Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ashvin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178
1
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: Today at 05:27:53 AM »
As many states enter a new wave of more stringent measures to limit the spread of COVID-19, users on social media have been sharing posts that question the purpose of so called “lockdowns”. Some posts falsely claim that these measures “don’t save lives”. This article examines some of the reasons why lockdowns have been called, and how effective they have been.

An example of a lockdown-sceptic post circulating on social media features the screenshot of an entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary on the word “lockdown”, which includes a definition that reads: “the confinement of prisoners to their cells for all or most of the day as a temporary security measure”. The image has an overlaid text that reads: “Never forget where the word LOCKDOWN comes from… A loving government isn’t trying to save you from COVID…it is using COVID to justify MARTIAL LAW”

While this definition is indeed included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown , the screenshot fails to show two further definitions. According to Merriam Webster, the term also stands for a “temporary condition” imposed by authorities, for example, during the outbreak of an epidemic disease, “in which people are require to stay in their homes and refrain from limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)”.

An article by The Guardian delves into the evolution of the meaning of the word lockdown https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/02/changing-meaning-of-lockdown .

In April, Reuters debunked a similar claim that the U.S. coronavirus response was “slowly introducing” martial law and found it to be false https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-introducing-mar/false-claim-u-s-coronavirus-response-slowly-introducing-martial-law-idUSKCN21W250 .

LOCKDOWNS

Reuters has reported on international studies that have determined that lockdowns potentially have saved millions of lives https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-lockdowns-idUSKBN23F1G3 .

However, it is also true that some lockdown measures may have a direct impact on a person’s income and mental health. Further reading about short, mid and long-term effects of lockdowns are visible https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-cost-special-r-idUSKBN21L20C .

The World Health Organization (WHO) explains https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19 that such measures can have “a profound negative impact on individuals, communities and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop”, something that according to the organization, disproportionately affect vulnerable groups.

But evidence also suggest that stringent but temporary restrictions, could actually benefit the economic recovery because they reduce the spread of the disease. The International Monetary Fund, for example, determined https://blogs.imf.org/2020/10/08/covids-impact-in-real-time-finding-balance-amid-the-crisis/ that while lockdowns “impose short-term costs” they may lead to “a faster economic recovery. The organization states that “by bringing infections under control, lockdowns may thus pave the way to a faster economic recovery as people feel more comfortable about resuming normal activities” ( bit.ly/2UXoIUy page 74).

Reuters contacted two experts, Dr. Elizabeth Stuart, Associate Dean for Education at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ( https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1792/elizabeth-a-stuart ) and Dr. Stuart Ray, infectious disease expert with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ( https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/results/directory/profile/0005222/stuart-ray ) . Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health.

WHY LOCKDOWNS?

Without a treatment or vaccine available, Stuart said, the world had to rely on “really core behavioral factors”, such as physical distancing, hands washing, wearing masks, that have been used as “effective ways” of preventing transmission of infectious diseases in the past. “They do help”, she said.

Ray pointed to evidence ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765665 and https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/10/1601/5879762 ) that has suggested that the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is mitigated by “progressively stringent measures”, such as stay-at-home orders.

A MORE TARGETED APPROACH

“In March we had all had to lockdown because so little was known”, Stuart said. But she added that as experts have learnt more about the disease and how it spreads, it has appeared there are ways to implement a more targeted approach to this measure.

“I wouldn’t even call them lockdowns, but more ‘targeted interventions’, that restrict the higher risk activities but allow lower risk activities to precede”, Stuart said.

Stuart referred to Michigan as an example. On Nov. 15, in response to a surge in COVID-19 cases, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced new restrictions for the state and asked people to be cautious, to avoid a stay-at-home order ( youtu.be/WQi001dquQo?t=751 ) . As reported https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2020/11/30/whitmer-says-she-has-authority-to-authorities-new-stay-home-order-in-michigan/ by CBS Detroit, the new order states that “high schools and colleges must halt-in person classes, restaurants must stop indoor dining” as well as limitation of gathering sizes and a temporary closure of entertainment businesses. See new emergency order bit.ly/39eb0oS .

Ray dismissed the need for a national stay-at-home order but rather referred to “staged or proportional” measures depending on the risk, in which “things are more restrictive when the prevalence of new infections is higher”. He highlighted the need for “really clear national messaging” and said that not all places needed the same measures at the same time. To limit the impact of this pandemic, he said, “we have to have everyone understand the status where they are and where transmissions are happening nearby”.

SURVIVAL RATE

Some posts that attempt to dismiss the role of stricter measures to reduce the spread of the new coronavirus argue that COVID-19 has a survival rate of over 99% ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4122265084455396&set=a.304775402871069&type=3&theater).

While the exact mortality rate of COVID-19 is still not known, a hypothetical rate of 1% would still result in a massive number of deaths if left to spread unchecked.

When asked about this claim, Stuart told Reuters that one out of a hundred was still a “high mortality”, adding that there was a “ripple effect of consequences” for a lot of people, not just the deceased individual. “If there are reasonable preventive strategies that we can take in order to reduce that even further we should do that”, she said.

While it appears that a high percentage of people recover from the disease, Ray noted that “there are also non- lethal complications of COVID-19 that are important, so it is challenging to relax control measures when the spread is high”. Further reading about the lingering known effects of COVID-19 is visible https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-information/covid-19-long-haulers.html , https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173 and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects-idUSKBN23X1BZ .

MENTAL HEALTH

Other posts also argue that these restrictions “don’t save lives”, citing an alleged increase in suicides https://www.instagram.com/p/CH3zY-Zg8t4/?utm_source=ig_embed.

Earlier this year, experts warned https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30171-1/fulltext that COVID-19 might increase suicide rates, citing adverse effects on people with mental illness and the population in general “might be exacerbated by fear, self-isolation, and physical distancing” and “well-recognised risk factors for suicide” like loss of employment and financial stressors.

Richard Dunn, associate Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Connecticut ( https://are.uconn.edu/person/richard-a-dunn-2/ ), who has studied the relation between mental health and the economy, told Reuters by email that arguments for why lockdowns may increase suicide risk present valid arguments, but that “they are selective” and that some of these arguments “ignore important countervailing effects”.

According to Dunn, such countervailing effects include technology that facilitates social contact ( https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/neuroscience-loneliness-technology-lockdown-coronavirus-covid-quarantine ), and a “locus of control” ( https://dictionary.apa.org/locus-of-control ) through which individuals can take proactive steps to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. “Suicide risk increases as individuals feel they lack control over their life and what control they do have is without worth,” said Dunn.

In addition, Dunn said, is the concept of “social connectedness”, which tends to increase in the face of a communal threat, such as a pandemic. “During wars and natural disasters, despite their great economic upheaval, suicide rates tend to drop because people rally to a common cause,” he said. To exemplify this, Dunn referred to the numerous scenes from around the world of people cheering health workers from their balconies ( https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1266205120037031937?s=20 , https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-applause/new-yorkers-sing-lean-on-me-to-honor-essential-workers-during-coronavirus-pandemic-idUSKCN226086 ).

VERDICT

Some posts on the issue of lockdowns are missing context, and some present information that is contradicted by international studies. While it is true that more restrictive measures that aim to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 can have an impact in income and mental health, multiple studies suggest that stay-at-home orders and other nonpharmaceutical interventions have a determining role in reducing the transmission of the virus. Experts highlight that a more “targeted” approach rather than a “nationwide” lockdown, can limit the impact of the pandemic while balancing other economic, mental health and social concerns.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lockdowns/fact-check-studies-show-covid-19-lockdowns-have-saved-lives-idUSKBN2842WS

Thankyou.
A good source of information without politics or outrage.
No response to Covid is perfect, but misinformation will get people killed.

JOW

Did you happen to notice the Reuters article doesn't link to a single scientific study about the lockdowns? Of course you didn't, because you probably didn't even read it. They refer to their own article back in June 2020, and even THAT article does not link to the studies they are reporting on, not even an abstract.

2
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Does anyone here have a spine?
« on: Today at 05:21:19 AM »
Does a single person here have the courage to step up and admit that the lives already lost and likely to be lost in the future as a result of lockdown policies MUST be factored into any scientific analysis? That it makes ZERO sense to talk about how many lives would be saved by lockdowns without factoring those in? I know you guys can't argue with the logic because it's rock solid, so the next step is to ADMIT that is a factor you have failed to consider.

3
"not at this stage" is not like dropping it altogether.  Prosecutors will be taking their time, gathering evidence, applying pressure, building the strongest case against each one and securing maximum penalties of years in jail is what you take away here. The judge not giving Chancey bail, tells you the attitude the court is taking. The judge said he intended to overthrow the govt and is a danger to the community, not having confessions on intending killing politicians yet for everyone involved doesn't make a lot of difference, he's going away for at least ten years

This brief article lists the reasons for thinking if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck, its probably a 🦆

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/lifestyle/melania-trump-thinks-she-real-163540548.html

As usual, you are dead wrong about the legal process. Prosecutors don't come forward with a theory of the crime and then walk it back and state there is no direct evidence the next day if they have anything. The main point, which you are ignoring on purpose, is that almost every MSM outlet (including Fox news) put this propaganda in their headline. Even if they later issue retractions or corrections, the people who saw the headline will think it's true. And then there are people like you who will believe it is true no matter what happens because you have lost all sense of objectivity are a simply a leftist BOT.
After my post last night, which I figured out just by looking at the headlines and reading the article, ZH reported the following:

US Official Refutes Arizona Prosecutors' Claims About Rioters Plans To "Capture & Assassinate" Politicians

Update (1730ET): Having already seen DHS refute the FBI's fearmongering over "online chatter", noting that there were in fact "no credible threats," the top Federal prosecutor has just been forced to refute what appears be lies about strong evidence about assassination squads in The Capitol by Arizona state prosecutors.

Having made every mainstream media's news-cycle today, and done a great job of ratcheting up the fear to '11':

Reuters reports that the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. said on Friday there is no “direct evidence” to suggest that rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol had formed “kill capture teams.”

'The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”'

Late on Thursday, federal prosecutors had made sweeping claims about the ongoing investigation in a filing

'“Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government,” the memo said.'

Except we now know... there was no evidence, let alone 'strong evidence'!

We look forward to Bloomberg, NBC, and CNN all retracting this story and putting the American public straight.

The excuse for this egregious lie being broadcast worldwide? Simple - miscommunication!

Sherwin said that his office is leading the prosecution effort, but as local offices help to run down suspects in their districts, there may have been a “disconnect” on the evidence obtained so far in the cases.

Between The FBI 'lies' and these local prosecutors' 'lies', one might just get the impression that fear is being ratcheted up for political gain and to enable Patriot Act II's crackdown on "domestic terrorism" to more easily slide between the cheeks of an anxious American public desperate to be saved from this terror - to hell with liberty, just do something!

4
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests/u-s-says-capitol-rioters-meant-to-capture-and-assassinate-officials-filing-idUSKBN29K0K7

And when Sean Hannity is the one propagandizing the headline, you know we have gone off the deep end...

DEPT OF JUSTICE: Capitol Rioters Intended to ‘Capture and Assassinate’ US Officials During Assault - https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1350301981605298176?s=20

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday ordered a far-right conspiracy theorist who left an ominous note for Vice President Mike Pence inside the U.S. Capitol to be detained pending trial, saying he participated in a “violent insurrection.”

In U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Arizona, Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine ruled that Jacob Chansley, who was famously photographed inside the U.S. Senate Chamber wearing horns during the Capitol riots, should not be released from custody.

Chansley, a Navy veteran and follower of QAnon, allegedly left a note for Pence warning: “It’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.” QAnon is a conspiracy theory that casts Trump as a savior figure and elite Democrats as a cabal of Satanist pedophiles and cannibals,

Fine on Friday called Chansley “an active participant in a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States government” and said she fears he is a danger to the community and a flight risk.

As she made her ruling, Chansley interjected and tried to speak, but the judge cut him off, saying he should avoid making statements.

Her ruling came shortly after prosecutors in Arizona walked back sweeping statements they made just a day earlier in their memo seeking detention, claiming the government had “strong evidence” that the “intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government.”

Earlier in the day, the top federal prosecutor overseeing the sweeping probe of the riots at the Capitol told reporters that at this stage, they had no “direct evidence” that rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol had formed “kill capture teams.”

5
Marathon Man Newz / Re: You Need To Listen To Jaron Lanier
« on: January 15, 2021, 09:03:18 PM »
I enjoy listening to Jaron....but if you’re short on time and want to cut the part I think has to be heard, go to about 12:50.

Jaron Lanier....he’s like Marshall McLuhan or maybe Aldous Huxley. I wish I could meet him. Who the fuck else can talk about Norbert Weiner and make it interesting?  Norbert Weiner invented cyberrnetics....Steve Jobs and I read about him in the Whole Earth Catalog....Steve got Norbert better than I did at the time.

Paraphrasing..

”So if two people want to connect on this wonderful thing we call the internet, it gets financed by this third party that is willing to pay, because he wants to collect as much data as possible  and modify the behavior of the first two, without them knowing about it or understanding what’s going on.”

“We’’ve created this society based on universal trickery and deception.”

He's right, of course. Big tech (or their AI) know more about us than we do about ourselves. They study data patterns which reveal our unconscious habits of thinking.

So, that being considered, why do we even think for a second they are not using this power to, let's say, heavily influence election results which are favorable to them around the world? To shape cultural narratives which promote division and drive outrage? (please don't try to use the last one as a reason why the first one is false... I don't want to waste time responding to such logical fallacies)

6
https://twitter.com/jackmurphylive/status/1350050053088546816

At the same time as 20,000 armed troops occupy DC, the Mayor requested there be ZERO first amendment permits this weekend.

- Armed troops.
- No free speech.
- No free movement.
- No 2A rights.

Sources at DC MPD tell me they are baffled by the armed troops in the city. Usually the National Guard is equipped with a gas mask, a flash light, and not much else. But right now they're in full kit and there's a massive vehicular presence as well.

Check points everywhere.

7
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 15, 2021, 07:22:09 PM »

There is also the problem that both sweden and South Korea are extremely socially cohesive countries with really good public health care systems and a population that tends to listen to its government's suggestions. I think that makes a difference. We have done ok with a combination approach here. It has not been perfect but it was done decisively. It's a war, mistakes get made and are easy to tear apart on the internet when you dont have to answer to anyone.

Sweden also has a much lower population density than UK, France, Germany and Italy making transmission easier to control. In addition Sweden has the largest percentage of single person household in Europe. They also have a propensity towards large personal spaces meaning their environment and culture are more conductive to limiting spread. Most countries cannot simply adopt the Swedish strategy and hope for the same outcome because most countries do not have these same properties. It should also be noted that compared to other Scandinavian countries Sweden has performed poorly when you look at the number of cases and deaths. The Swedish option sounds appealing because on surface it is the option that doesn't seem to require effort or sacrifice. In places like London with high population denisty and high use of public transport it would be a disaster even if we had better hospitals than Sweden which we don't. Could possibly work in Alaska but do people in Alaskans have the discipline of Swedes?

I like how everyone country that does relatively well without lockdowns is just "more disciplined" or "better listeners" or yadda yadda. Basically you guys are saying, no matter what scientific studies are done, no matter how much data is collected to do rigorous comparative studies, you will never believe that massive lockdowns were not necessary and do not continue to be necessary. It will never happen. WHY is that?

It's easy to say "mistakes get made" (nearingsfault) in "war" when you are not one of the wedding parties getting drone striked. That's the logic former presidents use while they are on book tours. We should have a higher standard for ourselves.

What I was trying to say was that the causes for rates of transmission is multi-factorial. One of the big factors for transmission is population density. Areas with less population density will consistenly have lower rates of transmission than built up areas. Because of this what works in Sweden may not work in New York city as densities are a lot different. This is even if we consider similar behaviour patterns. Also the study you sighted stated lockdowns MAY not have a significant effect. It was not certain about its conclusions. What has consistently been seen is when lockdowns are initiated the R-values and cases drop. This has always applied in England and I have seen this also happen in other European countries.

The other variable that I am not sure the study considered is the different variants of Covid-19 and the time of year. In the summer perhaps lockdowns are less effective as people spend more time outdoors whereas in the winter people stay indoors where ventilation is poorer resulting in greater transmission. In any case the rates have shot up in the UK since about December which could be attributed to the new variant. Cases showed a continual rise and only really got stable when an area either initiated tier-4 measures (local lockdowns) or there was a national lockdown. Was this a coincendence? I doubt it very much seeing as this has not only happened in several instances in England but also in other countries. Like I said before when you compare Sweden to its neighbours, which share more characteristics to Sweden, the country has performed relatively poorly in terms of case loads and death rates. Those other neighbours all followed strict lockdown measures.

Yes of course, and I appreciate you actually trying to think this through. But, again, I am not posting the study as evidence of the "certainty of its conclusions". That would be silly. Keep in mind this is just one study of many that have been done with different protocols, different populations and data sets, different times of year, etc. etc. and have showed findings which do not support widescale lockdowns as being effective. Science is a cumulative enterprise, and I am not sure of a single study in recent months which has suggested widescale lockdowns make a significant difference. Feel free to post one if you have it.

BTW, none of this is even factoring in the deaths caused by the lockdowns. Not a single person here has acknowledged that those should be considered in any scientific study of their efficacy in saving lives, except K-Dog claimed those deaths (or lives) don't even exist. You seem reasonable, monstaa, what do you think?

8
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 15, 2021, 06:41:18 PM »

There is also the problem that both sweden and South Korea are extremely socially cohesive countries with really good public health care systems and a population that tends to listen to its government's suggestions. I think that makes a difference. We have done ok with a combination approach here. It has not been perfect but it was done decisively. It's a war, mistakes get made and are easy to tear apart on the internet when you dont have to answer to anyone.

Sweden also has a much lower population density than UK, France, Germany and Italy making transmission easier to control. In addition Sweden has the largest percentage of single person household in Europe. They also have a propensity towards large personal spaces meaning their environment and culture are more conductive to limiting spread. Most countries cannot simply adopt the Swedish strategy and hope for the same outcome because most countries do not have these same properties. It should also be noted that compared to other Scandinavian countries Sweden has performed poorly when you look at the number of cases and deaths. The Swedish option sounds appealing because on surface it is the option that doesn't seem to require effort or sacrifice. In places like London with high population denisty and high use of public transport it would be a disaster even if we had better hospitals than Sweden which we don't. Could possibly work in Alaska but do people in Alaskans have the discipline of Swedes?

I like how everyone country that does relatively well without lockdowns is just "more disciplined" or "better listeners" or yadda yadda. Basically you guys are saying, no matter what scientific studies are done, no matter how much data is collected to do rigorous comparative studies, you will never believe that massive lockdowns were not necessary and do not continue to be necessary. It will never happen. WHY is that?

It's easy to say "mistakes get made" (nearingsfault) in "war" when you are not one of the wedding parties getting drone striked. That's the logic former presidents use while they are on book tours. We should have a higher standard for ourselves.

What I was trying to say was that the causes for rates of transmission is multi-factorial. One of the big factors for transmission is population density. Areas with less population density will consistenly have lower rates of transmission than built up areas. Because of this what works in Sweden may not work in New York city as densities are a lot different. This is even if we consider similar behaviour patterns. Also the study you sighted stated lockdowns MAY not have a significant effect. It was not certain about its conclusions. What has consistently been seen is when lockdowns are initiated the R-values and cases drop. This has always applied in England and I have seen this also happen in other European countries.

The other variable that I am not sure the study considered is the different variants of Covid-19 and the time of year. In the summer perhaps lockdowns are less effective as people spend more time outdoors whereas in the winter people stay indoors where ventilation is poorer resulting in greater transmission. In any case the rates have shot up in the UK since about December which could be attributed to the new variant. Cases showed a continual rise and only really got stable when an area either initiated tier-4 measures (local lockdowns) or there was a national lockdown. Was this a coincendence? I doubt it very much seeing as this has not only happened in several instances in England but also in other countries. Like I said before when you compare Sweden to its neighbours, which share more characteristics to Sweden, the country has performed relatively poorly in terms of case loads and death rates. Those other neighbours all followed strict lockdown measures.

Yes of course, and I appreciate you actually trying to think this through. But, again, I am not posting the study as evidence of the "certainty of its conclusions". That would be silly. Keep in mind this is just one study of many that have been done with different protocols, different populations and data sets, different times of year, etc. etc. and have showed findings which do not support widescale lockdowns as being effective. Science is a cumulative enterprise, and I am not sure of a single study in recent months which has suggested widescale lockdowns make a significant difference. Feel free to post one if you have it.

9
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 15, 2021, 06:32:42 PM »
Here is the text of the article the troll in resudence is quoting to tell us all how stupid we are for going along with lockdowns.
When you actually read it it is in no way definitive as they would have you believe. Just sensational headines relying on people to not actually investigate. Sloppy, irresponsible and outright imoral when it comes to health outcomes from this pandemic.

Who the fuck says it was "definitive"? Nothing is definitive in science. But only someone with shit for brains would think that dozens of studies tending in the direction of "lockdowns DON'T work", means absolutely nothing. Or that the Newsweek editorial staff covering their asses in an era where social media outlets are censoring articles at will when it questions their preferred narrative weighs against the findings of the study cited.  Note: here I include the ideologically possessed who wallow in other peoples' misery as "shit for brains".

10
Absolutely disgusting this is coming out now. But I guess now that it's coming from Newsweek, you guys will be forced face your own delusions (or... are they right wing conspiracy nuts too?).

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656
COVID Lockdowns Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows

A new study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study, which was conducted by a group of Stanford researchers and published in the Wiley Online Library on January 5, analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.

The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which implemented less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

The researchers used a mathematical model that subtracted "the sum of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) effects and epidemic dynamics in countries that did not enact more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPIs) from the sum of NPI effects and epidemic dynamics in countries that did.

Using that model, the researchers determined that there is "no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country."

"Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs [less restrictive NPIs] (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country," the study said.

"We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures," the research added."

What percentage of each group died?  What did they die of?  Why is this so important to you?

RE

Because the useless lockdowns are destroying people's lives in my community and around the world. Why is that NOT important to you?

11
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 15, 2021, 12:57:57 PM »
There is also the problem that both sweden and South Korea are extremely socially cohesive countries with really good public health care systems and a population that tends to listen to its government's suggestions. I think that makes a difference. We have done ok with a combination approach here. It has not been perfect but it was done decisively. It's a war, mistakes get made and are easy to tear apart on the internet when you dont have to answer to anyone.

Sweden also has a much lower population density than UK, France, Germany and Italy making transmission easier to control. In addition Sweden has the largest percentage of single person household in Europe. They also have a propensity towards large personal spaces meaning their environment and culture are more conductive to limiting spread. Most countries cannot simply adopt the Swedish strategy and hope for the same outcome because most countries do not have these same properties. It should also be noted that compared to other Scandinavian countries Sweden has performed poorly when you look at the number of cases and deaths. The Swedish option sounds appealing because on surface it is the option that doesn't seem to require effort or sacrifice. In places like London with high population denisty and high use of public transport it would be a disaster even if we had better hospitals than Sweden which we don't. Could possibly work in Alaska but do people in Alaskans have the discipline of Swedes?

I like how everyone country that does relatively well without lockdowns is just "more disciplined" or "better listeners" or yadda yadda. Basically you guys are saying, no matter what scientific studies are done, no matter how much data is collected to do rigorous comparative studies, you will never believe that massive lockdowns were not necessary and do not continue to be necessary. It will never happen. WHY is that?

It's easy to say "mistakes get made" (nearingsfault) in "war" when you are not one of the wedding parties getting drone striked. That's the logic former presidents use while they are on book tours. We should have a higher standard for ourselves.

12
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 15, 2021, 08:10:47 AM »
These antifa guys are GENIUSES. Able to provoke thousands of guys in MAGA hats into committing seditious acts....posing as protesters....breaking a few windows and shouting a few slogans.....and BAM...those dumb rednecks just took the bait.

Antifa is so incredibly clever. The alt right has no chance against such masters of manipulation.

Talk about changing the goal posts so you never have to face your own errors in judgment. First, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest anyone there was on the left. Conspiracy theory! Then, if anyone on the left was there, they were just caught up in the moment and weren't trying to rile anyone up. Now, well yeah, guys who started a radical leftist organization called "Insurgence USA" last year after Floyd's death attended the riots and were telling people to burn everything down, but still... um...Trump!!

Here's a question you can't answer - should we charge, indict and prosecute Democrat politicians and media personalities who explicitly championed BLM/Antifa riots over the summer, which led to more destruction and deaths? I'll wait patiently while you catch your breath from hyperventilating after that one.

I don't remember anyone saying all that.

Trump supporters insist it was not them but BLM who stormed the capital, so you take one single guy who is not antifa or BLM, is his own organisation and call him 'guys' plural, so hes the leader of everyone else there.

 On TBP and FB they're insisting Chancey / Angeli the shirtless cow hat guy is a far left infiltrator, he was seen at a BLM rally after all. They leave out that he was there as a counterprotestor holding a q sign, that he is a pro trump fixture in his state and given several interviews to that effect, has border wall tattooed on both arms and a white supremacist symbol on his chest. 

This Sullivan guy is also accused of conspiracy to murder the woman who got herself killed, blecause he was nearby. Somehow she is always exempt from being the antifa who really did it all. Can we have a full rundown of everyone else arrested and charged as well to date and their politics?

Let me bottom line this for you - the radical leftists are self-destructive morons. They have no meaning in life... no jobs, no family, no responsibility. So they avoid committing suicide by becoming increasingly radical and doing increasingly stupid shit, which is just another way of committing suicide. They fail to realize the battles they have "won" to get Democrats, big tech and police state kicked into gear to eradicate conservative perspectives will also be used against them after the conservatives are eradicated. All the rest of your navel gazing is bullshit designed to avoid the simple fact that your ideology has failed, as usual, and will take a shit load of people down with it, as usual. Job well done  :emthup: :evil4:

13
Absolutely disgusting this is coming out now. But I guess now that it's coming from Newsweek, you guys will be forced face your own delusions (or... are they right wing conspiracy nuts too?).

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656
COVID Lockdowns Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows

A new study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study, which was conducted by a group of Stanford researchers and published in the Wiley Online Library on January 5, analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.

The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which implemented less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

The researchers used a mathematical model that subtracted "the sum of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) effects and epidemic dynamics in countries that did not enact more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPIs) from the sum of NPI effects and epidemic dynamics in countries that did.

Using that model, the researchers determined that there is "no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country."

"Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs [less restrictive NPIs] (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country," the study said.

"We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures," the research added."

14
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 14, 2021, 07:25:39 PM »
Ashvin.  I was not quite finished before you opened your trap so your critique is off base and does not match my post.  You should wait a bit.  I almost always revise with extra detail or more clarity. 

I don't know what article you are talking about.  What I know comes from watching several video interviews.

I don't expect you to agree but a steady diet of mayhem increases the power of our police state.  Loss of liberties become more justified when there is violence.  Be mayhem deliberately generated or exploited as random events happen.  Regardless there are people employed by the police state to exploit mayhem when it happens.  Useful idiots are not wasted; and it is always best if perps work for free.

I agree the powers of the police state are increasing, but it's only in response to "conservative" mayhem even though there has been a shit ton of leftist mayhem in the last 6-7 months. Why is that?

And I'm on hot fire with my predictions lately.... if you can imagine it (in a nightmare), they shall make it happen (remember, this is the same Swalwell dickhead who was sleeping with a Chinese spy):

Eric Swalwell Directly Compares Donald Trump to Osama Bin Laden

"Rep. Eric Swalwell viciously attacked the President of the United States during an interview that aired Wednesday; directly comparing Donald Trump with Osama bin Laden.

“Usama bin Laden did not enter US soil on Sept. 11, but it was widely acknowledged that he was responsible for inspiring the attack on our country,” Swalwell told PBS NewsHour. “And the president, with his words — using the word ‘fight,’ with the speakers that he assembled that day, who called for trial by combat and said we have to take names and kick a–, that is hate speech that inspired and radicalized people to storm the Capitol.”

Swalwell was chosen by Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week to act as an Impeachment Manager when Mr. Trump’s trial commences in the United States Senate."

15
Knarfs Knewz / Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« on: January 14, 2021, 06:32:36 PM »
Sullivan

https://twitter.com/i/status/1349577153789243392

Max Blumenthal a reporter has been following this guy for a while.  He is fake Antifa.

Sullivan is a a dangerous provocateur.  This thread details some of his history.

Wow, and you guys call the right delusional... I read the whole article, not a single coherent argument for why he is "fake Antifa". I'm not surprised though, you have no other option at this point but to resort to the most contrived nonsensical theories to preserve the "BLM/Antifa are fighting for justice and Trump is evil" narrative. It's crumbling at your feet, buddy... just let it go.

Even if he isn't BLM/Antifa, who gives a shit? He is NOT a Trump supporter, since he took part in an event which shut down Congress objections to electoral votes, gave big tech monopolies the justification (at least in the eyes of the delusional left) to completely shut down free speech, and gave Pelosi to launch another bullshit witch trial against Trump.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178