Are lockdowns justified?

[FlatAssembler]

Pretty sure it's already been explained to you that you don't have to be hacking your lungs out to spread droplets. I'm also willing to bet that they are more likely to infect their granny than a kid who didn't have covid. What do you think?

OK, what do you think is the probability of getting infected with COVID from a child? It is presumably greater than the 1/10'000 probability of getting infected by touching a contaminated surface, but how high is it really? I think I have read somewhere that a 9-year-old is about as immune to COVID as a vaccinated adult is, but I cannot find where and I do not know if that is true. What do you think and why? And is it worth closing schools because of that? You need to consider closing schools for more than a year leaves a lot of collateral damage. Children who do not go to school are more vulnerable to domestic violence, and domestic violence is less often detected. Not to mention what it does to the academic welfare.

Why haggle over a few tens of thousands here or there, right?

I am not sure what you mean. The American policy of putting COVID patients into nursing homes probably caused tens of thousands of deaths, right?

[arewethereyet]

Ahhh, so we've moved on to domestic violence.

Just keep moving the reasons FA.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah because without the lockdowns those kids would be living in paradise 

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure it's already been explained to you that you don't have to be hacking your lungs out to spread droplets. I'm also willing to bet that they are more likely to infect their granny than a kid who didn't have covid. What do you think?

OK, what do you think is the probability of getting infected with COVID from a child? It is presumably greater than the 1/10'000 probability of getting infected by touching a contaminated surface, but how high is it really? I think I have read somewhere that a 9-year-old is about as immune to COVID as a vaccinated adult is, but I cannot find where and I do not know if that is true. What do you think and why? And is it worth closing schools because of that? You need to consider closing schools for more than a year leaves a lot of collateral damage. Children who do not go to school are more vulnerable to domestic violence, and domestic violence is less often detected. Not to mention what it does to the academic welfare.

Does some number higher than zero work for you with respect to whatever political disagreement you intend to use a plague as leverage for?

For me, from the standpoint of preventing the spread of the plague, no number higher than zero is desirable, many numbers higher than zero are unacceptable.

Why haggle over a few tens of thousands here or there, right?

I am not sure what you mean. The American policy of putting COVID patients into nursing homes probably caused tens of thousands of deaths, right?

The lack of any american policy killed hundreds of thousands.  You have bad sources, a poor understanding of facts, an even poorer command of logical inference, and all of it is pointless 

-because you have a political disagreement.  Plagues don't give a shit about anyone's politics. By all means, service that disagreement, but understand that it has nothing to do with the spread of infectious disease or the effectiveness of quarantine protocol or the necessity of vaccine distribution. Nothing about any of that can help you to push whatever criticism or alternative policy suggestion tickles your fancy. It's wasting your time, and tanking your credibility.

As far as this new concern trolling attempt. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer that victims survive. Whether that's domestic abuse or institutional malfeasance, no matter. Politically, this leads to an end as dead as half a million americans, between you and I at least.

[arewethereyet]

OK, what do you think is the probability of getting infected with COVID from a child? It is presumably greater than the 1/10'000 probability of getting infected by touching a contaminated surface, but how high is it really? I think I have read somewhere that a 9-year-old is about as immune to COVID as a vaccinated adult is, but I cannot find where and I do not know if that is true. What do you think and why? And is it worth closing schools because of that? You need to consider closing schools for more than a year leaves a lot of collateral damage. Children who do not go to school are more vulnerable to domestic violence, and domestic violence is less often detected. Not to mention what it does to the academic welfare.

Does some number higher than zero work for you with respect to whatever political disagreement you intend to use a plague as leverage for?

For me, from the standpoint of preventing the spread of the plague, no number higher than zero is desirable, many numbers higher than zero are unacceptable.

I am not sure what you mean. The American policy of putting COVID patients into nursing homes probably caused tens of thousands of deaths, right?

The lack of any american policy killed hundreds of thousands.  You have bad sources, a poor understanding of facts, an even poorer command of logical inference, and all of it is pointless 

-because you have a political disagreement.  Plagues don't give a shit about anyone's politics.  By all means, service that disagreement, but understand that it has nothing to do with the spread of infectious disease or the effectiveness of quarantine protocol or the necessity of vaccine distribution.  Nothing about any of that can help you to push whatever criticism or alternative policy suggestion tickles your fancy.  It's wasting your time, and tanking your credibility.

As far as this new concern trolling attempt.  Call me old fashioned, but I prefer that victims survive.  Whether that's domestic abuse or institutional malfeasance, no matter.  Kind of a political dead end for you here, with me, at least.

Would you point me to a time when FA had credibility?  I must have missed it.

[FlatAssembler]

Ahhh, so we've moved on to domestic violence.

Just keep moving the reasons FA.

What should I do? Keep asking for a study showing that closing schools is effective at preventing the spread of COVID? I think that is unlikely to be productive. You will more likely convince somebody if you question their reasoning rather than their premises.

Yeah because without the lockdowns those kids would be living in paradise

The fact is that, during the lockdowns, child suicides have risen drastically. I also find it a bit puzzling that suicides have risen most sharply in children and in the military, rather than in the people who lost their jobs.

The lack of any american policy killed hundreds of thousands.

First of all, the US has had, and still has, many policies to address COVID. Some of them are now almost universally agreed to have been counter-productive, such as putting COVID patients into nursing homes, and then manipulating the statistics to make it look like fewer people in nursing homes died from COVID. Some of those policies are still supported by many people, such as long-term lockdowns and mandatory mask-wearing. Texas is, as far as I know, the only US state without such policies.
Secondly, how do you know which policies are good and which are not? How would a scientifically valid study to determine that even be designed? Lockdowns are not a single policy, they are a bunch of policies, and certainly at least some of them are bad. I think a key to understanding social sciences is to assume that the economic freedom index studies are bad science. But any real lockdown study will suffer from the same flaw.

Plagues don't give a shit about anyone's politics.

Well, I agree with you. Viruses do not seem to care much about which policies the countries have. The number of people with type-2-diabetes and heart disease in a country is a lot better predictor of the mortality from COVID-19.

Would you point me to a time when FA had credibility? I must have missed it.

Well, I guess you are not familiar with my work in social sciences. You can read about it here: https://flatassembler.github.io/toponyms.html

[The Grand Nudger]

The lack of any american policy killed hundreds of thousands.

First of all, the US has had, and still has, many policies to address COVID. Some of them are now almost universally agreed to have been counter-productive, such as putting COVID patients into nursing homes, and then manipulating the statistics to make it look like fewer people in nursing homes died from COVID. Some of those policies are still supported by many people, such as long-term lockdowns and mandatory mask-wearing. Texas is, as far as I know, the only US state without such policies.
Secondly, how do you know which policies are good and which are not? How would a scientifically valid study to determine that even be designed? Lockdowns are not a single policy, they are a bunch of policies, and certainly at least some of them are bad. I think a key to understanding social sciences is to assume that the economic freedom index studies are bad science. But any real lockdown study will suffer from the same flaw.

Arguing against a point by specifically describing it's factuality is a poor strategy.  

Plagues don't give a shit about anyone's politics.

Well, I agree with you. Viruses do not seem to care much about which policies the countries have. The number of people with type-2-diabetes and heart disease in a country is a lot better predictor of the mortality from COVID-19.

I think that the plague is a better indicator of mortality in plague ridden countries. A fraction of the worlds population, a quarter of all cases, half a million dead.

You wanna talk about chubby people, though. Guess what? I'd prefer that chubby people live too. Seems like there were some things we could have done better no matter who the afflicted group happens to be.

....and as far as your "work in the social sciences". Stop it. You're a conspiracy theorist engaged in denying well documented instances of ethnic cleansing that occurred within living memory.

[FlatAssembler]

Arguing against a point by specifically describing it's factuality is a poor strategy.

I am not sure what you mean. If lockdowns help at all (and the evidence of that is rather thin), they help at the very beginning of the pandemic and for two to three weeks. A strict lockdown implemented now will not decrease the number of people dying from COVID.

I think that the plague is a better indicator of mortality in plague ridden countries.

Why do you think so? I mean, people who do not have type-2-diabetes or heart disease almost never die from COVID-19.

[The Grand Nudger]

A strict lockdown implemented -at any time- will slow the rate of spread, but would, ofc, have been more useful at the onset. Good suggestion. We should have actually had a lockdown.

QED

Why not just cut to the chase and tell us who you think should die for the dow. Who are the expendable people? Necessary Workers™, obviously, but is that the extent of who you would victimize over your political disagreements in the course of a plague that doesn't give a shit about them and won't respect those ideological boundaries in mere reality? Why do you feel that you can't have frank discussions about these things, and why to the absurd extent that you put work in painting yourself as a doorknob licker? It's an evergreen question about this or any other thing you've shown an interest in.

I suspect a common thread, but maybe you're all over the place. : shrugs :

[Irreligious Atheist]

I'm just gonna leave this here... No covid variants appear to transmit outdoors.



As far as the thread title goes, I'm ok with shutdowns, but not stay at home orders.