The Coronavirus thread

Quote: rquiredusername

I would ask why you quoted me to say nonsense and go on to not disagree with me. I was saying those who haven’t taken the vaxx or did so hesitantly should not be automatically classified as “anti-vaxxers.”

But then you had apparently put words in my mouth by expanding to ignore the difference in outcomes AFTER contracting the virus (the benefit) and not quantifying what risks you are alluding to or the probability of having those unspecified risks happen.

Quote: SOOPOO

Had interesting discussion about ‘anti-vaxxers’. My wife mentioned some 69 million (I can’t actually remember the number, but something around there!) that have not been vaccinated and then implied that was the number of anti-vaxxers. I claim the number is much higher, in the sense that there are millions of vaccinated people who allowed the governments coercive strength to in essence force them to get vaccinated. I know quite a few that got the shot SOLELY because of the NYS mandate on health care workers, and they decided their job overrode their anti-vaxxer philosophy. And also there are millions of people who are ‘pro vaccine’ in the sense that they realize it is a great way to avoid getting COVID-19, but they ALSO believe the government shouldn’t force someone to get it. Adding all those different types of ‘anti-vaxxers’ up likely makes them a majority, not a minority! Then if you add the millions who are happily vaccinated but think the ever changing mask mandates are a government overreach…. Then add the millions who are against remote school learning at all points during the pandemic….

I think the above summary, although not strictly a Dem/Repub issue, makes November look even bleaker for the Dems.

Quote: Tanko

Johns Hopkins Study:

"An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality."

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

Quote: OnceDear

I had to sit up and take notice at the apparent credibility of that source. I took the time to read a good chunk of that Paper. Can't see any partisanship and it does seem to make sense. Maybe, just maybe every national and state legislature got their lockdown mandates wrong based on poor data or poor analysis.

Food for thought.

Quote: AZDuffman

Some of us said from the beginning that the lockdowns were all for show. There was no "data." You cannot have "data" when things are happening in real time.

I will say it yet again. The lockdowns and the masks were so it looked like something was being done. People were allowed in only part of Wal-Mart because you can catch the virus in the sporting good section but not the food section?

Quote: OnceDear

See my edit.
I'm not actually buying or endorsing that study. Indeed, I see it as one of the better written anti establishment propaganda articles.

It's big USP: "A Johns Hopkins study" is a lie

Quote: RonC

The first time I heard about the study it was attributed to a different department at Johns Hopkins and was done by economists.

I have seen people criticizing it but nothing saying (so far) it did not appear to come from Johns Hopkins.

Hearing that source first given, I knew it was not a medical study.

Quote: OnceDear

Going .viral on its USP as being 'A John Hopkins Study' it has got the drop on those who it discredits. Right wing media are all over it, propagating it, using it to say "See we told you so"

But it is just some paper written than 3 economists. They may be good economists. The fact they managed to get it published on the JHU web site emblazoned by a JHU logo really is unfortunate. JHU should get a press release out, like NOW.

"A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."

This one has.