Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 Johns Hopkins University

Behold:


Legion said:
The model on which the government is relying is simply unreliable.

It is not that social distancing has changed the equation; it is that the equation’s fundamental assumptions are so dead wrong, they cannot remain reasonably stable for just 72 hours.

And mind you, when we observe that the government is relying on the models, we mean reliance for the purpose of making policy, including the policy of completely closing down American businesses and attempting to confine people to their homes because, it is said, no lesser measures will do.

That seems worth stressing in light of this morning’s announcement that unemployment claims spiked another 6.6 million (now well over 16 million in just the past couple of weeks), to say nothing of the fact that, while the nation reels, the Senate has now chosen to go on recess, having failed, thanks to DEMOCRAT obstinacy, to enact legislation to give more relief to our fast-shrinking small-business sector.

The revised April 5 model was grossly wrong even in predicting conditions that would obtain on April 5 itself.

It had predicted that on that day, New York, the epicenter of the crisis, would need about 24,000 hospital beds, including 6,000 ICU beds. In fact, the model was off by a third — New York had 16,479 hospitalized COVID patients, 4,376 that were in ICU.

On April 8, IHME reduced the total number of hospital beds it had predicted would be needed nationally by a remarkable 166,890 — down to 95,202 from the 262,092 it had predicted less than a week earlier (i.e., it was nearly two-thirds off).

The ICU projection over that same week was cut in half: to 19,816 on April 8, down from 39,727 on April 2.

The projected need for ventilators also fell by nearly half, to 16,845 from 31,782.

Because of the way the media report on skepticism about models and a desire to get reliable facts (which used to be the media’s job), I pause to stress that I am not belittling the threat of the virus, particularly to people who are especially vulnerable — the elderly and those with underlying health problems, especially respiratory problems.

The question is one of balance.

American lives are being shattered by the restrictions that have been put in place.

The decision to do that was based on models.

Those models have no credibility.

They now tell us that about 61,000 may die of coronavirus this year — although, if the last few days are any indication, that number could be revised downward soon, perhaps substantially.

To compare, the CDC estimates that 61,200 people died from the flu in the 2017–2018 period.

It has become fashionable to ridicule flu comparisons, but they are surely relevant, even if it is true that coronavirus is more readily transmissible and has a higher fatality rate.

For this year, the CDC projects that flu deaths will range between 24,000 and 63,000, and that hospitalizations could surge as high as 730,000 (out of the 18 to 26 million people who are treated for flu, out of as many as 55 million Americans who experience flu-related illnesses).

We don’t shut the country down for that.
Click to expand...
 
Frank Apisa said:
I do not read what that ignorant turd writes, LV..so I am not sure of what he was referencing or what his comment indicated about it.

In any case, obviously most Americans do not want Republican Presidents. They win so few of the popular votes these days, they should never have control of the executive branch. But, our Constitution gave the conservative element a huge advantage...and we have to live by the rules it sets out.
Click to expand...

Whenever a Republican is elected President, the country falls apart in 4-8 years, and a Democrat has to step in to fix it.

That's been the way my entire lifetime.
 
LV426 said:
Whenever a Republican is elected President, the country falls apart in 4-8 years, and a Democrat has to step in to fix it.

That's been the way my entire lifetime.
Click to expand...

It has pretty much been that way during the entire lifetime of everyone alive right now!
 
Our 'Appearance of Safety Culture' has ignored Science™

iu





Sociologist Frank Furedi wrote in his book How Fear Works: "Although risk is historically defined as exposure to the probability of loss, harm or some kind of misfortune, through its current expanded usage it has been reinterpreted as the possibility of such adversity.

The shift in meaning from probability to possibility has led to a fundamental revision in the conceptualization of risk."

The importance of the mere possibility that something bad might happen has replaced the consideration of the probability it might happen.

Thus, if the probability of something bad happening is very low, it doesn’t help to point that out, because it is still possible, and you will be considered irresponsible if you do not display the socially acceptable behaviors that will (in others’ minds) mitigate the already low risk to zero (which is, in most cases, still not possible).

A Pandemic in the Time of Safety

Politicians and public health officials were put in a tough place.

The public demanded control over something that couldn’t be controlled.

Local, state, and national leaders, whether they understood that they couldn’t actually offer increased safety or not, began to offer the next best thing—The Appearance of Safety.

Some of them even believed or convinced themselves that the laundry list of prescribed (despite previous public health consensus), and eventually mandated, measures would actually make people significantly safer without any trade-offs.

As the fictional Seinfeld character George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

It is deemed incredibly irresponsible for a politician to be seen doing nothing.

Yet with each measure taken to combat COVID, it wasn’t enough.

Something more always had to be done.

C
  • ancelling large events wasn’t enough.
  • Closing schools and businesses wasn’t enough.
  • Outdoor activities had to be halted, even with early evidence that outdoor transmission wasn’t significant.
  • Playgrounds, state parks, and hiking trails had to be closed, and the overall physical and mental health of children and adults was ignored.
Because something had to be done, to appear to be doing something.

For The Appearance of Safety.



https://stemplet74.substack.com/p/our-appearance-of-safety-culture
 
Legion said:
iu





Sociologist Frank Furedi wrote in his book How Fear Works: "Although risk is historically defined as exposure to the probability of loss, harm or some kind of misfortune, through its current expanded usage it has been reinterpreted as the possibility of such adversity.

The shift in meaning from probability to possibility has led to a fundamental revision in the conceptualization of risk."

The importance of the mere possibility that something bad might happen has replaced the consideration of the probability it might happen.

Thus, if the probability of something bad happening is very low, it doesn’t help to point that out, because it is still possible, and you will be considered irresponsible if you do not display the socially acceptable behaviors that will (in others’ minds) mitigate the already low risk to zero (which is, in most cases, still not possible).

A Pandemic in the Time of Safety

Politicians and public health officials were put in a tough place.

The public demanded control over something that couldn’t be controlled.

Local, state, and national leaders, whether they understood that they couldn’t actually offer increased safety or not, began to offer the next best thing—The Appearance of Safety.

Some of them even believed or convinced themselves that the laundry list of prescribed (despite previous public health consensus), and eventually mandated, measures would actually make people significantly safer without any trade-offs.

As the fictional Seinfeld character George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

It is deemed incredibly irresponsible for a politician to be seen doing nothing.

Yet with each measure taken to combat COVID, it wasn’t enough.

Something more always had to be done.

C
  • ancelling large events wasn’t enough.
  • Closing schools and businesses wasn’t enough.
  • Outdoor activities had to be halted, even with early evidence that outdoor transmission wasn’t significant.
  • Playgrounds, state parks, and hiking trails had to be closed, and the overall physical and mental health of children and adults was ignored.
Because something had to be done, to appear to be doing something.

For The Appearance of Safety.



https://stemplet74.substack.com/p/our-appearance-of-safety-culture
Click to expand...

Excellent article and so very true, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top