But we’re talking about Wisconsin, not New York. The death rate in Wisconsin is 1 in 14,000. Flu is about 1 in 4,000-5,000 in a typical year. New York is such an outlier in terms of death rates that it should be a totally separate conversation.
It spread much faster in New York so we got to see the devastation it can cause. Same will eventually happen everywhere else if the measures to slow the spread are lifted. I don’t get why you’d want to exclude the data from New York when it’s our best example of what a full-scale outbreak looks like in the US.
Even with restrictions, the virus will eventually spread to most of the population. The question is time scale. In New York—thanks to its density and reliance on public transportation—even a full lock down couldn’t avoid a brush fire that left the hospital system overwhelmed. That hasn’t been true in the rest of the country. In nearly states, the death rate is elevated less than 10% from normal levels. In 14 states, the death rate is lower than normal levels. That means that less restrictive measures could be implemented in those states while keeping the excess death rate to some acceptable level.
South Dakota never fully locked down, and the COVID-19 death rate there 4.5 per 100,000. That’s 1/3 the average for the country minus NYC and 1/30th the rate for NYC. And that’s a 5% increase over what the baseline death rate would have been in the state over that time period.
It’s also worth pointing out that nowhere has really “locked down.” Most people are still going to work and leaving the house. Minnesota has found that the stay at home orders reduced contact only by 55%: https://www.minnpost.com/health/2020/05/minnesota-has-update.... Under various scenarios, Minnesota projected a “do nothing” scenario at 57,000 deaths over the course of the pandemic, versus 26,000 deaths if the stay at home order were extended to September. But lifting the order on May 18 results in only a few thousand extra deaths compared to leaving it in place until September.
> couldn’t avoid a brush fire that left the hospital system overwhelmed
Agree with most of what you say. However, the hospitals were not overwhelmed as evidenced by USNS Comfort leaving NYC after only treating 182 patients [1]. Similarly, Javits center temporary hospital had many spare beds [2]. The governor thought the hospitals would be overwhelmed which is a very different thing.
People that should have used the spare hospital beds and seen doctors didn't due to the lockdown, which makes this fact extra relevant. An overwhelming percentage of people that died from coronavirus in NYC had one or more other serious health conditions. Question is how many people that was classified as also having covid died of other underlying conditions and did not seek proper medical care due to fear of coronavirus.
No other city in this country is anywhere close to NYC in terms of density. The R0 for NY is going to be naturally much, much higher. It's absolute lunacy to apply the same measures in Wisconsin as NY.
The higher R0 means it spread throughout the city in two months, with a lower R0 it will take more months to reach the same level in other areas. Same devastation, it just takes longer to get there. Why is that acceptable?
Suggestion to parent from someone that agree: find some evidence to counter claim or support another story.
Share this evidence and direction to better path, and then each individual will choose if they want to put together the evidence to form their own opinion.
“Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.” 1 John 2:6
“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” Buddha
“If he comes to me walking, I come to him running” the Hadith
“Human beings should walk the right path humbly” rig Veda
Show a direction to a path and whom will walk walks. Where each individual will walk is not for us to choose.
As shown on my first parent in this thread you will still risk being downvoted with no argument in the virtual or real sense, but that doesn’t matter as those are at any rate not useful opponents in truth seeking so ignore them.
Don’t argue with anything but a person as you would then throw pearls to swine. The loving father did not join his son in the pig pen after his fall, he waited until the son walked away from the pig pen and welcomed him with open arms.
He is responding to your comment about the New York scenario. The original justification for the shutdown was that we would run out of hospital capacity.
New York always had ample capacity in hospitals, and the USNS comfort and Javits center hospital were almost empty. Governor projected a lack of capacity which certainly caused fear, but it’s a very different thing.
In terms on NYC deaths there has been many stories of incompetence and mismanagement. Almost all that died had other serious health conditions, so it’s a question if lack of proper care for a non covid preexisting condition or they not seeking care out of fear is often the true cause of death.
Normally death cause is well investigated. However, CDC issued highly unusual guidelines that said doctors should classify all deaths as covid if they have been diagnosed to have covid instead of doing doing the normal extensive look into each case. This may mask people dying from other serious health conditions due to lockdown.
It's still unrelated to my comment. In fact, to the extent that you're trying to tie them together, it proves the opposite of the claims you're making.
My original parent was contrasting the two states, with the following:
>New York is such an outlier in terms of death rates that it should be a totally separate conversation.
My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without sufficient mitigation. The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
>many stories of incompetence and mismanagement...it’s a question if lack of proper care for a non covid preexisting condition...not seeking care out of fear is often the true cause of death".
This and the rest of your comment are, frankly, pure conjecture that seems to start with your conclusion. However, we know the virus is deadly and that COVID would likely be a serious contributing factor to deaths, even in the presence of pre-existing conditions. It's no secret that pre-existing conditions are a prime COVID risk factor and, as it happens, this country has a high incidence of pre-existing conditions. This was an openly stated primary force in our mitigation efforts. But, here you seem to be presenting it as some previously hidden revelation over which we should dismiss these deaths.
In sum, it's disingenuous to parse out all of the knowns and unknowns into an overall conclusion that lockdowns were somehow unnecessary. We know enough to know that stopping the spread of the virus prevents large numbers of unnecessary deaths--even (and especially) among at-risk populations.
> The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
Just a tidbit: One UCSF doctor that went to help out in New York reported the hospital he was in converted their cafeteria to a ventilator ward.
And New York was relying on a lot of doctors and nurses from other parts of the country. Not to mention pressing doctors and nurses from other specialties.
I just say this because the covid19 deniers are trying hard to normalize things like what happened in New York.
Agreed. These people aren't really interested in the facts or science. They have a conclusion. Everything else is a pseudoscientific veneer that gets them back to that conclusion.
Further down on this thread (after much goalpost moving and mischaracterization of facts), asabjorn has all but completely abandoned his/her initial assertions: that he/she opposed lockdowns because they are ineffective. It's now about "freedom, 1A and 2A".
Old asabjorn: >most states are now open or are reopening. We are not seeing spikes in coronavirus cases
New asabjorn: >I never claimed no reopened state will see some increases in covid cases, some do and some don't
I had to push really hard through all of his/her contortions to extract this and other concessions.
But, remarkably, this person just kept right on moving as if his/her entire argument wasn't based on the effectiveness of the lockdown. Then, went on to talk about tyranny and fighting for our freedom.
> My point was that NY shouldn't be a "totally different conversation", but that we should look to NY as a cautionary tale WRT potential outcomes without sufficient mitigation. The fact that hospital capacity was not overrun in either state underscores the validity of the comparison.
We definitely agree there. However, why do you think NYC is not an example of lockdowns not working and that we should instead isolate the vulnerable populations? Its both the most severe lockdowned place and the place with the highest coronavirus death rate.
Also, most states are now open or are reopening. We are not seeing spikes in coronavirus cases or deaths, and we are instead seeing huge drops in deaths per week directly undermining the heavy handed lockdowns [3]. Also, despite each worker of Wallmart, Target, Whole Foods, Safeways, Wallgreens etc being exposed to thousands a day not a single store was closed due to covid outbreaks. How come that is the case?
Locking down non-vulnerable populations is what I think is unjustified, and the evidence I present show that the heavy handed lockdown doesn't reliably reduce deaths and that targeted isolations of vulnerable populations does reliably reduce deaths. One shared component of sweden and NYC [1,2] is that they didn't properly mitigate for vulnerable populations. Sweden is mitigating by isolating vulnerable populations while NYC isn't [1]. However, NYC somehow managed to have the most severe lockdown and by far the highest death rate.
TLDR; If you have to isolate the vulnerable to significantly reduce deaths in both lockdown and non-lockdown, and lockdown doesn't reliably make a difference. Why not just go with the more effective targeted mitigations and drop the ineffective isolation of all?
Foremost, it's far too early to make the call on the effects of "re-opening".
Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown. That is, many, many people are still virtually locked down--voluntarily.
Yet another issue your analysis overlooks is the measures we actually did take prior to full lockdown, wherein we in fact suggested that vulnerable populations self-isolate. This was not effective in slowing the spread; hence, the lockdown escalation.
Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus.
But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing, etc. and the resulting behavior changes (including fewer trips) meant bodies per store were dramatically reduced, helping to undercut transmission. And, the point there is that accommodations for essential trips to the store under such prescribed conditions were provided as part of the lockdown. So, you are trying to use the lockdown design itself as proof that the lockdown was unnecessary.
TLDR; This is frequently the story with these anti-lockdown claims: a revisionist look back at why the lockdown was "unnecessary", using precisely the design and benefits of the lockdown itself to make the case.
Your criticism does not make sense at all. I wish you addressed my questions and criticisms of your argument instead of bringing up new points, but I'll address your new points as well.
> Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown
You have a faulty assumption that spread factor was reduced due to lockdown. 7 states did not close down (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and many states that locked down has been open for weeks now [1]. We have not see a spike in neither of these scenarios relative to the still locked down states.
Again: there is no correlation between being locked down and reduced spread factor. Quite to the contrary NYC and other places under heavy lock-down has been the worst affected.
> Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus.
You honestly that all those workers are symptomatic in a high exposure scenario at a lower rate than the general population?
And you honestly claiming that a highly contagious virus that you claim has such a high likelihood of hospitalization and death that we all need to be on lockdown, somehow doesn't have this effect to the same degree on grocery workers that are exposed more than anyone? All ages work in grocery stores [3].
Grocery store workers are heroes, but I didn't know they were superheroes.
> But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing
That doesn't make sense if the desire is to reduce peak traffic. Limiting store hours with a similar amount of shoppers increase people per hour of shopping, and limiting concurrent shoppers cause huge lines outside. Arguably this may increase virus exposure.
In-store-distancing: covid is transmitted on and can stay alive on metals, plastics as well as other inside surfaces for an extended period. Up to a day on cardboard.
* scientific facts on ineffectiveness of major lockdown measures
N95 masks work: mask to filter out 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. Coronavirus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns.
Social distancing doesn't stop you from being exposed by:
- virus suspended in droplets smaller than five micrometers can stay suspended for about a half-hour
- virus stays alive up to a day on everything in a grocery store (or any other store or delivery container); cardboard, plastics, metals
Wearing gloves: virus actually lives longer on plastic gloves and gloves in general worsens spread [2]
TLDR; Only highly targeted and managed approaches has worked in limiting deaths, such as isolating the vulnerable. The lockdown measures and protective gear people wear are not stopping the virus spread due to virus size as well as how it spreads, but it is an excellent signal of obedience to nonsense measures.
Again, your comment is riddled with errors, and you draw conclusions from data that cannot be drawn. I have directly addressed your comments and the thrust of your argument, but I cannot address each and every error and misstatement. So I just choose some of the most egregious and deconstruct them as examples.
Much of what you say simply does not comport with reality. Anyone who's been to a grocery store in a lock down state can tell you that the stores became much sparser. A big part of this is because most people simply go less frequently. Also people don't tend to linger. In general, people make adjustments that all but completely mitigate the imaginary issues you're raising. You can rail on about a bunch of hypotheticals, but that doesn't overturn observable reality.
Likewise, all of your assertions about gloves and the virus living on surfaces, etc. It has not been proven that lingering detectable particles on items are a significant mode of transmission vs direct contact with people. And, in fact, super spreader events are linked directly to people in close proximity: funerals, church services, sporting events, parties and social gatherings, etc. Actively respired particles while in close proximity to other humans transmits the virus. Full stop. It is absolutely ludicrous to assert otherwise.
You also cannot draw the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective due purely to micron size. No, they are not a perfect shield, but they can reduce transmission in that clearly not every particle will fit neatly through a space and make a beeline from one person's mucous membranes to another's. This is just silliness. And, when all parties wear masks, it reduces viral contact even further. Reduction of contact with viable virus particles reduces transmission. Clearly.
These are truly facile statements you are making, and it's asinine to expect that someone will word for word deconstruct them. You take a bunch of random facts, misinterpret them, and suggest that you've made some sort of argument. You then go on to make sweeping statements without any basis in fact.
The other technique you are using is to cherry pick information and draw conclusions without regard to the factors that plainly contradict your points, and you equate correlation with causation. Some of those points I made to you in my last comment, but you chose not to address them.
For instance, I addressed your assertion that reopening states haven't experienced spikes by pointing out that there hasn't been enough time to measure. Additionally, many people are still under voluntary lockdown and most states are only partially reopened in any case. Crickets.
But, then you link out to some NBC news report that actually shows spikes in some states since their re-opening, directly contradicting your claims and supporting my assertion that we have not had enough time to draw conclusions. Did you think I wouldn't read it?
That is absolute nonsense. Did the 7 states that never locked down or the ones reopening weeks ago actually do so without it turning into the dire scenario the models predicted? Wasn’t the self directed mitigation’s and targeted quarantine in those areas sufficient?
Is the size of the coronavirus 0.06 to 0.14 microns, while the N95 masks we use filter 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns? Will a chain link fence stop mosquitoes? Does the virus survive on cardboard/plastic/metal inside surfaces for extended periods making them spread vectors?
There was nothing voluntary about these lockdowns of people and shutdown of businesses. That is a pipe dream on your end. Quarantine is when you restrict the movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people.
Regardless of if tyrants that share your viewpoint want it or not enough of us in the few remaining locked down states will use our constitutional rights to move on to cause a tipping point. We will open our businesses, go to work, hang out with friends and live life. We will fight alongside fellow Americans that are facing tyrants when exercising these rights, and we will work tirelessly to identify and remove tyrants in power.
I wish you and your loved ones good health. May God protect us both from tyranny and injustice.
@asabjorn, can't reply directly either, so will wrap up here.
In short, you move the goalposts when your arguments are deconstructed. It's exhausting and never-ending because you appear to be determined that this is about tyranny and will force the data to reach that conclusion.
The pseudoscience veneer has all but completely worn through. You're just lobbing it in now.
1) Your N95 mask arguments are sliding. You've now allowed that even normal breath droplets are larger than the 0.3 "threshold" you'd previously set in your simple mosquito-fence comparison. So, now you're just frantically shoveling in more numbers. It's gotten cartoonish. I won't continue to correct your storm of never-ending misinterpreted data. Bottom line: while obviously imperfect, N95 masks afford protection.
2) >I never claimed no reopened state will see some increases in covid cases, some do and some don't
Unbelievable. You're walking back the entire thrust of your argument across multiple comments and acting as if you still have a point. You initially claimed lockdowns were proven ineffective so all of our energy should've been put into protecting the vulnerable. That's what started this. The words came out of your mouth. It's right up there in your GP posts.
You just gave up the entire basis for your argument and kept typing like nothing happened. This is either willful delusion or bad faith.
Previously, it was this so-called ineffectiveness that was your basis for calling for an end to unnecessary lockdowns. Now, we see that was never the point.
All veneer.
3) You're now doing to the law what you did with science. But, I won't engage in a philosophical legal discussion with you, given your mischaracterization of even hard facts.
4) Those of us who still believe in the rule of law take you seriously and we take seriously those who've gotten in your heads to push our nation towards collapse for their own benefit. But, we will not be terrorized. What the 2A "revolutionary" drones fail to see is that they've been wholly manipulated and the unrest they seek will be met with a response that renders their assault rifles useless.
We're getting to the point where I'm having to argue that water is wet, so I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling me at this point. And, now that you've played the "tyranny" card, it's easy to read your mischaracterizations as deliberate pseudoscientific pretense in the service of something else.
Still, I will answer in good faith.
Are the droplets on which the virus is carried all exactly .06 to 0.14 microns? No. They are as large as 5 to 10 microns. If you really aren't understanding how you're misinterpreting some of this information, then it's why I am unable to persuade you. I could point you to more info, including back to some that you linked, but you don't suffer from a lack of info. Your errors are in interpretation.
The report you linked shows increases in some reopened states. Where's your explanation for that? Just compare them to NYC? Of course every locale is not NYC, with its density, etc. Using that as some sort of benchmark is a strawman.
I never said the lockdown was voluntary. I said many are still voluntarily staying at home in states that have reopened, which will skew the numbers towards the lockdown numbers, depending on degree. So, here you're simply putting words in my mouth. Another strawman.
I also pointed to the fact that many are only partially reopened, which you yourself acknowledged. But, you just gloss over the limiting impact of that on the numbers. So, where's the line between "tyranny" and common sense here? How "partial" is OK? And, do you get this angry and threatened over vaccines, seat belt laws and helmet laws? Did you grab an AR-15 and head downtown to "fight" over those?
Every one of the arguments in your comment is based on an error in interpretation or outright misrepresentation. Every one.
Look, I don't like being stuck at home, but I understand it. If there's a "fight" here, it's against ignorance and fear-mongering over some make-believe tyranny, starring Fauci as some sort of devious, Palpatine-like deep state operative gunning for our freedom, while posing as a concerned septuagenarian scientist who happened to also lead the charge against HIV. It's pure fantasy. You see this right?
If you'll allow just a little daylight, step back and consider the outright absurdity of this tyranny narrative and see it for what it is, then you have to ask where this narrative is coming from, who benefits from it and what's the effect?
Because, I submit to you that what's far more frightening is the war on facts and Americans with assault rifles in our streets with the idea that they are some kind of freedom fighters in resisting public servants--and threatening them with death--who are simply trying to keep Americans safe. Someone's getting into the heads of some of our fellow citizens and pushing them toward the brink of something truly catastrophic here. These are nothing more than thugs in the streets, deployed in the service of something or someone, and made to believe they are heroes for threatening violence and disobeying any laws with which they disagree.
That is the end of rule of law, and it is the only real danger to our freedom here.
You accuse me of misrepresenting while doing it yourself and provide outliers to justify your point:
1) N95 effectiveness:
Edit: parent seem correct that it protect others against sneezes as long as it doesn’t leak out through sides due to sneeze velocity. See NIH links below [2,4].
However, if a person have virus particles on mask and touch it before touching other surfaces the mask may be a liability.
Then again, it seems more effective to isolate the sick than put masks on all.
2) I said that the dire scenario used to justify lockdown or the one in NYC, has not been seen in any reopened or never locked down states. I also said isolating the vulnerable seem sufficient.
I never claimed no reopened state will see some increases in covid cases, some do and some don't. I also did not say that the 7 states that never closed down experienced no covid scenario, but that they showed isolating the vulnerable was sufficient.
3) Lockdown measures have deprived rights under the color of law [3], violating rule of law, and enough of us will support each other to take full recourse under the law. The law I cited [3] show that the officials enforcing unconstitutional measures risk jail.
Enough of us will not accept when governors retaliate after loosing court cases [7], or when judges try to enforce unconstitutional lockdowns [8] or take on a prosecutorial role [5,6]. Or fine or jail people for exercising their constitutional rights. This is the definition of lack of rule of law. You are on the wrong side of history.
4) Yes, we will exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and if that fails we will exercise our second amendment right/responsibility to protect our liberty. Again, you are the one arguing against how the American democracy works.
On #1: I continued researching after the interesting evidence from parent.
To anyone interested this is an overview of multiple studies of N95 usage and it’s efficiency in stopping covid spread [1].
TLDR; The results for flu studies show no conclusive efficiency, there are no covid studies, and many studies show negative health effects of the healthy using masks; breathing in virus through nasal passage causing infection to spread where it otherwise wouldn’t, hypoxia causing lower immune response and other negative health effects, etc
