Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Stupid post. The ONLY reason you and PP could sit at home and congratulate yourself for how virtuous you are is because of all the low-wage workers bringing you groceries, your mail-order Peleton, and keeping the electricity and internet going so you could WFH. Meanwhile you arrogate the right to yourself to determine what harms other people should suffer to make you feel safe.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the initial reaction was "wrong" is silly because people were responding in real time to a global crisis causing millions of people to die. If we "overreacted" to that, so be it. It is preferable to the alternative.

I also think it's ghoulish to basically say the lives saved were not "worth it" because of later impacts. Consider that when an able-bodied adult with children dies unexpectedly of something like Covid, there are massive impacts on that person's family and community that reverberate for decades. That's not being factored in.

Having said that, I do actually think it's very worthwhile to discuss what we did well and what we didn't do well, and I to me it's obvious that after the initial crisis, we made some errors in judgment that likely had minimal to no benefit in terms of lives saved while having high social costs. Thinking about the length of school closures in some areas, including the DMV (even after vaccines were available and after schools in other parts of the world demonstrated ways to reopen safely). I also think a major mistake we made in the US was linking public health measures like masking and social distancing with morality, instead of simply linking them to health. We made wearing a mask a way of signaling your political positions, which almost certainly made it harder to get people to mask.

Compare this with the approach in many other countries where public health decisions are made fairly separate from political activity and people are simply told "do this to keep yourself and others more healthy" and you see less conflict over simple precautions like wearing a mask, washing hands, etc. You also see that some people in those countries don't comply for whatever reason, and there's more tolerance/understanding that you're probably never going to get 100% compliance with anything and that's life because people are not automatons.

There are valuable conversations to be had. Whether the shutdowns in March/April 2020 were justified is probably one of the more fruitless conversations. It was a massive crisis and mistakes were inevitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Stupid post. The ONLY reason you and PP could sit at home and congratulate yourself for how virtuous you are is because of all the low-wage workers bringing you groceries, your mail-order Peleton, and keeping the electricity and internet going so you could WFH. Meanwhile you arrogate the right to yourself to determine what harms other people should suffer to make you feel safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

This. Sorry your ski trip in 2020 got canceled or whatever. Cope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Excellent post. Thank you. Agreed 1000 %

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Oh STFU. This wa not a failure. It was an evolving attempt to deal with a situation we had not seen in 100 years and were grappling with what to do. I gave up nothing significant if it meant I didn't pass on a virus that could kill someone. Don't rely on study to justify you being a selfish twat. And an ignorant one at that.

Anonymous wrote:Can we not? Please? Covid is done, get over it. I'm sick of you people - who never did anything to protect others during the pandemic anyway - complaining about something that happened three years ago.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the initial reaction was "wrong" is silly because people were responding in real time to a global crisis causing millions of people to die. If we "overreacted" to that, so be it. It is preferable to the alternative.

I also think it's ghoulish to basically say the lives saved were not "worth it" because of later impacts. Consider that when an able-bodied adult with children dies unexpectedly of something like Covid, there are massive impacts on that person's family and community that reverberate for decades. That's not being factored in.

Having said that, I do actually think it's very worthwhile to discuss what we did well and what we didn't do well, and I to me it's obvious that after the initial crisis, we made some errors in judgment that likely had minimal to no benefit in terms of lives saved while having high social costs. Thinking about the length of school closures in some areas, including the DMV (even after vaccines were available and after schools in other parts of the world demonstrated ways to reopen safely). I also think a major mistake we made in the US was linking public health measures like masking and social distancing with morality, instead of simply linking them to health. We made wearing a mask a way of signaling your political positions, which almost certainly made it harder to get people to mask.

Compare this with the approach in many other countries where public health decisions are made fairly separate from political activity and people are simply told "do this to keep yourself and others more healthy" and you see less conflict over simple precautions like wearing a mask, washing hands, etc. You also see that some people in those countries don't comply for whatever reason, and there's more tolerance/understanding that you're probably never going to get 100% compliance with anything and that's life because people are not automatons.

There are valuable conversations to be had. Whether the shutdowns in March/April 2020 were justified is probably one of the more fruitless conversations. It was a massive crisis and mistakes were inevitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just released yesterday: The lives saved were negligible compared to the economic and mental health damages.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdict-on-covid-restrictions/

..in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.

I hope never again will we acquiesce to the failures of the media and our governments. The freedoms we gave up are staggering for such piss poor success.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to those who died. What an idiot.

Tell that to those suffering from economic losses, tell that to those still suffering from mental health challenges…tell that to the millions of developmentally delayed children you troll.