Are lockdowns justified?

[FlatAssembler]

How is that obvious?

What is it that you doubt? Do you doubt people spend less time on the sun during a lockdown? Or do you doubt that spending less time on the sun makes you more susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency?
If you doubt that Vitamin D deficiency makes COVID worse, well, that is not very unreasonable, given the lack of scientific explanation of how Vitamin D deficiency could affect the immune system. However, I think there are some relatively good reasons to think Vitamin D indeed makes COVID less severe. First of all, the well-known studies showing that. Second, COVID mortality and hospitalization rate is way lower in summer, even if there is no lockdown, such as in Sweden:

To me, that is enough evidence to consider the possibility that lockdowns are counter-productive because of leading to Vitamin D deficiency.

Masks work

They are probably around 20% effective, but it is hard to tell. First of all, we do not know for sure that COVID is not airborne. If it is airborne, then masks that are commonly worn have no effect. If it is not airborne, as it probably isn't, then how effective they are is a matter of social sciences, how people actually behave when they are forced to wear a mask. The most rigorous study about that done thus far, the Danish study, which involved 3000 people, had a statistical-significance-cut-off at 46%. They could not, with the massive funding they had, design a study which could detect effects larger than 46%. Of course, it failed to detect any effect of masks, as they are usually worn, on COVID-19.

So do lockdowns

It is very hard to tell. They definitely do not have a huge effect. The best predictor for COVID-related mortality across countries is life expectancy: higher the life expectancy, higher the deaths from COVID. Another good predictor is obesity of the population. And any real study about how much impact lockdowns have will be lumping good and bad policies together, leading to very misleading results.

You don't like the inconvenience of pandemic protocol. That doesn't mean lockdowns and masks fail to reduce the spread.

That also doesn't mean they succeeded at reducing the spread.

---

ands that's why the us engages in a massive effort to fortify our foods

And yet 40% of Americans are deficient in Vitamin D. And so are 80% of American COVID patients, according to the famous study that made it into global news.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that's why the us..again, engages in a massive effort to fortify our foods. Half a million americans didn't suddenly die for lack of d. Did you say this to yourself at all before you typed it up?

[Ranjr]

What is it that you doubt? Do you doubt people spend less time on the sun during a lockdown? Or do you doubt that spending less time on the sun makes you more susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency?

To me, that is enough evidence to consider the possibility that lockdowns are counter-productive because of leading to Vitamin D deficiency.

Masks work

They are probably around 20% effective, but it is hard to tell. First of all, we do not know for sure that COVID is not airborne. If it is airborne, then masks that are commonly worn have no effect. If it is not airborne, as it probably isn't, then how effective they are is a matter of social sciences, how people actually behave when they are forced to wear a mask. The most rigorous study about that done thus far, the Danish study, which involved 3000 people, had a statistical-significance-cut-off at 46%. They could not, with the massive funding they had, design a study which could detect effects larger than 46%. Of course, it failed to detect any effect of masks, as they are usually worn, on COVID-19.

So do lockdowns

It is very hard to tell. They definitely do not have a huge effect. The best predictor for COVID-related mortality across countries is life expectancy: higher the life expectancy, higher the deaths from COVID. Another good predictor is obesity of the population. And any real study about how much impact lockdowns have will be lumping good and bad policies together, leading to very misleading results.

You don't like the inconvenience of pandemic protocol.  That doesn't mean lockdowns and masks fail to reduce the spread.

That also doesn't mean they succeeded at reducing the spread

They do succeed at reducing the spread as shown in the linked studies.  If you wish to show that we can't draw conclusions, then don't draw conclusions.  When you say "they definitely do not have a huge effect", your not only making unsubstantiated claims, you're ignoring the term "significant."  They make significant differences which is very important in life saving measures. You need to show the misleading results if you want to affirm that claim.  You're also moving the goalposts.  You say lockdowns don't work.  I show they do.  Then you change the metric from infections to deaths.  Yes, underlying health conditions increase risk of death.  All the more reason to slow the spread.  Try making sense. 

And stop with the moon-eyed idealism.  Almost all policies are a mix of good and bad.  That's why you object to lockdowns.  You're inconvenienced.  Public health is more important than your desire to do as you please.  Grow up and get used to that.

I, for one, spent just as much if not more time outside over the past year.  As did many more.  You shouldn't pull conclusions out of your ass.  Many healthy people, including a triathlete, have died of covid.  There is a rise in young people requiring hospitalization.  It should be obvious that limiting contact between people limits the spread of the virus.  It is to most educated people.  If it's not to you, then, you are, again, seeking to rationalize your feelings.

---

You're telling me that patients who spent weeks in ICU, slowly dying of a virus, showed a lack of vitamin D?  Tail, wag that dog.

[FlatAssembler]

-and that's why the us..again, engages in a massive effort to fortify our foods.  Half a million americans didn't suddenly die for lack of d.  Did you say this to yourself at all before you typed it up?

Of course Vitamin D deficiency is not the only thing that contributed to the excess mortality in 2020. Vitamin D deficiency is a lot more dangerous when you have COVID, and vice versa. Of course COVID contributed somewhat to the excess mortality. So did the spike in suicide and drug overdose. And delayed cancer diagnoses and treatments, as well as delayed heart disease diagnoses and treatments, and so on.

Though, curiously, the year 2020 did not have exceedingly high mortality in the USA. I am interested, what caused that high mortality in the first half of 2017 in the US? I mean, the year 2017 had about the same number of deaths in the US as the year 2020 had... I have no idea why.

[Ranjr]

According to the CDC, 2017 totaled 2,813,503.  2020 totaled 3,358,814, 377,833 of which were due to covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/m..._x#F1_down

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr6...06-508.pdf

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

-and that's why the us..again, engages in a massive effort to fortify our foods.  Half a million americans didn't suddenly die for lack of d.  Did you say this to yourself at all before you typed it up?

Of course Vitamin D deficiency is not the only thing that contributed to the excess mortality in 2020. Vitamin D deficiency is a lot more dangerous when you have COVID, and vice versa. Of course COVID contributed somewhat to the excess mortality. So did the spike in suicide and drug overdose. And delayed cancer diagnoses and treatments, as well as delayed heart disease diagnoses and treatments, and so on.

Though, curiously, the year 2020 did not have exceedingly high mortality in the USA. I am interested, what caused that high mortality in the first half of 2017 in the US? I mean, the year 2017 had about the same number of deaths in the US as the year 2020 had... I have no idea why.

Re Ranj’s links: I’d hardly call a 16% increase ‘about the same’.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

They do succeed at reducing the spread as shown in the linked studies.

And, as I am sure you know, there are countless similar studies failing to find any effect of lockdowns: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-d...-evidence/
And even the study you cited says that, in Europe, lockdowns do not show a significant effect: Here [in Europe] Lockdown is positive, suggesting that countries that implemented the lockdown have, on average, more New Cases than in countries that did not.. And considering all those people who, at the beginning of the lockdown, rushed into grocery stores and buying unreasonable amounts of bottled water and toilet paper (contributing to the initial spread of the pandemic), and all those protests that probably would not be there if there were no lockdowns... I don't know why that would be surprising. And even if lockdowns do work, it is to "flatten the curve" not to overwhelm the hospitals, they are effective for a short period of time. See what the study you cited says: we detect an increase in benefits and a reduction in contagion even 20 days after the start of lockdown.. That is it, 20 days of lockdown. Not shutting down most businesses for almost a year, as the governments have been doing.

When you say "they definitely do not have a huge effect", your not only making unsubstantiated claims, you're ignoring the term "significant."

When you say "significant", you mean "there will be a few times more deaths if it were not for the lockdowns", right? Well, that is implausible given that there have been many studies finding no effect.

I show they do.

No, you did not.

I, for one, spent just as much if not more time outside over the past year. As did many more.

So, why do you think there are so few cases of COVID during the summer?

---

According to the CDC, 2017 totaled 2,813,503.  2020 totaled 3,358,814, 377,833 of which were due to covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/m..._x#F1_down

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr6...06-508.pdf

OK, I will look into it more. I remember seing some chart comparing how many people died each week in years 2017-2020. The year 2017 had a vastly above average mortality in the first half of the year. The year 2020 had an even bigger, but not much bigger, mortality in the second half of the year. Seems to me that different sources give you very different estimates.

[Ranjr]

You can't blame cases due to protests on the lockdown.  That was a decision made by the protesters.  Same with groceries.  Those were irrational actions by people acting on emotion, similar to your claims here.

No, "significant" means "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention."  Let's see these studies you mention.  And yes, I did show lockdowns work.  If Europeans go nuts over them and refuse to abide, again, that's not a failure of the lockdown.  

There were fewer cases during summer because lockdowns in the prior months reduced spread, and people don't gather inside as much in the summer.  There are other reasons also.  We shouldn't try to describe a complex situation with a few simplifications, such as your vitamin D nonsense and grocery shopping.

The source I listed for mortality in 2017 and 2020 was the US Center for Disease Control.  They would know.  I don't know where you're trying to go with this comparison, but it does show you have inaccurate, unspecified sources.

[FlatAssembler]

If Europeans go nuts over them and refuse to abide, again, that's not a failure of the lockdown.

Sure, if humans weren't humans, lockdowns may very well work. But humans are humans, and so lockdowns have little or no effect. And, when discussing politics, we must not forget that humans are humans.

There were fewer cases during summer because lockdowns in the prior months reduced spread

I don't think this explanation is correct, as the same is true for countries which had no lockdown, such as Sweden:

people don't gather inside as much in the summer

And you don't think lockdowns result in people gathering inside secretly? If so, they are counter-productive because humans are humans.

We shouldn't try to describe a complex situation with a few simplifications

But that's how science works. Science builds simplified models of reality which can actually be used to make predictions. A model that is too complicated to make any prediction is not science.

[Ranjr]

Sure, if humans weren't humans, lockdowns may very well work. But humans are humans, and so lockdowns have little or no effect. And, when discussing politics, we must not forget that humans are humans.

I don't think this explanation is correct, as the same is true for countries which had no lockdown, such as Sweden:

people don't gather inside as much in the summer

And you don't think lockdowns result in people gathering inside secretly? If so, they are counter-productive because humans are humans.

We shouldn't try to describe a complex situation with a few simplifications

But that's how science works. Science builds simplified models of reality which can actually be used to make predictions. A model that is too complicated to make any prediction is not science.

The lockdown does not force people to secretly or openly break it.  In fact, when people act rationally and abide by the protocol, the protocols work.  So there we have our difference in point of view.  You blame irrational behavior on a rational measure.  I blame those who act irrationally.  

I don't understand the significance of the graph you keep showing.  It reminds me of climate change deniers who wait for a cold day to say there is no global warming.

The more complex the model, the more accurate.  The more forcings and factors taken into account, the better.  Take gravity, since it's handy.  By your opinion, Newton's and Einstein's gravity would be science, but quantum gravity would not be because there is as yet no complete and consistent system.  Yet, quantum gravity is science because it is falsifiable.  Einstein's gravity is more accurate because it is more complex.  Also, you haven't built any models here.  You have made unsubstantiated claims about grocery shopping and vitamin D.  Who doesn't roll out of ICU or a nursing home, whether in a chair or on a gurney, having been deprived of sunlight?