COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.

Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.

What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?

I think laws should be passed that require schools to remain open. Public health authories should be sent to school to understand risks and benefits. Strong protection of 1A rights in the pending Supreme Court case. Fixing the learning loss is going to be a long term project but the new understanding of the importance of phonics is a great step. We need to do the same for math.

I agree with this. What happened in DC public schools and many other schools needs to be addressed. The idea that publicly funded public schools can just close for an entire school year, is insane.

I think we need rules in place linking prolonged school closures with teacher furloughs. You want to keep the schools closed for a year or more? Okay, then we need to furlough the staff and the money saved should be sent to families as a tax rebate that can be used toward private school, tutoring, etc.

DP. I don't know if I agree with that, but we need an urgent and ongoing evaluation of where students stand now and each year going forward to inform future decisions. My primary concern with the way public schools handled COVID is not necessarily that decision-makers were trying to protect the health, particularly the health of adults who would be in school buildings, but how little consideration has been given to the consequences of that protection for students. If unprecedented measures were needed to protect life, why weren't unprecedented options for flexibility or remediation considered (even for a fleeting second) to mitigate harm to children? With the seasonality we have seen, school in the summers and closures around the winter holidays would have mitigated risk and allowed some normalcy, yet that was never on the table.

You want to spend time punishing for past buy what do you want to do for kids on school now? The kids in school on 2023, 2024, at this moment in time, how do you want to serve them? Scoring political points by litigating the past won't.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know what was true and what wasn’t true and what was effective and what wasn’t effective. What I do know is that it’s ridiculous to get mad about any of it. It’s over. It happened. Now we both go back and learn from it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry .. dying was not, "an experiment"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

This does not conclude that Swedes did not volunteer to take lockdown-like precautions due to self assessment of situation or that they did not take precautions due to societal agreement to take lock-down like precautions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

This is a stupid take.

That was enlightening. Let me guess, you’re a COVID cultist who’s angry that your extreme precautions proved to be a waste of time and resources.

COVID cultists? OK if you do not believe that COVID in its earliest days was a killer disease, then there is no point in talking to you. You will never believe any precaution or vaccination is a needed reality. And those who believe it was a killer disease think you are delusional. You will never convince the latter that covid precautions were a waste so why are you even bothering? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.

Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.

What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?

I think laws should be passed that require schools to remain open. Public health authories should be sent to school to understand risks and benefits. Strong protection of 1A rights in the pending Supreme Court case. Fixing the learning loss is going to be a long term project but the new understanding of the importance of phonics is a great step. We need to do the same for math.

I agree with this. What happened in DC public schools and many other schools needs to be addressed. The idea that publicly funded public schools can just close for an entire school year, is insane.

I think we need rules in place linking prolonged school closures with teacher furloughs. You want to keep the schools closed for a year or more? Okay, then we need to furlough the staff and the money saved should be sent to families as a tax rebate that can be used toward private school, tutoring, etc.

DP. I don't know if I agree with that, but we need an urgent and ongoing evaluation of where students stand now and each year going forward to inform future decisions. My primary concern with the way public schools handled COVID is not necessarily that decision-makers were trying to protect the health, particularly the health of adults who would be in school buildings, but how little consideration has been given to the consequences of that protection for students. If unprecedented measures were needed to protect life, why weren't unprecedented options for flexibility or remediation considered (even for a fleeting second) to mitigate harm to children? With the seasonality we have seen, school in the summers and closures around the winter holidays would have mitigated risk and allowed some normalcy, yet that was never on the table.

You want to spend time punishing for past buy what do you want to do for kids on school now? The kids in school on 2023, 2024, at this moment in time, how do you want to serve them? Scoring political points by litigating the past won't.

I don't want to punish anyone. But I will point out that "experts" who lobbied for closed schools offered assurances that kids would be just fine when schools reopened, and they were wrong. I don't even have kids in primary education anymore, but it is clear that what we are doing isn't working, and no one is offering any solutions. All I hear is blame for parents and students. I want to hear ideas for solving these problems that aren't just business as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best comparison would be Sweden vs other Nordic countries. It does not look like Sweden did worse than other Nordic countries given it is the most populous of them.

Yes they did. Their mortality rate was much higher.

Not a complete overview, but from the article:

The infection rate for teachers in Sweden, where most schools stayed open, was no higher than the infection rate for teachers in Finland, which had closed its schools.

Also if you look at all-cause mortality, it was about the same in Sweden vs Norway

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparingdifferentinternationalmeasuresofexcessmortality/2022-12-20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.

Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.

What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?

I think laws should be passed that require schools to remain open. Public health authories should be sent to school to understand risks and benefits. Strong protection of 1A rights in the pending Supreme Court case. Fixing the learning loss is going to be a long term project but the new understanding of the importance of phonics is a great step. We need to do the same for math.

I agree with this. What happened in DC public schools and many other schools needs to be addressed. The idea that publicly funded public schools can just close for an entire school year, is insane.

I think we need rules in place linking prolonged school closures with teacher furloughs. You want to keep the schools closed for a year or more? Okay, then we need to furlough the staff and the money saved should be sent to families as a tax rebate that can be used toward private school, tutoring, etc.

DP. I don't know if I agree with that, but we need an urgent and ongoing evaluation of where students stand now and each year going forward to inform future decisions. My primary concern with the way public schools handled COVID is not necessarily that decision-makers were trying to protect the health, particularly the health of adults who would be in school buildings, but how little consideration has been given to the consequences of that protection for students. If unprecedented measures were needed to protect life, why weren't unprecedented options for flexibility or remediation considered (even for a fleeting second) to mitigate harm to children? With the seasonality we have seen, school in the summers and closures around the winter holidays would have mitigated risk and allowed some normalcy, yet that was never on the table.

You want to spend time punishing for past buy what do you want to do for kids on school now? The kids in school on 2023, 2024, at this moment in time, how do you want to serve them? Scoring political points by litigating the past won't.

I don't want to punish anyone. But I will point out that "experts" who lobbied for closed schools offered assurances that kids would be just fine when schools reopened, and they were wrong. I don't even have kids in primary education anymore, but it is clear that what we are doing isn't working, and no one is offering any solutions. All I hear is blame for parents and students. I want to hear ideas for solving these problems that aren't just business as usual.

Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for their kids. Surprised you are now in favor of a nanny state.

No one is going to accept a solution where we defenestrate the teachers who were part of the lockdown during COVID so don't spend precious time waiting for that. We will also not get rid of the concept of public schools. So with that out of the way what are your solutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

Wow, that was a terrible article.

[Anonymous]

Yes, schools were closed in Sweden. And the elderly and other vulnerable people were told to avoid being in public for over 2 1/2 years. Not to mention

There were also many other restrictions put in place that people ignore, including alcohol sales restrictions, all large events and large localities shutdown, including sports events, zoos, theatres, theme parks. Sports activities all shut down or went outdoors. Even “recommendations” (ie technically binding but unenforced) on restricting travel outside your home region.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/yes-schools-were-closed-in-sweden/

And it didn't work so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.

Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.

What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?

I think laws should be passed that require schools to remain open. Public health authories should be sent to school to understand risks and benefits. Strong protection of 1A rights in the pending Supreme Court case. Fixing the learning loss is going to be a long term project but the new understanding of the importance of phonics is a great step. We need to do the same for math.

I agree with this. What happened in DC public schools and many other schools needs to be addressed. The idea that publicly funded public schools can just close for an entire school year, is insane.

I think we need rules in place linking prolonged school closures with teacher furloughs. You want to keep the schools closed for a year or more? Okay, then we need to furlough the staff and the money saved should be sent to families as a tax rebate that can be used toward private school, tutoring, etc.

DP. I don't know if I agree with that, but we need an urgent and ongoing evaluation of where students stand now and each year going forward to inform future decisions. My primary concern with the way public schools handled COVID is not necessarily that decision-makers were trying to protect the health, particularly the health of adults who would be in school buildings, but how little consideration has been given to the consequences of that protection for students. If unprecedented measures were needed to protect life, why weren't unprecedented options for flexibility or remediation considered (even for a fleeting second) to mitigate harm to children? With the seasonality we have seen, school in the summers and closures around the winter holidays would have mitigated risk and allowed some normalcy, yet that was never on the table.

You want to spend time punishing for past buy what do you want to do for kids on school now? The kids in school on 2023, 2024, at this moment in time, how do you want to serve them? Scoring political points by litigating the past won't.

I don't want to punish anyone. But I will point out that "experts" who lobbied for closed schools offered assurances that kids would be just fine when schools reopened, and they were wrong. I don't even have kids in primary education anymore, but it is clear that what we are doing isn't working, and no one is offering any solutions. All I hear is blame for parents and students. I want to hear ideas for solving these problems that aren't just business as usual.

Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for their kids. Surprised you are now in favor of a nanny state.

No one is going to accept a solution where we defenestrate the teachers who were part of the lockdown during COVID so don't spend precious time waiting for that. We will also not get rid of the concept of public schools. So with that out of the way what are your solutions?

I would start by admitting that there is a problem and the most vulnerable students have been affected the most. Can you admit there is a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It kept my family safe so I got no issues with it.

So you have never had Covid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is still obsessed and mad over “lockdowns” (which isn’t anything we ever did in this country anyway).

the National Guard wouldn’t let me sit in the park in April 2020.

What park was that, dearie?

I don’t remember any National Guard deployments related to Covid so I am going to call “bullshit” on this one.

Again, I don’t understand the obsession with this. As was previously stated, public health officials did the best they could with the information available at the time. And the goal was to not overwhelm hospitals— to slow the spread, not prevent people from getting sick. They just didn’t want people sick all at once. To that end, social distancing (not “lockdowns” we never had actual lockdowns) were largely effective. Somehow these obsessed people have moved the goalposts and think the objective was preventing people from getting it. That was never the stated objective.

It was in DC. But sure, continue to lie all you want. It’s all you have now.

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Good Lord OP’s obsession and anger is so weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good Lord OP’s obsession and anger is so weird.

You know it's not, you'll just never be able to reconcile the fact that you were so mislead and duped. It takes strength and courage to admit you were wrong. Maybe you'll get there someday.