Lockdowns never again: Sweden was right, and we were wrong

[Cathoholic]

How can you tell who is healthy and who is not?

The same way we did last year with influenza.

If you are sick, stay home!

So this ‘quarantining healthy people’ mantra is not well thought out.

It is well-thought out (the opposition to quarantining HEALTHY people is well thought out).

It takes benefits AND risks into account.

The just stay home attitude does not.

In the areas where they have had the tightest lockdowns, the flames of disease still spread in a wanton fashion.

Yet they keep hurting themselves and their economies too.

It is non-sense. And not listening to our public health people but
substituting emotion for science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Really? I just talked to a surgeon the other day who said his hospital was not close to capacity. (They could even take transfers from “full” hospitals but none are even asking them to.)

That does not matter. There are plenty of hospitals that are overwhelmed. Transferring patients hundreds of miles to another hospital is not always practical. Also I would say that a surgeon is not likely to be very engaged with covid cases. Also also, the main shortage is not beds. It is staff. There isn’t enough staff to take care of all the ICU patients.

Quarantining HEALTHY people is just a spoof.

Quarantining people who look healthy but are potentially infectious is not a spoof. It is a solid practice.

It is bad public health allowing this bogus message to go out to the people.

It is bad public health to undermine confidence in our public health workers, which you are doing.

substituting emotion for science.

instead of substituting libertarian ideology for science, like you and Rand Paul are doing???

 

[Cathoholic]

That does not matter. There are plenty of hospitals that are overwhelmed. Transferring patients hundreds of miles to another hospital is not always practical.

It does matter. You have no idea how far it would be to transfer a patient from one hospital to another.

What is your solution? Keep them in the hallways because you think a common transfer might now all of a sudden be too far?

There were special hospitals set up out east last Spring (I had a close friend running one).

With all the frenetic hysterics last spring about being overwhelmed he(she) had virtually NO transfers. They sat around watching videos all day from the Federal Government on public health.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That does not matter. There are plenty of hospitals that are overwhelmed. Transferring patients hundreds of miles to another hospital is not always practical.

It does matter. You have no idea how far it would be to transfer a patient from one hospital to another.

I know some are very far.

What is your solution?

First give me yours.

 

[Cathoholic]

instead of substituting libertarian ideology for science, like you and Rand Paul are doing???

Why not just admit right now Rand Paul was correct in calling for opening schools last summer when others were wrong (you do know some schools STILL are not “open” right?)?

Why not just admit Rand Paul was correct about children being less of an infection risk?

Why not just admit, Rand Paul speaks from not only the expertise of a physician regarding COVID, but a patient too?

Recently you were trying to tell me about medical people allegedly wearing N-95 masks. If you want, I can look it up and link to it. (Some may, but that is not the norm. [I’m sure if you Google enough you can find an exception]).

Of course, medical personnel don’t typically wear N-95 masks.

I will seriously consider Rand Paul’s advice any day.

 

[tomarin]

It’s harder to tell who is infectious than you are letting on. Symptoms vary in type and severity, and some people are asymptomatic.

I agree that you should stay home if you are sick. But before you show signs of sickness, you may be infected and contagious for 2-14 days. Something to think about.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why not just admit right now Rand Paul was correct in calling for opening schools last summer when others were wrong (you do know some schools STILL are not “open” right?)?

Rand Paul was wrong if he was advocating opening up schools without closing gyms.

Why not just admit Rand Paul was correct about children being less of an infection risk?

Everyone knew that months ago. That is nothing new that Rand Paul discovered.

Why not just admit, Rand Paul speaks from not only the expertise of a physician regarding COVID

He does not. He is not a practicing physician in the field. He has not kept up.

Of course, medical personnel don’t typically wear N-95 masks.

They do when they interact with patients that could be infected.

 

[Cathoholic]

It’s harder to tell who is infectious than you are letting on.

But you need to make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.

When one ONLY takes into account benefits, this is not a realistic view.

It is an emotional appeal to a virus.

It doesn’t work and if anyone needs proof, just look at the case surge in all of the locked down states. Disaster.

But at least we have destroyed their economies too! (At least in part.)

Not to mention the shock waves this sends out to other countries and continents like Africa.

But as long as I don’t get a viral infection, all is well.

 

[Cathoholic]

He does not. He is not a practicing physician in the field. He has not kept up.

Good night. This (above) from a person who earlier appealed to a breast surgeon (who does NOT have the benefit of Government public health briefings on Capitol Hill like Rand Paul - who was right - does) regarding corona virus.

Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine World News

LeafByNiggle shifting his criticism of this Yale scientist from no wikipedia page (remember. That was the big objection) to this . . . . because he is saying something outside of this area of expertise, and which is contrary to what more qualified scientists are saying. Good grief. Just a few weeks ago you were appealing to a breast surgeon to tell me how wrong hydroxychloroquine was. A breast surgeon that seemed to have some of the basic science mechanisms lacking from his physiologic re…

Twitter Facebook Lock Breitbart Accounts over Viral Videos of Doctors’ Capitol Hill Coronavirus Presser(hydroxychloroquine) World News

I read Dr. David Gorski’s (a breast cancer surgeon) article and his own article that he cites. You do understand that all the studies Gorski used to attack hydroxychloroquine usage were based upon cohorts/patients too far advanced (requiring hospitalization and some requiring oxygen) right LeafByNiggle? If you think through the mechanism of action, you should be left thinking . . . . . . “Researchers here are using incorrect cohorts (late corona virus infections) to conduct their study if th…

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle on medical personnel wearing N-95 masks . . . .

They do when they interact with patients that could be infected.

I thought you told me ANYONE could be infected and that is part of the reason we need lockdown orders??!!

I will go back and tell the surgeon he was wrong about himself and his (her) colleagues
because you pointed this out Leaf.

To everybody else. For all practical purposes medical people do not wear N-95 masks when they interact with patients, or during surgery.

 

[Cathoholic]

Not all concern about corona virus is hysterics. There are many reasonable concerns.

That being said there are clearly hysterics too.

This article below deals with the latter . . . .

December 2, 2020

Coronavirus Hysteria Is Simply Too Ridiculous to Continue​

By Trevor Thomas

The ignorance and the lies concerning the Wuhan virus can’t continue much longer, because time is simply revealing the truth about it. As we continue to suffer under foolish Wuhan virus restrictions, and as many parts of the U.S. — especially those under the rule of Democrats — are again ramping up the shutdowns and the lockdowns, more and more Americans are beginning to see what many of us have long known: the Wuhan virus data simply don’t match the Wuhan virus hysteria. The evidence of this continues to pile up.

As they near the end of the first semester, U.S. schools provide some of the best evidence for those sick of shutdown politics and propaganda. In spite of millions of U.S. students attending in-person classes, nowhere in America are school-aged students suffering in any significant way from the Wuhan virus. And don’t tell me about “cases.” As I’ve long noted when it comes to the Wuhan virus, cases without context are meaningless.

Andrew Bostom again provides us with some important context on Wuhan virus cases. As of early October, in spite of nearly seventy thousand reported Wuhan virus “cases” across 50 U.S. colleges and universities, there were only three hospitalizations and zero deaths! Almost certainly, numbers across all of America’s K–12 schools are similar. We can be nearly certain that if this were not the case, a media establishment desperate to further the shutdown narrative would tell us so. (The media have already been caught multiple times publishing fake news on this matter.)

Months-old data out of Europe told us that schoolchildren were in little to no danger from the Wuhan virus. As City Journal recently reported:

For young students, the risk of dying from Covid is lower than the risk of dying from the flu, and researchers have repeatedly found that children do not easily transmit the virus to adults. The clearest evidence comes from Sweden, which did not close elementary schools or junior high schools during the spring Covid wave, and which did not reduce class sizes or encourage students and teachers to wear face masks.

Not a single child died, and there was little effect beyond the schools . . .

Coronavirus Hysteria Is Simply Too Ridiculous to Continue - American Thinker

 

[tomarin]

I’m not sure how this is a response to what I am saying, which is that not everyone who appears to be healthy, is healthy necessarily. That is just a fact, nothing to do with emotion.

An article on NPR recently quoted the CDC as saying that if you went somewhere for Thanksgiving, the safest thing to do now is to assume you have the virus and act accordingly for a week or two by self-isolating.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m not sure how this is a response to what I am saying, which is that not everyone who appears to be healthy, is healthy necessarily.

Two ways.

One. Most people feeling healthy ARE healthy in terms of active virus infection here.

Two. The one’s that are not, are not nearly as contagious.

(Also) Three. Recall what I said earlier about even those few who ARE asymptomatically passing the virus. We do not want a “cure” that is worse than the disease.

Right now we have people losing jobs, worldwide famine of “Biblical proportions” livelihoods being lost, children not being educated, landlords not paid, people being evicted to the streets, suicide increases, sexual abuse increases, Masses unavailable to regular folk, maskless politicians out presumably eating and drinking at restaurants without following their own social distancing mandates, politicains going off to paradise places on taxpayer dime while you or I are “locked down” etc. etc. and perhaps most of all, elderly people being heartlessly isolated not just from their own family, but from the soul-saving sacraments before they die alone.

The average age of death with corona virus is the SAME as the average age of death WITHOUT corona virus (it is actually slightly better (!) for the corona virus patients).

This corona virus paradigm much of the Government is currently operating under is wrong.
This corona virus paradigm is the politics of power.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Try to look them in the eye and tell them their loved one should have done more to protect himself, and that it is just his own fault he died from it.

Covid? Sure it’s serious.

But poverty? A completely totally blind eye toward the far greater numbers around the world who have fallen into joblessness, poverty and yes, starvation.

There is a middle way. Japan showed us as did Sweden. But the rest of the world has skewed so hard toward lockdowns that the social and poverty costs already hitting us are far, far in excess of the actual impact of this virus.

But no compassion for the hungry. Because any compassion for the jobless and the hungry would be perceived as pro-Trump and that can’t be allowed in your thought space.

For everyone else, how Leaf thinks is typical leftist thought that is showing us the political nature of the lockdowns over everything else. Zero sympathy for those who have freshly fallen into poverty and may no longer have workplaces to return to. Leaf blithely waves away any concern by saying lives can be rebuilt. But strip the economy down and there is much less economy available on which lives can be rebuilt. They’re now saying it will be 2025 before NYC comes back from this, for instance. Long after Covid has passed through.

Zero sympathy for the newly hungry around the world. Look at all the political leaders who have violated the spirit of the lockdowns. If they’re not believing their own baloney, why should we believe it?

The authorities can print money, but they cannot print the economy.

At this point, there can be no doubt that as much as Leaf tries to arouse greater sympathy for those affected by the virus, poverty is showing itself to be much deadlier. Not to mention much more far reaching in its long term effects.

 

[Motherwit]

We never, ever, ever locked the healthy down at this level. Until this year. You have no defense. No historical precedent.

Humane to you means it’s ok if more people starve around the world. After all, 130m extra starving people are nothing at all compared to the 2m Covid dead, right?

This is the first modern pandemic and the way it differs from historical pandemics is our ability to medically detect cases quickly, identify clusters and target that infected cluster for quarantine. We couldn’t do it at the beginning of the pandemic because all that testing was being developed. We can do it now and the benefit of early lockdowns that have virtually eradicated community transfer means that life is virtually back to normal in those countries and no need for the whole of society to quarantine when new cases are identified.

Leaf, we already have both Covid-19 and poverty. What part of that do you and Motherwit not understand?

What you fail to see is that without stemming the spread of covid, poverty and death are going to drag on for years and years as opposed to months. What part of that do you not understand?

Anti maskers/anti lockdowners from what I gather have not traditionally been advocates for the poor in the past so this newfound care for the poor rings disingenuous as well as flawed logic.

 

[Motherwit]

DAVID NABARRO : I want to say it again: we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus. [. . .] We may well have a doubling of world poverty by early next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents and poor families are not able to afford it.

This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe, actually. And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other. But remember, lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.

LeafByNiggle:

We have always had poverty. Don’t blame covid-19 restrictions for it.

I will blame these restrictions on it. At least part of it.

To the readers here. If you are one of the people who lost your livelihood here due to politician-induced Corona virus restrictions, read that and remember it.

It is a deflection of the fact that lockdowns have INCREASED poverty and ignores WHO guidelines.

Leaf. You would lose your Twitter account for going against the WHO here.

You keep posting the Nabarro interview as if it was the WHO but I’ve previously linked the WHO’s response to the inference that the pro covid crowd are drawing from it. Here it is again.

Reality check: No, the WHO didn’t reverse its position on coronavirus lockdowns - National | Globalnews.ca

 

[Motherwit]

LeafByNiggle:

That would have gotten you suspended in the old days, but as the forum is going to end soon, that hardly matters now.

I gotta laugh now. You don’t like being called out.

I get it, it’s real uncomfortable when someone tells an ugly truth about me to my face. Make me think hard about my assumptions. There are many who do not like it and just wish for the other person to get lost.

Maybe you should spend a day with one of the families that spent hours waiting to get a food package at that TX food bank where 25,000 people showed up. Try to look them in their hungry eyes and convince them the lockdown is good for them. Just try it, I dare you. I volunteer at a local food bank now and then; it breaks my heart. Most of these people would take the risk and work if they were allowed to.

I am still amazed to see peoples real self emerge when someone isn’t restraining them. Not very Christian.

 

[Cathoholic]

Anti maskers/anti lockdowners from what I gather have not traditionally been advocates for the poor in the past

Actually I was thinking it is the other way around.

It is the Anti-face/anti freedom-of-association advocates from what I gather that have not traditionally been advocates for the poor in the past.

Besides. Nobody here as far as I have ever seen is “anti-lockdown” as long as you are choosing to lockdown YOURSELF. NOBODY.

Nobody here has been anti-mask either. Not one person. But when it goes beyond choosing this for YOURSELF, then people have a problem with it.

What I HAVE seen here, is many who want to
IMPOSE by FORCE measures upon other people
with no or minimal scientific basis,
who continually IGNORE the risks and proverbial nuclear fallout
of what they want to (mis)use Government force for . . . . based upon little more than emotion.

I have seen a few leftist politicians who have given confused messages on masks and social distancing saying one thing with their mouth, while doing another thing with their actions.

But no “anti-maskers” here.

(Don’t you just love how when the intellectual arguments are down,
some always move on to the name calling routine.)

 

[Cathoholic]

From Motherwit’s October article . . . .

. . . Dr. David Nabarro, the organization’s special envoy on COVID-19, made an appeal for world leaders to “stop using lockdowns as your primary control method.”

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” Nabarro told a British news network on Oct. 9.

Many people online, including politicians, began interpreting the comments as the WHO “reversing” its stance on lockdowns. Others latched onto the argument that the WHO’s comments were the first time the organization admitted that lockdowns are harmful. . . .

.

And this . . . .

“Shutdowns and lockdowns can slow COVID-19 transmission . . .

bold mine.

“Shutdowns and lockdowns can slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting contact between people,” reads the WHO’s guidance from April 14. “However, these measures can have a profound negative impact on individuals, communities, and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop.”

NOT this . . . .

“Shutdowns and lockdowns can STOP COVID-19 transmission . . .

Aside from some guy (Deonandan who is contradicting Nabarro) saying the WHO isn’t saying what they are saying, by building a straw man and ADDING and re-defining for himself things for himself ("Now we have restrictions, and restrictions are sustainable.”), it is just what I have been saying.

Thanks Motherwit for re-posting that.

The message from Deonandan (Raywat Deonandan, an epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of Ottawa)?

If we redefine “lockdowns” as “restrictions” it is all SUSTAINABLE.

The “sustainability” of what these guys are ultimately talking about, what they want,
is making this stuff PERMANENT. (That is WHY he uses the term “sustainability”.)

But they will have to change their ideas because the people are not going to put up with it. Already they are rejecting this shenanigans.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But poverty? A completely totally blind eye toward the far greater numbers around the world who have fallen into joblessness, poverty and yes, starvation…Zero sympathy for those who have freshly fallen into poverty and may no longer have workplaces to return to. Leaf blithely waves away any concern by saying lives can be rebuilt.

One of the best examples of virtue-signaling I have ever seen.