Coronavirus

[ZonkoVille77]

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

How is the department of Electrical Engineering the one to do a scientific review of the effects of a lockdown?

 

Thanks for confirming you haven't read the full article.

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

13 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

Thanks for confirming you haven't read the full article.

 

 

I did pal. I also looked up the author. There is only one really, the second one does not have any personal info and is involved in only a few studies. The author's contributions are listed. Our and we seems to be one person tbh.

 

Here are the conclusions of the study:

 

1	Neither previous pandemics nor COVID-19 provide clear evidence that lockdowns help to prevent death in pandemic
2	Lockdowns are associated with a considerable human cost. Even if somewhat effective in preventing COVID-19 death, they probably cause far more extensive (an order of magnitude or more) loss of life
3	A thorough risk-benefit analysis must be performed before imposing any lockdown in future

 

Who do you think wrote it? Really more interested in how you came about this study - pretty esoteric isn't it?

 

Do you agree with their view on the Pittsburgh anomaly? 

[ZonkoVille77]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I did pal. I also looked up the author. There is only one really, the second one does not have any personal info and is involved in only a few studies. The author's contributions are listed. Our and we seems to be one person tbh.

 

Who do you think wrote it? Really more interested in how you came about this study - pretty esoteric isn't it?

 

Do you agree with their view on the Pittsburgh anomaly? 

 

You looked up the authors, you clearly have not read the entire article. Read it, understand it, then we can pick apart their points if you like. (I don't agree with all of it but as I have been saying plenty WE NEED TO ALWAYS LOOK AT SIDES OF THE STORY, otherwise we remain perpetually ignorant.)

 

Asking why Dept. Of Electrical Engineering is involved in an article that contains statistics as its basis is absurd, or you simply don't understand how many universities work. I studied Computer Science and the Umbrella dept was the Dept. Of Electrical Engineering which contained all and any subject with Mathematics at its core. 

 

BTW, that's possibly the longest post you've ever done on here. It's usually one line questions back to people with the aim of being contrary and that's it. Improvement I guess.

[ZonkoVille77]

12 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I did pal. I also looked up the author. There is only one really, the second one does not have any personal info and is involved in only a few studies. The author's contributions are listed. Our and we seems to be one person tbh.

 

Here are the conclusions of the study:

 

1	Neither previous pandemics nor COVID-19 provide clear evidence that lockdowns help to prevent death in pandemic
2	Lockdowns are associated with a considerable human cost. Even if somewhat effective in preventing COVID-19 death, they probably cause far more extensive (an order of magnitude or more) loss of life
3	A thorough risk-benefit analysis must be performed before imposing any lockdown in future

 

Who do you think wrote it? Really more interested in how you came about this study - pretty esoteric isn't it?

 

Do you agree with their view on the Pittsburgh anomaly? 

 

What the hell, I'll help you out since you didn't read it. 

Look at these people and then look at the references in the end of the article. 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

23 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

You looked up the authors, you clearly have not read the entire article.

I'm sorry but I have. There is one author quoting many sources - and at the end pointing out most of those sources may not be completely un biased. In fact it reads more like an opinion piece than a study, at least to a fella who apparently doesn't understand how universities work. 

 

The acknowledgments are all well and good, quite a diverse collection of established professionals in other fields and the ever present Sunetra Gupta. 

Interested in the Russian input as their countries handling of the virus. especially initially, seemed either very effective or was complete propaganda.

 

I did ask you a specific question about the paper. Also asked how you found this work. 

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

I lost an uncle and an aunt. Lockdown didn't save them.

I posted in this very thread when my uncle died of it. 

 

My neighbour lost a son to suicide because of lockdown.

 

So lockdowns are only good. Sound. 

 

Incidentally here's an article from well known fake news site CNN. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/health/teen-suicide-increase-pandemic-study-wellness/index.html

 

My point is once again we ABSOLUTELY need to look at all sides and investigate all the pros and cons. If we don't then it's lunacy.

Investigate what mate???? Are you looking to point blame for lockdowns? 

[ZonkoVille77]

11 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Investigate what mate???? Are you looking to point blame for lockdowns? 

 

Not sure what you're asking really. 

All I'm pointing out is that there is plenty of emerging evidence (via proven scientific investigative methods, high end data analysis) that the Lockdowns did A LOT of damage. Whether you like it or not that's what data is saying. These articles are not my personal opinion, they are created by sharper minds than mine. These people would risk significant personal ridicule if they were completely wrong and possibly professional consequences too. So they're worth paying attention to even if you've already nailed your colours to a particular mast.

 

If you're happy to think Lockdowns were a good thing without being open to the possibility that they weren't,  then there's little point in us going back and forth about it because we'll get nowhere. I'm not sure either way but I sure as hell would never have a closed mind on such a topic that had widespread societal and cultural significance. 

[TheHowieLama]

10 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

If you're happy to think Lockdowns were a good thing without being open to the possibility that they weren't,  then there's little point in us going back and forth about it because we'll get nowhere. I'm not sure either way but I sure as hell would never have a closed mind on such a topic that had widespread societal and cultural significance. 

Not sure anyone is suggesting that. I think an open honest conversation about the effects of lockdown would not start with a study - edited/contributed to/ whatever you think acknowledgement means in this case - a lockdown skeptic who has been well off the mark throughout. The fact that you are taking umbrage with pushback on that seems strange.

It is a bit like someone using a Peterson opinion as a starting point to discuss Covid treatments.

 

There is no doubt that all of the outcomes of this pandemic will be studied by multiple disciplines for any number of reasons.

You seem to be most alert to mental health struggles during that time. There will certainly be studies by Social Scientists and Mental Health professionals and organizations that directly address that, as there will be focused studies by Economists on market effects.

[TheHowieLama]

In the interest of continuing the open and honest conversation about the long term ramifications of lockdowns I would posit that the economic outcome on individuals had a greater detrimental effect on the mental health of the majority of adults than anything else.

 

The social effects will have been most acutely felt by the elderly (specifically the ones who passed in isolation) and the very young during their developmental stage.

 

Certainly those will be two vastly different studies conducted by two different sets of experts.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just reading above about fatigue lasting over a month. I’ve heard mates, my brother etc saying similar. 
 

Thankfully, mine only lasted a week or so. I’ve been back in the gym a couple of times since and did an hour power walk on the treadmill and was fine afterwards. My sense of smell isn’t fully back to normal yet though. I can smell most things like foods and that, but still struggle to get stronger, scented smells like air freshener, deodorant and aftershave etc. 

 

It’s strange how it effects different people in different ways. 

[ZonkoVille77]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

I did ask you a specific question about the paper. Also asked how you found this work. 

 

 

 

 

I regularly read the articles about Big Data and Computing from the site as it's relevant to my career and I came across it there. That's it. No conspiracy, no right-wing loony sites. Just a site that publishes academic papers. 

 

https://www.mdpi.com/about/journals

[Bjornebye]

52 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

Not sure what you're asking really. 

All I'm pointing out is that there is plenty of emerging evidence (via proven scientific investigative methods, high end data analysis) that the Lockdowns did A LOT of damage. Whether you like it or not that's what data is saying. These articles are not my personal opinion, they are created by sharper minds than mine. These people would risk significant personal ridicule if they were completely wrong and possibly professional consequences too. So they're worth paying attention to even if you've already nailed your colours to a particular mast.

 

If you're happy to think Lockdowns were a good thing without being open to the possibility that they weren't,  then there's little point in us going back and forth about it because we'll get nowhere. I'm not sure either way but I sure as hell would never have a closed mind on such a topic that had widespread societal and cultural significance. 

Read what I’ve put. Lockdowns weren’t good at all they were a cunt for plenty of things. I just think given the option is the right one to take. Unless we wanted more bodies piled high. Fucking hell lad I’m not denying that lockdown has impacted lives badly and one certain gobshite couldn’t breathe on a bus with a mask on but the other option was even worse. The enemy is covid. Nothing else. 
 

Like I’ve said, support networks and learning from all of this have to be key. Wasting energy blaming lockdowns is a waste of time. It was the less shitty of two very shitty options. That’s it. 

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

I regularly read the articles about Big Data and Computing from the site as it's relevant to my career and I came across it there. That's it. No conspiracy, no right-wing loony sites. Just a site that publishes academic papers. 

 

https://www.mdpi.com/about/journals

It was interesting.

 

What about their take on the Pittsburgh anomaly?

[ZonkoVille77]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Read what I’ve put. Lockdowns weren’t good at all they were a cunt for plenty of things. I just think given the option is the right one to take. Unless we wanted more bodies piled high. Fucking hell lad I’m not denying that lockdown has impacted lives badly and one certain gobshite couldn’t breathe on a bus with a mask on but the other option was even worse. The enemy is covid. Nothing else. 
 

Like I’ve said, support networks and learning from all of this have to be key. Wasting energy blaming lockdowns is a waste of time. It was the less shitty of two very shitty options. That’s it. 

 

It could still work out to be the right one. I was merely pointing out that an open mind needs to be kept on these things. The creeping surveillance state enabled by lockdowns didn't sit with me personally.

 

And I still think the Tories are partly to blame for thousands of deaths. I had to go back and search for this because it summed up how I felt about it when I first read it. Tories keeping people in poverty just may have helped the spread. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/08/lockdowns-workers-restrictions-self-isolate

[ZonkoVille77]

13 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

It was interesting.

 

What about their take on the Pittsburgh anomaly?

 

The section referencing Pittsburgh has many variables and raises more questions; could be a study in it's own right? 

 

Unless you've more insight than the snippet in the article?

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

The section referencing Pittsburgh has many variables and raises more questions; could be a study in it's own right? 

 

Unless you've more insight than the snippet in the article?

Gotta disagree:

 

On the opposite, Pittsburgh (the most severely-affected city of the sample) is classified by the cited authors as unacceptably “liberal” with 52 NPI days (below median)—though during these 52 days theaters and schools were closed.

The Pittsburgh case is a clear example of the authors’ failure to include a significant local factor in the model. Namely, the high mortality rate in Pittsburgh has a good explanation not connected to the alleged oversight and ‘liberalism’ of the authorities. Even before the Spanish flu, many more people (compared to the US average) died in Pittsburgh from respiratory diseases due to severe air contamination by metallurgical plants’ emissions [15].

 

There are no variables, that is the authors opinion of the outlier in their hypothesis. They used this to suggest that the outlier was somehow compromised in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to New York.

The footnote is to an article on smokiness and pneumonia from the AHJ. It was published in 1938.

[Bjornebye]

18 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

It could still work out to be the right one. I was merely pointing out that an open mind needs to be kept on these things. The creeping surveillance state enabled by lockdowns didn't sit with me personally.

 

And I still think the Tories are partly to blame for thousands of deaths. I had to go back and search for this because it summed up how I felt about it when I first read it. Tories keeping people in poverty just may have helped the spread. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/08/lockdowns-workers-restrictions-self-isolate

Mate the tories are to blame for people having the shits. Fuck them. I just don’t think pointing the finger at lockdown helps anyone. 

[TheHowieLama]

The idea of lockdown good/bad is painfully simplistic. It is made worse by somewhat simplistic studies.

 

The lockdown experienced by a UK resident has absolutely nothing to do with one in Italy or China or the US.

The idea of them has already become politicized so any meaningful knowledge that could be had is off the table in favor of a right/wrong boondoggle.

 

[ZonkoVille77]

14 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Gotta disagree:

 

On the opposite, Pittsburgh (the most severely-affected city of the sample) is classified by the cited authors as unacceptably “liberal” with 52 NPI days (below median)—though during these 52 days theaters and schools were closed.

The Pittsburgh case is a clear example of the authors’ failure to include a significant local factor in the model. Namely, the high mortality rate in Pittsburgh has a good explanation not connected to the alleged oversight and ‘liberalism’ of the authorities. Even before the Spanish flu, many more people (compared to the US average) died in Pittsburgh from respiratory diseases due to severe air contamination by metallurgical plants’ emissions [15].

 

There are no variables, that is the authors opinion of the outlier in their hypothesis. They used this to suggest that the outlier was somehow compromised in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to New York.

The footnote is to an article on smokiness and pneumonia from the AHJ. It was published in 1938.

 

It was the author's of the Pittsburgh article they're referring to, not the authors of the article I posted. The Pittsburgh scenario is based upon Spanish flu data and not Covid.

[TheHowieLama]

10 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

It was the author's of the Pittsburgh article they're referring to, not the authors of the article I posted. The Pittsburgh scenario is based upon Spanish flu data and not Covid.

I know that man - the bold part references the author of the study you posted and how that article was used (incorrectly imo) in their hypothesis - which of course is the only reason it is mentioned. The comparison was by NPI.

 

The Pittsburgh article linked and footnoted has nothing to do with the Spanish Flu - it is about pneumonia.

[ZonkoVille77]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The idea of lockdown good/bad is painfully simplistic. It is made worse by somewhat simplistic studies.

 

The lockdown experienced by a UK resident has absolutely nothing to do with one in Italy or China or the US.

The idea of them has already become politicized so any meaningful knowledge that could be had is off the table in favor of a right/wrong boondoggle.

 

 

I see you again miss the point spectacularly. 

This isn't about good/bad lockdown. It's about quantifying the benefits of lockdowns, or lack of, using sound analysis. 

 

Only a fool would argue that keeping people at home doesn't prevent a spread of disease. Of course it does prevent spread. The point is at what cost? Which is what that article's core point is.

 

Keeping everyone locked down did the following:

 

- prevented Illnesses like cancer from being diagnosed (ergo "20 more life years than they save" quote from article)

- caused isolation of elderly people, many who died alone.

- caused unknown quantities of suicides.

- caused unknown long term mental health issues. We could face a tsunami of lockdown related mental health issues over the next few years.

- economic consequences, both individually and for businesses 

 

The easy way out is to say "Lockdowns saved lives, just  move on. When the reality is that's far too simplistic and doesn't factor in the points I've made above. Or maybe some people are happy with that? 

[ZonkoVille77]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I know that man - the bold part references the author of the study you posted and how that article was used (incorrectly imo) in their hypothesis - which of course is the only reason it is mentioned.

 

The Pittsburgh article has nothing to do with the Spanish Flu - it is about pneumonia.

 

Sorry, pneumonia. Again I don't think your Pittsburgh angle has any real bearing and it's a possible study within itself. 

[ZonkoVille77]

Even science can't get it right every time. That's why we ALWAYS NEED TO QUESTION everything. 

 

https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(21)00087-1/fulltext

 

Conclusion

Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. In the SIR modeling framework, the impacts of lockdown are uncertain and highly model-dependent.

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

I see you again miss the point spectacularly. 

This isn't about good/bad lockdown. It's about quantifying the benefits of lockdowns, or lack of, using sound analysis. 

 

You have just linked an article titled "Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics" that very explicitly suggests they are not.

 

A couple lines from the conclusion of a study that is not simplistically good/bad.

 

While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms leads to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic.

 

The study mentioned viral transmission in passing once.

I do not know a single scientist who would suggest Covid's viral transmission mechanisms were not massively impacted by lockdowns - in fact you don't either as you just mentioned only a fool. So either that part of the conclusion is a bit iffy or the authors are fools.

 

The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: we estimate that, even if somewhat effective in preventing death caused by infection, lockdowns may claim 20 times more life than they save. 

 

That is a bit dramatic innit it? Especially in light of exactly zero data to support it.

Suggest you go re read section 3.2.4 as it is entirely based on assumptions derived from - surprise - GDP. That would be bad enough but it is from a single countries assumptions re: GDP that this claim is made in the conclusion of the study.

 

 

[Bjornebye]

Lockdown saved lives. Masks saved lives. Vaccines saved lives. 
 

Perfect solution? No of course not and some people have suffered as a result which is horrible. 
 

By and large though ….. 
 

Anyone who can’t see that is a fucking blert.