~*Official #COVID-19 Thread of Doom*~ Revenge of Omicron Prime

[mclumber1]

Have you considered Nuprin? 

 

[silentbob]

I was gonna do a Tylenol and Advil but didn’t see it in my cupboard. I take Aleve daily because of a big Varicose Vein that pops from almost my ankle to my hip on my left side. My doctor said to take it to help with the circulation and it would also help in my hand which I had surgery on 4 years ago. Left ankle and foot I broke some 23 years ago on a diving board but is the root cause of my VV issue

[AbsolutSurgen]

John Hopkins study on the reduction of mortality due to lockdowns.

A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf (jhu.edu)

Quote

Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations. Shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) were also ineffective. They only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

 

Quote

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.

Was not expecting that.

[Joe]

6 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

John Hopkins study on the reduction of mortality due to lockdowns.

A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf (jhu.edu)

 

Was not expecting that.

You’re trolling right?

[AbsolutSurgen]

10 minutes ago, Joe said:

You’re trolling right?

I thought that the data would show that pre-vaccination, while alpha/delta were prevalent, that lockdowns had a significant impact on mortality rates.

 

Post-vaccination with Omicron -- not so much.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Quote

Steve H. Hanke is a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. He is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute, a contributor at National Review, a well-known currency reformer, and a currency and commodity trader. Prof. Hanke served on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers

 

I see.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Quote

Lockdowns have not been used to such a largeextent during any of the pandemics of the past century.

Hilarious cutoff date and also lol it’s a novel virus which we had no latent immunity whatsoever

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I see.

Hahahaha Cato ok completely disregarding

[skillzdadirecta]

The Almighty Economy must be fed at all costs! Do not anger the economy!

[TyphoidHater]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Cycle these two in 4 hour cycles for smoothing out the peaks and valleys of relief
 

tylenol at 12, ibuprofen at 4, Tylenol again at 8, ibuprofen at 12 etc

 

I've done every 2 hours when I'm feeling bad.

 

Also, don't forget to put Vicks on the bottom of your feet!

[Joe]

15 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I see.

Kind of hard to type with one hand, but yeah that’s why I figured he was trolling or he didn’t actually look that who was behind the study. Saying it’s a study from John Hopkins, while certainly not a lie, just seems pretty disingenuous.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said:

 

I've done every 2 hours when I'm feeling bad.

 

Also, don't forget to put Vicks on the bottom of your feet!

I haven’t taken this for myself in a long time but this is the schedule I used for the older daughter when she got the flu a few years ago

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Joe said:

Kind of hard to type with one hand

[CitizenVectron]

The main issues with that study are:

1. Cato Institute, which throws everything into suspect
2. It compares "lockdowns" vs "recommendations." Okay...so it's not measuring how well they worked compared to no action in terms of saving lives, it's measuring how well they worked when mandated vs when people did the same things out of choice

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I thought that the data would show that pre-vaccination, while alpha/delta were prevalent, that lockdowns had a significant impact on mortality rates.

 

Post-vaccination with Omicron -- not so much.

I think the conclusion is logical when you realize that the primary location of spread is in homes, or other places of residence like nursing homes.

 

Unless you are going full China style lockdown where hazmat suited agents of the state are delivering food and such to the people, you’re going to have seeding events where one infected person gets their entire family sick.

 

And don’t worry about the rest of the board who constantly mock conservatives for living in an echo chamber and routinely throw fits and disregard things because of the source, not the content 👀

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

And don’t worry about the rest of the board who constantly mock conservatives for living in an echo chamber and routinely throw fits and disregard things because of the source, not the content 👀

On second thought let’s take these guys at their word

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

And don’t worry about the rest of the board who constantly mock conservatives for living in an echo chamber and routinely throw fits and disregard things because of the source, not the content 

 

I'm not seeing the problem here!

[skillzdadirecta]

Ah the old "Both sides do it" argument... was waiting for that one to show up.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

And you absolutely don’t have to take seriously anything Cato says—they’re an ideological outfit (funded by and for the billionaire capital class, specifically the Koch’s) looking to fit their predefined solutions to actual problems

[Joe]

I mean if epidemiologists conclude that I would listen. But economists? What a joke.

 

Like read that last sentence from AS’s snippet  again. So lockdowns are to be dismissed in the future regardless of the severity of the pandemic? Yeah ok.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

On second thought let’s take these guys at their word

The study is not produced by Cato, and Hanke is only one of three authors on the paper. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

I mean if epidemiologists conclude that I would listen. But economists? What a joke.

 

Like read that last sentence from AS’s snippet  again. So lockdowns are to be dismissed in the future regardless of the severity of the pandemic? Yeah ok.

But Peter Navaro is an actual Doctor! I heard him say it on the TV tubes!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The study is not produced by Cato, and Hanke is only one of three authors on the paper. 

Another author is a contributor to the seemingly innocuous sounding American institute for economic research, an outfit which has put out greatest hits which I’ll just copy from wiki

Quote

AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.^[13] It was roundly condemned by many public health experts.^[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert appointed by the White House, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.^[13] Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, wrote that while he sympathizes with a libertarian approach to deal with the pandemic, the declaration was dangerous and misguided.^[15] The declaration was also criticized by the Niskanen Center,^[16] a formerly libertarian think tank^[17] that now calls itself moderate.^[18]

AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.^[19]

In October 2020, Twitter removed a tweet by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas linking to an AIER article that argued against the effectiveness of masks.^[20]

The other author is a no name economist. 
 

They know who they’re working with and what they’re doing. Don’t play dumb

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Joe said:

I mean if epidemiologists conclude that I would listen. But economists? What a joke.

 

Like read that last sentence from AS’s snippet  again. So lockdowns are to be dismissed in the future regardless of the severity of the pandemic? Yeah ok.

An epidemiologist would likely say that the reduction is worth it. They are doctors, any life directly saved is worth it.

 

The analysis being done in this paper is weighing the benefit of the small reduction in aggregate deaths vs. the costs borne by the rest of society. As I have noted before, Econ is the dismal science for a reason  

 

You can acknowledge the analysis as sound AND disagree with their conclusions. I’m guessing nobody besides @AbsolutSurgenand myself have actually read the paper though.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Regardless of their actual "effectiveness", the lockdowns were a valuable exercise in the application of state power that should prove instructive for the far more serious pandemic which is inevitably coming our way, sooner or later.

[Guest]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Regardless of their actual "effectiveness", the lockdowns were a valuable exercise in the application of state power that should prove instructive for the far more serious pandemic which is inevitably coming our way, sooner or later.

 

 

You presume the governments of the world actually learn things. I’m not too sure about that.

[Air_Delivery]

Are we really arguing over what a CATO institute economist thinks about lockdowns?

lol

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You presume the governments of the world actually learn things. I’m not too sure about that.

 

I absolutely agree.

 

Without the summary execution of violators, they will have learned absolutely nothing.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You presume the governments of the world actually learn things. I’m not too sure about that.

Republican legislators have learned one thing: never again. Never lockdown again no matter what, never mandate masks or other protective measures, never require vaccination no matter what, even in some cases to existing vaccination regimes. Roll back and Never allow governors to again impose public health measures. They’re a goddamn death cult. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

You can acknowledge the analysis as sound AND disagree with their conclusions.

 

That's where I come down based on what I've read of the study.  If anything, the analysis demonstrates the need for greater state economic/social intervention rather than "less lockdowns".

[Joe]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

An epidemiologist would likely say that the reduction is worth it. They are doctors, any life directly saved is worth it.

 

The analysis being done in this paper is weighing the benefit of the small reduction in aggregate deaths vs. the costs borne by the rest of society. As I have noted before, Econ is the dismal science for a reason  

 

You can acknowledge the analysis as sound AND disagree with their conclusions. I’m guessing nobody besides @AbsolutSurgenand myself have actually read the paper though.

I’m not one for dismissing studies out of hand, but with such an absurd conclusion, I don’t know that I need to read the rest. Epidemiologists may be biased as well, but they would never come to the converse of that conclusion, which would be lockdown no matter what type of pandemic!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I’m sure they’re very smart boys who cross their T’s and dot their I’s that why they get paid the big bucks.  It’s their fucking job!

[Air_Delivery]

15 minutes ago, Joe said:

I’m not one for dismissing studies out of hand, but with such an absurd conclusion, I don’t know that I need to read the rest. Epidemiologists may be biased as well, but they would never come to the converse of that conclusion, which would be lockdown no matter what type of pandemic!

An  epidemiologist would not give their opinion on "worth" just what the effect of lockdowns had on excess deaths.

If this yahoo wants to study what the effects of the lockdown had on the economy sure ok. I mean CATO is shit but at least he is staying in his lane. 

[Guest]

Just now, Joe said:

I’m not one for dismissing studies out of hand, but with such an absurd conclusion, I don’t know that I need to read the rest. Epidemiologists may be biased as well, but they would never come to the converse of that conclusion, which would be lockdown no matter what type of pandemic!

 

I give significantly less weight to the opinion piece in studies than I do to the data analysis itself. I think the issue is that most people if they read any of it read the abstract only, which contains mostly the facts that support the opinion of the authors and nothing more. There is usually significantly more to a paper than that and I often find the most interesting bits in what doesn’t make it into the abstract, as well as the sources they cite.

[Air_Delivery]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

I give significantly less weight to the opinion piece in studies than I do to the data analysis itself. I think the issue is that most people if they read any of it read the abstract only, which contains mostly the facts that support the opinion of the authors and nothing more. There is usually significantly more to a paper than that and I often find the most interesting bits in what doesn’t make it into the abstract, as well as the sources they cite.

Who gives a shit about the data analysis of a subject they aren't qualified to analyze?