COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Did fewer people really die though? I think that's a very interesting question I wish would be explored honestly and more thoroughly. Bear with me, I am not anti-vax so don't even start but COVID is still killing those most vulnerable vaccinated or not. You can look at the statistics of red versus blue states and make some loose assessments but I know republicans who took lots of precautions and Democrats to took none. But the very red states tend to be in the south and the middle of the US where people live in the suburbs- i.e. tied to cars, healthcare generally isn't as good, people are overweight and that it tied to a number of other health issues which caused them to be more susceptible to COVID deaths. So it isn't as easy as saying here's the data comparing political leanings of each State. COVID killed a lot of people in the beginning but even before the vaccines, those were tapering off because it killed the most vulnerable/susceptible and the rest of us survived. Those most vulnerable are still the ones dying. Would be a really interesting study but it won't ever happen because there isn't money in that and maybe lives were actually saved but no one wants to know the answer if they really weren't. |
Anonymous
| Yes, the vaccines prevented deaths. Red and blue states had similar mortality rates pre-vaccine. Post-vaccine, mortality rates are very different. States that have high uptake have much lower rates. |
Anonymous
The truth is, we don't really know. There were too many people who ignored measures or implemented them improperly (see people with masks under their noses). And I don't trust a lot of data. See the lady on one of these threads who talks about how they were supposed to have a covid test before getting on a plane and the nurse came, they paid her to just go away, and she didn't do the test. So how many people did that nurse NOT test but report as negative? Repeat that kind of BS all over the country and you get suspect, useless "data". So when people go on on here about "the data" i almost have to laugh. Except that it's so sad. What decent data do we really have? And these same people are saying outright they will ignore public health directives next time around because of what they have "learned". Even though they have no idea what could be the cause of the next pandemic and how it will differ from covid. God help us all. |
Anonymous
You still speak nonsense. Sorry your lockdown fantasies never came to fruition. |
Anonymous
The problem is that this is a topic that’s such a magnet for propagandists and kooks that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about this. We’re the descendants of people who survived endless waves of epidemics. Chances are that, given a few days’ notice, people will spontaneously, instinctively, ferociously enforce any lockdowns that are really necessary. The sign that the lockdowns stopped being necessary once we had access to masks is that plenty of ordinary people rebelled against the lockdowns after about two or three weeks. But, on the other hand, it seems a little silly to judge the people who imposed the lockdowns. For the first few weeks, they had no idea what they were really up against. And it’s not really fair to compare the United States with another country, because we probably don’t know what combination of virus variants, immune system genes and antibodies people went into the pandemic with. Maybe the United States had worse results because a tougher strain dominated here, or because we had more people with genes that made them vulnerable to COVID. Another problem is that it’s easy to assume that anyone who brings up the topic is a Russian or Chinese social media outreach worker who mainly wants to stir up trouble, install a fascist puppet government in Washington and help Putin conquer Europe. |
Anonymous
It's hard to speculate as many people had covid by the time the vaccines came. And many still died post vaccine. |
Anonymous
Measures that the public is unable or unwilling to perform reliably are not effective public health measures. That should be a major lesson from the pandemic response. We spent 18 months keeping kids out of school and telling people to mask while walking on the sidewalk or between the restaurant table and bathroom rather than actually focusing on measures to help those at risk of severe illness. |
Anonymous
DP. Necessary to do what? And for what purpose? Science doesn't tell you what you seem to think it can. |
Anonymous
I think most people remember and understand the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020, and can forgive all but the silliest restrictions (e.g., closed playgrounds). The issue is that many restrictions continued long after that initial knee-jerk reaction to a new risk. |
Anonymous
They were not silly restrictions. They were in place to reduce hospitalizations for a highly contagious illness where hospital beds and ventilators were scarce. If you are so upset over being asked to stay home for a few weeks, you really need your mental health checked. |
Anonymous
Saying "science" means nothing. Science at the time said it was important. But, you only care about yourself and not the millions who died or have long term health issues because of it. |
Anonymous
Closing playgrounds did not "reduce hospitalizations" in any meaningful way. Why post if you're going to be disingenuous? |
Anonymous
Again, "science" doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It can make predictions, but can't tell you what is "necessary"- particularly with your poorly-defined criteria. |
Anonymous
Other silly ideas we had to deal with: wiping down groceries, decontaminating mail, wiping down grocery carts, wiping down checkout belts, etc. Activities that temporarily mollified the germaphobes until they thought of new "health precautions." Remember two weeks to flatten the curve that changed to Zero COVID? |
Anonymous
| Florida kept the schools open and they did fine. |