• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

COVID-19

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
So they brought in some measures after deaths and then cases plunged. Neat. The point all along wasn’t that ignoring the virus would make it go away, it was that lockdowns aren’t very effective anyway at snuffing out an endemic virus. It does seem that they struggled at protecting nursing homes early on.


Meanwhile their virus deaths have fallen off a cliff, similar to other European countries that tried to “lock down”

27083
It will be interesting to see how different their total deaths are at the end of the year, especially since such a large proportion of their deaths were among a population near death already.

27084
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
So they brought in some measures after deaths and then cases plunged. Neat. The point all along wasn’t that ignoring the virus would make it go away, it was that lockdowns aren’t very effective anyway at snuffing out an endemic virus. It does seem that they struggled at protecting nursing homes early on.

Lockdowns aren't supposed to snuff out the virus. They're supposed to slow the spread, primarily to avoid overwhelming healthcare. Fun fact: it works.

You can argue that the economic cost wasn't worth it or that the hospitalization rate was over-estimated, but the data clearly shows that COVID-19 mitigations reduce the spread.

27093
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You can argue that the economic cost wasn't worth it or that the hospitalization rate was over-estimated, but the data clearly shows that COVID-19 mitigations reduce the spread.
Of course. That is indeed what the vast majority of anti shut down folks are arguing. Think I made that arguement 200 pages ago.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Lockdowns aren't supposed to snuff out the virus. They're supposed to slow the spread, primarily to avoid overwhelming healthcare. Fun fact: it works.

You can argue that the economic cost wasn't worth it or that the hospitalization rate was over-estimated, but the data clearly shows that COVID-19 mitigations reduce the spread.

View attachment 27093
If you’re saying it works because healthcare wasn’t overwhelmed, that’s like me saying that drinking orange juice prevents tiger attacks.

I posted this a couple pages back.

 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
If you’re saying it works because healthcare wasn’t overwhelmed, that’s like me saying that drinking orange juice prevents tiger attacks.

No, I said it works because it lowers the reproduction factor in affected populations. Please try to follow along.

You can't just use total positive test results at this stage of the game. Maybe 18-24 months from now.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
No, I said it works because it lowers the reproduction factor in affected populations. Please try to follow along.

You can't just use total positive test results at this stage of the game. Maybe 18-24 months from now.
Lockdowns weren’t ever necessary to avoid overwhelming hospitals for the vast majority of the country. Please try to follow along.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Some people are wanting to use positivity rate as a metric for easing restrictions. Hopefully the data isn’t garbage. Here’s Texas.


Texas’s positivity rate surged to a record 23.9% as questions swirled about how a backlog of unaudited tests may be skewing the calculations.

The statewide figure is at odds with all the other major metrics used to assess the health crisis, such as hospital admissions, fatalities and the rate of transmission. In the Houston metro area, for example, the positive-test rate is 10.5%, down from 20.3% a month ago, according to the Texas Medical Center.

State officials also are contending with a backlog of test results classified as “pending assignment” that reached more than 1 million in recent weeks.

The effect of the backlog may be to shrink the denominator, resulting in an artificially high positivity rate. State health department officials haven’t responded to repeated requests for comment.”


 

jackjack

Active Member
For context, Deaths per million people.
Sweden 571
US 497
Europe 276
Norway 47
Asia 24
Australia 13
South Korea 6

It really is time to let Sweden stand as a failed plan. They have 10 times more deaths than their neighbours and twice as many deaths as Europe in general. 20 times more than Asia.

 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
For context, Deaths per million people.
Sweden 571
US 497
Europe 276
Norway 47
Asia 24
Australia 13
South Korea 6

It really is time to let Sweden stand as a failed plan. They have 10 times more deaths than their neighbours and twice as many deaths as Europe in general. 20 times more than Asia.

If you think Sweden was bad, check out New York and New Jersey.

27106

 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
For context, Deaths per million people.
Sweden 571
US 497
Europe 276
Norway 47
Asia 24
Australia 13
South Korea 6

It really is time to let Sweden stand as a failed plan. They have 10 times more deaths than their neighbours and twice as many deaths as Europe in general. 20 times more than Asia.

How are those deaths counted? I’ll wait for your non-answer.

Also why are you even including Australia? Why not other random island nations?
 
Last edited:

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Lockdowns weren’t ever necessary to avoid overwhelming hospitals for the vast majority of the country. Please try to follow along.
Look, we're in agreement on that point.

The disagreement is when you keep posting pages of graphs using incomplete or immature data to draw a conclusion that the COVID-19 mitigations adopted are ineffective at slowing the spread of disease. It's indisputable that, on the whole, the mitigations had an impact on the reproduction rate and reduced it from 2-2.5 to 0.9-1.2. Whether those mitigations are worth the socio-economic cost based on what we know today is another discussion.
 
Top