What are your thoughts on the paper? Am I the only one finding it kind of hilarious that a Swedish economics teacher wrote a scientific study on the relations of lockdowns and death tolls with the conclusion of
I haven't read it. I'm waiting for one of the other posters to read and comment so I know what's in it. @jiggyfly, @B-Bob, @Deckard, @ Buehler, Buehler, Buehler...?
Os, In no world, is it intellectually honest to compare Sweden with Italy and Spain (who got engulfed with cases before knowing it), and the UK (which locked down too LATE), and not compare it with its immediate neighbors who are incredibly more similar in nearly all aspects. This paper is wack and his motives are immediately clear in a comical way.
this seems to be a fairly good summary of the issues the Bjørnskov study raises in plain English: https://www.aier.org/article/the-virus-doesnt-care-about-your-policies/
Your @'s are clearly partisan and therefore invalid. We need some centrist to cover it. @MojoMan @Commodore @ROXRAN @PrincipleRooney
An Israeli security guy said the virus comes and goes in 70 days? I don't get his meaning. I feel like it's five months and counting. . . .
When you read, science happens. In other words, their case data is from the upslope phase of the graph. The death graph will lag behind that case graph by two or three weeks. The authors state this is an important limitation.
He's not wrong...although, I believe the improper word that's been used, especially in the U.S. and certain other countries, has been the word "lockdown." A true "lockdown" would be where everyone is confined to their homes with the only ones allowed out those that have the proper gear and training to move around. In this scenario, every human being that didn't have chem warfare training or gear would then be locked down to their home with no ability to go out. Those with proper training (more than likely, military folks) would drive around delivering food and supplies...we'd basically see a ghost-town or what we normally see in zombie movies at the beginning of the outbreak. The problem we have in America is that we haven't actually enforced a true "lockdown." Almost all of our efforts have been half-measures at best and only attempted, minimally, to slow the spread. When we had our "lockdown" a good percentage of people were still going to work (I know, I was one of them), still going to grocery stores, and still going to parks and other places to mingle and interact. Therefore, the point of the lockdown, while to slightly stall the exponential growth of the virus, really was just that...a small bump on the road for the virus to continue on its merry way. Then things got political, places started opening up, more people were out and about, masks were worn or not worn, social distancing was enforced, not enforced...at this point, there is no lockdown. So, I get what the author is saying...in reality, we did hamper the economy by going into "lockdown" for little benefit since it really wasn't a true "lockdown." However, it's likely that the economy would have eventually gone down the same road, just on a more gradual slope than the immediate crash that we saw. Of course, the funny thing, the politicians decrying the "lockdown" and its effects, would have been hurt worse by that gradual decline in the economy instead of now having the ability to claim that the economy is rebounding after the crash. The bigger issue is that we just don't or didn't have the testing capability to identify where breakout spots would occur and truly enforce a "lockdown" in just those areas. Enforcing a nation-wide "lockdown" like we did when we had no idea of where the virus was, where it was going, how long it lasted, and generally minimal information overall...while probably standard procedure for more normal virus outbreaks...was the wrong call here for something as contagious and long-lasting as this virus.
I don't see how any study can confidently say "policies" don't affect public health outcomes with a contagious virus when we see such markedly varied outcomes for different countries and governments across the planet. But I haven't read the study. I prefer scientists writing about science, but I admit a bias that way. At least I don't write papers on economics, to be consistent. #thedismalscience EDIT: To backup what ray just posted, we never tried anything close to a national lockdown in this country. NYC and New Jersey came pretty close on a regional level, yes. California talked a good game but never got close. etc. Look up images of lockdowned cities in other nations (that have largely beat back the virus) if you want to see a real one. Grim, absolute, and also temporary.
Agreed. I think our government also flubbed up the response to the virus...the overall primary goal of the "lockdown" was to try and buy time in order to get equipment, get enough tests for as many as possible, help set up hospitals, target hotspots, work on contact tracing, and hopefully get a vaccine. From what we've seen, equipment has been sparse and obtaining it and getting it to the actual need areas was bungled (at least initially...haven't heard much since, other than some spots saying they don't have enough NPR masks, beds, etc). Testing, while much better than it was originally, is still greatly lacking on a broad scale...there aren't enough...it takes too long to get results...the rich and powerful are getting tested much faster than the rest of us...and on and on and on. The president likes to claim that we test more than anyone else, but this shouldn't be a competitive aspect. We aren't testing enough for our population and need to continue to push to test everyone we can. Hospitals were setup initially and are there, but they just don't have the equipment or manpower to handle outbreaks like we've seen in some areas. Calling in State Guard or National Guard to help in these areas would probably help (I believe it has been done in some areas, but not others). Hotspots are sort of targetted. As you pointed out, NY and NJ did about as well as they could after the initial shock of the outbreak. However, not much was learned or passed on for controlling. Other outbreaks have been met with little resistance and just a "hope" that it will go away. Contact Tracing has been a bust so far. It was always going to be touchy due to privacy concerns, but it was DOA with our current administration. A vaccine was probably never coming quickly, but there was always a hope. No blame anywhere on this, just got to keep pushing. Basically, we failed to utilize the "lockdown" to beef up support for fighting the virus. Hindsight (being 20/20) shows that it likely was a bad idea economically and didn't do much to slow the spread. If we had better leadership across the board, we may have attacked this better. Under the current leadership, we get what we are getting...a jumbled mess, an economic plummet, and still no real plan on what we are doing. In the meantime, people continue to die and our leader says "it is what it is"...just a complete lack of leadership when it was needed most.
Just one more reason I don't go out right now. Too many crazies who don't give a damn. Florida man tells mask-wearing child ‘you now have coronavirus’ after spit lands on face https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-child-coronavirus-police
"WHO director-general warns there may never be a 'silver bullet' for COVID-19," which, for lockdown lovers, might mean a forever lockdown. https://theweek.com/speedreads/9291...l-warns-there-may-never-silver-bullet-covid19
http://theglitteringeye.com/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-is-covid-19/ I Have Seen the Future and It Is COVID-19 Dave Schuler August 5, 2020 I wish more people recognized the reality of what Sarah Zhang says in her piece in The Atlantic on the most likely scenario for COVID-19: The coronavirus is simply too widespread and too transmissible. The most likely scenario, experts say, is that the pandemic ends at some point—because enough people have been either infected or vaccinated—but the virus continues to circulate in lower levels around the globe. Cases will wax and wane over time. Outbreaks will pop up here and there. Even when a much-anticipated vaccine arrives, it is likely to only suppress but never completely eradicate the virus. (For context, consider that vaccines exist for more than a dozen human viruses but only one, smallpox, has ever been eradicated from the planet, and that took 15 years of immense global coordination.) We will probably be living with this virus for the rest of our lives. I have thought that since January. The conclusion I draw is not that we’ll be in lockdown forever but that we’ll accept a higher level of risk. And that will be true whether a vaccine is developed and effective treatments are found or not. It’s also why I think that elected officials like Illinois Gov. Pritzker, who has been warning about the need to tighten up on the restrictions he’s (illegally) imposed despite the reality that there are no signs that COVID-19 is threatening the health care system but there’s loads of evidence that the restrictions are hurting people financially, are either fools, cowards, or malicious. I don’t think he’s a fool.
