that number I ain't buying the current storyline that the risk of death or need for hospitalized is super duper high across the board. It just isn't and therefore no need for shutdowns.
That and a dollar...
It's "obvious" isn't it, just like his logic that requires a contorted story of protesters in states with lower infection and death rates somehow all managing to cause an increase in cases and deaths in the states that didn't take COVID seriously.
I'm going to take your latest argument seriously for a second though, @CaptainObvious, because in fact the data your ostensibly seeking is there if you actually care to look at it rather than go with numbers you fabricated. Are you willing and capable of actually seriously reading and considering the following in good faith?
Your assertion is that the vast majority of people who've died of COVID were at death's door already, therefore while technically COVID might have killed them they would have died shortly anyway so it's not legitimate to count their deaths. While that's a horrid callous view of life, let's accept it for the purposes of discussion.
If that was the case, then many of the people who were going to die in May, June, July.... died in March and April instead. And if that was the case, and COVID caused no "additional" deaths that wouldn't have happened anyway, then we would see a reduction in deaths in June, July, Aug... from our national baseline. After all, a bunch people who were going to die in those months already died, according to you. Easily tested hypothesis, that's how the scientific method works. You are acquainted with it, aren't you?
So what have the results been. Epidemiologists call any deaths above the baseline "excess deaths", the opposite of what we would see if your hypothesis was true. Turns out we've actually seen more excess deaths than reported COVID deaths (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086) and that's continued through time. In other words, we're actually under reporting COVID deaths, and we're most certainly not seeing a deficit in deaths you'd expect if something came along and wiped out all the "almost dead" as you're maintaining. And I'll be willing to bet a sizable donation to a nonprofit of the other's choice we'll continue to see excess deaths are rates far above the numbers you pulled out of your ass until we have a deployed vaccine. Care to put your money where your mouth is, after all it's all "obvious" to you isn't it?