Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:Dammit my quote was off. I said 0.02%.

But Mickey, if you don’t wanna take it from me, you could always just give your pals at Johns Hopkins a ring.

Johns Hopkins isn't in the Ivy League, they're not my friends.

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Dammit my quote was off. I said 0.02%.

But Mickey, if you don’t wanna take it from me, you could always just give your pals at Johns Hopkins a ring.

Who better to assess the health of the nation that Johns Hopkins ... economists!

Who better?

Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is better. We should all lean on her exclusively.

Are those my two choices for COVID advice? Economists or Kamala Harris? I mean, I'd chose Kamala Harris, but I suspect it'd be better to ask doctors, pharmacists, public health researchers, epidemiologists, and/or virologists.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Dammit my quote was off. I said 0.02%.

But Mickey, if you don’t wanna take it from me, you could always just give your pals at Johns Hopkins a ring.

Who better to assess the health of the nation that Johns Hopkins ... economists!

Yes, this is exactly the kind of analysis for economists. Economists understand that there are always tradeoffs, costs and benefits to every decision and that to only look at the perceived benefits of a policy and to ignore costs and consequences both intended and unintended is to paint a very misleading picture.

"Doctors, pharmacists, public health researchers, epidemiologists, and/or virologists" are exactly the wrong people to ask about societal impacts of public policy because they are likely to have to narrow a focus on a single goal, in this case reduction of covid cases/death, etc., and often make declarations and recommendations without weighing the costs and benefits.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Dammit my quote was off. I said 0.02%.

But Mickey, if you don’t wanna take it from me, you could always just give your pals at Johns Hopkins a ring.

Who better to assess the health of the nation that Johns Hopkins ... economists!

Who better?

Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is better. We should all lean on her exclusively.

Are those my two choices for COVID advice? Economists or Kamala Harris? I mean, I'd chose Kamala Harris.

All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Well that can't be because none of that stuff had happened yet.

But Neil Ferguson says this study is wrong and he's built up a ton of credit being right about everything pandemic related...

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Mask/vax is not the same as lockdown/close businesses/put thousands of people out of work/close schools/etc.

Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

Mickey wrote:Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

But the suicides and domestic violence that followed…

Bammer wrote:

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Mask/vax is not the same as lockdown/close businesses/put thousands of people out of work/close schools/etc.

/more domestic violence/more drug overdoes/increase in mental health issues/skipping or not receiving medical care, screenings, etc

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Well that can't be because none of that stuff had happened yet.

are you sure?

Mickey wrote:Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

4/5 wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Mask/vax is not the same as lockdown/close businesses/put thousands of people out of work/close schools/etc.

/more domestic violence/more drug overdoes/increase in mental health issues/skipping or not receiving medical care, screenings, etc

Yeah … you lockdown lovers really shouldn’t minimize the uptick in mental health crises. I don’t have the data, but, come on, look around.

4/5 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not arguing for lockdowns at all, I just think it's a little more complex than it's being painted here by the forum's biggest headline reader.

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

4/5 wrote:All this study does by the way is reaffirm the decades-long scientific consensus that mass lockdowns are not an appropriate response to pandemics and should not even be considered. It's that consensus that was conveniently discarded by some public health figures in March 2020 in those early moments of panic and this study merely is a reminder that those people were very wrong to have done so.

probably because when faced with other pandemics people werent little pussies and cried about having to get a jab or wear a mask in order to fight off said pandemic

Well that can't be because none of that stuff had happened yet.

are you sure?

In March 2020 in this pandemic the bolded hadn't happened yet. Therefore that could not be the reason why some public health people suddenly and dramatically changed course.

Mickey wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not arguing for lockdowns at all, I just think it's a little more complex than it's being painted here by the forum's biggest headline reader.

It is, but I think that study is important and it's unfortunate it isn't getting more play.

Mickey wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Once again this is a case where you have to actually read the article:

The only measure that did reflect a positive outcome was closing non-essential businesses, which the team said showed a 10.6 percent reduction in mortality.

And that's the biggest "success" and the question remains whether that benefit outweighs the costs.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not arguing for lockdowns at all, I just think it's a little more complex than it's being painted here by the forum's biggest headline reader.

History will look back on all this shit as the wrong response.

Rank history's wrongest responses.