COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

deirdre

Senior Member.
If the infection risk for blood donors in England is similar to the infection risk in the overall UK population, then about a quarter of the UK population has been exposed to Covid in the past.

obviously. but after the recent great "this data/infographic doesnt indicate anything because this and that and the other thing" debate, not sure why you are using "if"s now.

Not-so-obviously, this number is probably outdated now
yea i was gonna mention that too, but decided to be nice.

I did not know that vaccine uptake among the immunosuppressed is 95% in England, common appeals are "we must protect the immunosuppressed";
a large enough percent of immunocompromised people (just like elderly people) do not mount adequate immune responses to the vaccine. That is why the FDA/CDC originally said those populations need a booster.

and part of the reason why i said masks are more important.

the other part is this:
1642787281881.png

Article:
The study from researchers at the U.K. Health Security Agency reported on Friday that the protection against severe disease is more than likely only short-term. However, they added that the shot still offers protection from severe illness.

The research suggested that two weeks after the third dose of the Pfizer vaccine, protection from symptomatic infection is around 70%. From there, the numbers fall drastically.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Germany has a vaccine mandate for health care workers effective in March (with medical exceptions etc.). A newspaper has a front-page story about "unvaccinated health care workers fear for their jobs", and in the classifieds 126 ads by unvaccinated people looking for a job change.
Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/verrauscht/status/1484831560494981124

A journalist noticed phone numbers like 0160-1234567890 and tries to call these people. It turns out none of the ads seem to be real: he can't actually speak to any of these people urgently looking for a job. It looks like they're all fake.

Bonus: the owner/CEO of that newspaper has a state parliament seat for the AfD party: AfD is the German anti-mask anti-vax "mainstream media are fake news" party.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agent K

Senior Member
Eric Topol's post on omicron and boosters.

Article:
Where do we stand with Omicron?



Now is not the time to rely on sharp descents and that somehow “it’s over". If that happens, and we quickly get to containment and low levels of circulating virus that are no more threatening than annual flu, terrific. It seems quite unlikely with so much of the world’s population, especially in low and middle income countries, have yet to be vaccinated. If there's one thing we learned about predicting the path of SARS-CoV-2, it’s that it’s unpredictable. So we shouldn’t plan on a rosy picture. There’s too much we can do right now to seize control in case the most optimistic scenarios don’t play out.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Eric Topol's post on omicron and boosters.
Nothing in it is really surprising, but it's nice to see it supported by multiple sources (even though the numbers are not very precise yet), and written up well (i.e. for the interested layperson). For talking to vaccine-hesitant people, this paragraph may be helpful:

That level—about 50% effectiveness for the booster (vs Omicron)—would be associated with 10-fold more breakthrough infections than seen with a 95% effectiveness (Delta) So it’s no wonder there is the public perception that Omicron breakthroughs are omnipresent, that “vaccines aren’t working”. They aren’t working well, but it isn’t true that they’re not working to protect vs infections and transmission. It’s just much less. For context, remember that the FDA criteria for approving a Covid vaccine was set at a 50% reduction of symptomatic infections, so there’s unquestionably some efficacy here, just not nearly what we’ve been accustomed to seeing.

As I was quoted in the Washington Post coverage
, ““A booster is essential for preventing severe disease, hospitalization and deaths,” said Eric Topol, a molecular medicine professor at Scripps Research, referring to the findings. Public health officials need to communicate clearly that although the vaccines and booster shots are “not holding up against omicron infections, they are holding up the wall against severe disease … and that’s phenomenal.”

Content from External Source
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I haven't looked at my country comparisons this week because I was really waiting for sustained turnarounds that we don't quite yet see (except SA); everyone has more cases than ever before and still less deaths than January 2021 (except Australia), but daily death tolls are still rising because they're delayed. Some countries still have rising cases, e.g. Germany spent the last month successfully delaying Omicron while pushing booster coverage past 50%, with ~20% still unvaccinated by choice. So far it seems to be paying off.
European countries with death rates worse than the US tend to be shaky democracies like Poland and Hungary, where trust in the government has eroded. This costs lives.
coronavirus-data-explorer-3.png
coronavirus-data-explorer-2.png
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/explorer...EU~FRA~European+Union~AUS~JPN~Africa~ZAF~Asia
 

econ41

Senior Member
I haven't looked at my country comparisons this week because I was really waiting for sustained turnarounds that we don't quite yet see (except SA); everyone has more cases than ever before and still less deaths than January 2021 (except Australia), but daily death tolls are still rising because they're delayed.
I haven't been studying the Australian figures in detail. The broad "big picture" or strategic trends are what interest me.

But my State's (New South Wales) figures seem to have peaked for infection numbers. Still climbing for deaths. And the randomness/volatility of the numbers precludes making any accurate prognoses. I think the infection peak many have passed - give it another week. I hope the peak of the deaths is with us now and passing.. again give it another week.

You can see both those trends reflected Australia wide in the Graphs posted by @Mendel - infections starting to fall and deaths still climbing.

The daily report for my State:
COVIDNSW2022-01-23_16-45-08.png
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
For context, remember that the FDA criteria for approving a Covid vaccine was set at a 50% reduction of symptomatic infections
the criteria is 50% reduction in symptomatic infections (ignoring asymptomatic infections?) for how long? 3 months is ok to meet the criteria? or 10 weeks which is what ive heard about boosters?

and frankly, (i am vaccinated) but now i'm wondering if the CDC is just saying it is ~50% because if they say 45% or 40% the vaccines no longer meet the criteria? that little squiggle line means "about" doesn't it?

For talking to vaccine-hesitant people, this paragraph may be helpful:


If people weren't willing to get vaccinated when (i'm assuming from topol's wording) 2 doses prevented 95% infections against deadly Delta, why would they take them now if 3 doses are only ~50% prevented infections against less deadly omicron?

Maybe the media, in AMerica, needs to stop flooding our news feeds with stories of unvaccinated people who have died (as that tactic is obviously not working) and start posting more stories of people who have gone bankrupt from covid associated costs.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
European countries with death rates worse than the US tend to be shaky democracies like Poland and Hungary, where trust in the government has eroded.
and health status is not great.
Article:
Hungary Is The Sixth Most Unhealthy Country In The World, Research Finds


Article:
As can be seen in Figure 4, most Polish people report being in good health (58% in 2015), although this proportion is lower than the EU average (67%). A substantial gap exists in self-rated health by socioeconomic status: 71% of people in the highest income quintile reported to be in good health in 2015 compared with just 53% of people in the lowest income quintile.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the criteria is 50% reduction in symptomatic infections (vs asymptomatic infections?)
vs the control group = unvaccinated people

The choice of criterium (infection, symptomatic infection, severd disease) is up to the manufacturer.
Article:
Either laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2
infection is an acceptable primary endpoint for a COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trial. [...]

As it is possible that a COVID-19 vaccine might be much more effective in
preventing severe versus mild COVID-19, sponsors should consider powering
efficacy trials for formal hypothesis testing on a severe COVID-19 endpoint.
Regardless, severe COVID-19 should be evaluated as a secondary endpoint (with
or without formal hypothesis testing) if not evaluated as a primary endpoint. [...]

To ensure that a widely deployed COVID-19 vaccine is effective, the primary
efficacy endpoint point estimate for a placebo-controlled efficacy trial should be at
least 50%, and the statistical success criterion should be that the lower bound of
the appropriately alpha-adjusted confidence interval around the primary efficacy
endpoint point estimate is >30%.

Basically, it's more difficult to have "severe disease" as main effectiveness criterium ("primary endpoint") because you need a bigger trial (better "powered").
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
i meant that as: they are ignoring asymptomatic infections.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you asking whether the FDA would approve a vaccine that was only good at reducing asymptomatic infections, i.e. that would only protect people who aren't actually sick?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Are you asking whether the FDA would approve a vaccine that was only good at reducing asymptomatic infections, i.e. that would only protect people who aren't actually sick?

reducing infections. infections are infections, irregardless of if the infection is symptomatic or not.

if the goal was to stop the virus, as was stated before omicron, ie. stop the spread... then the criteria should have been 50% efficacy for infection irregardless of whether the infection is symptomatic or not. because we all know asymptomatic spread is possible, hence all the mask mandates.

i guess my new questions are:
1. i realize omicron is a "new" thing. do the current vaccines meet the criteria for vaccination against omicron?
2. and is topol's statement in post #1164 correct? when he says "For context, remember that the FDA criteria for approving a Covid vaccine was set at a 50% reduction of symptomatic infections, "
3. and if Topol is correct, were we lied to (in early 2021) that (paraphrase) "we need to get vaccinated to stop/eradicate covid".



*and yes i realize moderna and pfizer are working on omicron specific vaccines that should be out fairly soon. (a few months hopefully)

add:
Article:
FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data

The effectiveness data to support the EUA in children down to 5 years of age is based on an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled study that has enrolled approximately 4,700 children 5 through 11 years of age. The study is being conducted in the U.S., Finland, Poland and Spain. Children in the vaccine group received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine containing 10 micrograms of messenger RNA per dose. The FDA analyzed data that compared the immune response of 264 participants from this study to 253 participants 16 through 25 years of age who had two higher doses of the vaccine in a previous study which determined the vaccine to be effective in preventing COVID-19. The immune responses of the younger age participants were comparable to the older participants.

The FDA also conducted a preliminary analysis of cases of COVID-19 occurring seven days after the second dose. In this analysis, among participants without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, 3 cases of COVID-19 occurred among 1,305 vaccine recipients and 16 cases of COVID-19 occurred among 663 placebo recipients; the vaccine was 90.7% effective in preventing COVID-19.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
3. and if Topol is correct, were we lied to (in early 2021) that (paraphrase) "we need to get vaccinated to stop/eradicate covid".

Don't confuse necessity with sufficiency. The likelyhood that we would be able to stop/eradicate covid without vaccines is small enough that I would support a claim of "we need to". That doesn't mean that it *will* eradicate covid, it's not such a claim.
 

Ann K

Active Member
My philosophy from the start (pre-vaccine) was not "we need to prevent covid" but rather "I need to avoid it until it slows down, so there's a hospital bed available for me if necessary". Flash forward many, many months, and in spite of the vaccines the hospitals are still short of accommodation and even shorter on staff, in large part because of the laissez-faire attitudes of governments concerning vaccinations and masks. I honestly don't know the best methods for dealing with adult-children who insist "We're not going to do what you say BECAUSE we don't like being told what to do." But we are saddled with them, and it's killing us.

Rant over.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Don't confuse necessity with sufficiency. The likelyhood that we would be able to stop/eradicate covid without vaccines is small enough that I would support a claim of "we need to". That doesn't mean that it *will* eradicate covid, it's not such a claim.
If you can get the reproduction rate of an infectious disease below 1 for long enough (globally) and exterminate its non-human reservoirs, you can eradicate that disease. A high enough global vaccination rate would have achieved this before Omicron. In January 2021, this still looked like a viable option.

With Omicron, we might need a different vaccine.


aspects of this are like:
KING: invaders are coming, if we all work together, we can beat them!
AV: we don't believe you, we'll just watch
INVADERS: win
AV: told you so
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
I suspect this may contain MB-suitable fodder: https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/1/rsvp-deadline-media-advisory
WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) will hold a panel discussion, COVID 19: A Second Opinion. A group of world renowned doctors and medical experts will provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. Please RSVP to press@ronjohnson.senate.gov by Friday, January 21 at 10:00AM ET with your name, outlet, email and phone number.

WHO:

Moderator



Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)



Medical experts and doctors

Four Pillars of Pandemic Response

Dr. Peter McCullough

Pillar 1: Limit the spread

Dr. Bret Weinstein
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Pillar 2: Early at Home Treatment

Dr. Ryan Cole
Dr. Harvey Risch
Dr. George Fareed
Dr. Pierre Kory
Dr. Richard Urso

Pillar 3: Hospital Treatment

Dr. Paul Marik
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty

Pillar 4: Vaccines

Dr. Robert Malone
Dr. David Wiseman

WHAT: Panel discussion on the global pandemic response, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. The panel will also discuss censorship from Big Tech and the mainstream media, pandemic response effect on children, and vaccine mandate impact on worker shortage.



WHEN: Monday, Jan. 24

9 a.m. – 12 p.m. ET
Content from External Source
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) will hold a panel discussion, COVID 19: A Second Opinion. A group of world renowned doctors and medical experts will provide a different perspective
The list reads like a who's who of disinfo peddlers, and that includes the Senator.
It looks like it's streaming on OAN now. I expect they didn't get any of the "invited" mainstream scientists?

This'll help the virus tremendously.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I grew-up with this specific girl in Middle school. I knew her well. Our families were friends and neighbors.
She gained the title "doctor" (PHD, Sexologist). She is now an antivaxxer, (unvaccinated) and her MD health practitioner husband just died from covid .
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/pos...-family-practitioner-unvaxxed-dead-from-covid

(from the blog above.....)
As regular readers know, I normally don't post people who are simply unvaxxed and not actual anti-vaxxers (crusaders against the COVID vaccine). However, I do not give medical professionals a break
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
U of Michigan is now showing boosters as well. Note that older population segments have better booster coverage, but also higher risk of severe disease, so this graph does not indicate booster efficiency.
Article:
covidhospitalizationsinfographic_jan17REV_011722.jpg
Article:
covidhospitalizationsinfographic_jan24_012422.jpg

The U of Michigan trend with the ICU numbers declining continues. It kinda looks like unvaccinated patients stay in the ICU longer, but it's hard to tell if that's really true.

Worldwide trends:
coronavirus-data-explorer-4.png
Some countries (AUS, US, UK) have turned their daily case numbers around, or levelled off, while death counts have not gone down yet.
coronavirus-data-explorer-5.png
 

Ann K

Active Member
I do not know if the hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who bought fake vaccine cards, so perhaps a grain of salt is needed with the stats.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I do not know if the hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who bought fake vaccine cards, so perhaps a grain of salt is needed with the stats.
what country are you from?

I can't even imagine a hospital in my state saying "well, we need to see your card". usually a hospital aide will come by with a form and ask you a bunch of questions "are you allergic to any medications?" "have you ever been diagnosed with x?" "have you been vaccinated?" "are you currently on any medications?"

While i guess it is possible, i have a hard time imagining any hospital not believing your answers and asking for documentation.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
While i guess it is possible, i have a hard time imagining any hospital not believing your answers and asking for documentation.
Seems to be true. My younger son, while visiting over the Xmas break, managed to cut his hand (we were making sausage) and needed a few stiches. The local Immediate Care didn't even ask. Might have been different if he was being admitted to a hospital.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I do not know if the hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who bought fake vaccine cards, so perhaps a grain of salt is needed with the stats.
Lying to your doctor is always a very bad idea.
That's why the patient-doctor relationship is confidential, and legally protected. Notice the Michigan graphic won't allow you to find out who is vaccinated, and who isn't,
 

Ann K

Active Member
Lying to your doctor is always a very bad idea.
That's why the patient-doctor relationship is confidential, and legally protected. Notice the Michigan graphic won't allow you to find out who is vaccinated, and who isn't,
But can it be a breach of confidentiality if nobody is personally identified? They're just little cartoon figures on a chart. Vaccination status is important statistically, and expressed in many other reports.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But can it be a breach of confidentiality if nobody is personally identified? They're just little cartoon figures on a chart. Vaccination status is important statistically, and expressed in many other reports.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It also looks like they only publish this weekly.

Btw, in my post about the UK report, I clipped a blood test graph that shows you can tell who's been vaccinated (or infected back in 2020).
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Lying to your doctor is always a very bad idea.
That's why the patient-doctor relationship is confidential, and legally protected. Notice the Michigan graphic won't allow you to find out who is vaccinated, and who isn't,
if i was at the sickness stage of covid that i needed to go to the hospital, i might lie and say i was fully vaccinated. From the articles in my newsfeed i get the impression that some nurses might not take the best care of you if you admit to not being vaccinated. They've even had articles about doctors expressing very negative sentiments about unvaccinated people.

Lying to your hospital doctor about drugs you are taking is a very bad idea. but does it really matter at that point, if you've been vaccinated or not?

That said, the UMichigan chart likely double checked against state records. I hope that if scientists/doctors are doing an actual "study" they would not take the word of their patients.
 

Itsme

Active Member
I do not know if the hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who bought fake vaccine cards, so perhaps a grain of salt is needed with the stats.
I think in most countries your vaccination status is taken from your medical record.
Whether your vaccination status is automatically registered there or only after your permission may vary from country to country. That is one of the reasons why in some statistics you see a group with vaccination status 'unknown'. This group is never very large, though, as far as I can remember. And it probably is statistically ignored when comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
That is one of the reasons why in some statistics you see a group with vaccination status 'unknown'.
That depends on the statistic, it's usually explained in the source document.
One reason for "unknown" I recall seeing is simply that a patient with a record in the hospitalisation database could not be matched to a record in the national health database. There's no information on why there was no match.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
From the articles in my newsfeed i get the impression that some nurses might not take the best care of you if you admit to not being vaccinated.
If I lie about my vaccination status, they can't take the best care of me.
And if they figure out I lied to them, they'll feel even more disrespected.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If I lie about my vaccination status, they can't take the best care of me.
why? either i need an oxygen mask or i don't, no?

we are talking about once you go into the hospital because your covid symptoms are sever enough to warrant that, we aren't talking about a non-emergency visit to my general practitioner.
 

Ann K

Active Member
From the articles in my newsfeed i get the impression that some nurses might not take the best care of you if you admit to not being vaccinated. even had articles about doctors expressing very negative sentiments about unvaccinated people.
Hospital facilities and personnel are stretched to the limit, and have been for many, many months, so I'd cut them some slack if they express "negative sentiments" about the people who demand (and usually get) the best possible care even if they haven't taken the simplest precaution of a free vaccine. Some hospitals have even discussed the possible necessity of going to the battlefield practice of triage, expending their resources first and foremost on those with the best chance of survival ...which are generally not the unvaxxed.

There have been a couple of cases publicized of hospitals turning down unvaccinated patients for organ transplants, but it is not unusual of them to expend the precious resource of a healthy organ only on those who are deemed most likely to survive. Persons who use illegal drugs or who prove themselves unable to stick to a diet or to give up alcohol are not good candidates for transplants, and have often been refused even in pre-pandemic times.

There are also people reported who died of heart attacks or suffered for lack of a hospital bed for fairly ordinary surgery, people who had to be turned away because the hospitals were overcrowded with Covid cases. They and their survivors are not too fond of unvaccinated people either.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
If I lie about my vaccination status, they can't take the best care of me.

Pedantically, no. It's entirely possible that you may fluke yourself into the best care because of a coincidence of errors in your output, and their processing of their inputs.

This isn't a good strategy. This is not medical advice. I am not your medical advisor.

If you hadn't used the emphasis tags, I would not have felt the need to make this post.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Gotta say gang the gubberment & my workplace are trying to get me & many to get the booster shots. Im not so keen not so much concerns regards but more so i had enuff as too are many the feeling is we complied done the right thing but look no more.
You can feel the tide turned and the elected are starting to gather that with polling now appearing to drive decisions not so much public health. Will see how this unfolds next 4 plus weeks my guess they,ll make boosters hard to avoid but not mandate it.

meanwhile
My state case numbers are falling off & the hospital admission's as well tho tail end deaths are ticking up as expected



COVID-19 hospitalisations drop as Victoria records 12,755 new cases and 39 deaths​

https://www.9news.com.au/national/c...andrews-push-for-triple-vaccination/091b52ec-
8030-48ae-96f1-80c5d9d2d3a9
Victoria has recorded another 12,755 COVID-19 infections and 39 deaths overnight, while the number of people hospitalised with the virus has fallen back below 1000.
Hospitalisations have dropped overnight to 988, down from 1057 yesterday.
Of the patients, 114 are in intensive care and 40 are on a ventilator
Content from External Source
.

my state boss man says
Premier Daniel Andrews said yesterday he was awaiting clarification from National Cabinet over the proposal to include booster shots in the national vaccination program.
"This is a three-dose thing," Mr Andrews said.
"It's not some bonus, it is not optional. We all need to get three doses."
So far, 35 per cent of Victorians are triple-dosed, but 2.3 million are eligible.

vs the federal bloke positioning is more 2 shot will do 3 let wait n see then

On announcing the booster shot rollout last year, Health Minister Greg Hunt said the boosters would remain optional, and that two doses would be all anybody needed to be considered fully vaccinated.
Mr Hunt today said no decision had been made about changing the definition of fully vaccinated in Australia from two doses to three.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
i had enuff as too are many the feeling is we complied done the right thing but look no more.
this would be a reasonable stance if reality wasn't in the way

On announcing the booster shot rollout last year, Health Minister Greg Hunt said the boosters would remain optional, and that two doses would be all anybody needed to be considered fully vaccinated.
since that time, the virus mutated, and the old vaccination loses much of its effect against Omicron more quickly than it does against older strains

some immunologists say they should've expected a 3-shot schedule as with some other vaccines; not anticipating that is the drawback of "figuring it out as we go". and arguably it's better to plan for 2 shots and add a third one if needed, than to plan for three shots and possibly have to say "welp, the third one didn't do anything".

new information means new decisions
it'd be irresponsible if it didn't
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Vaccination resources for teenagers
https://www.vaxteen.org/
SmartSelect_20220203-191419_Samsung Internet.jpg
SmartSelect_20220203-191358_Samsung Internet.jpg
Article:

Myth #5: Vaccines aren't worth the risk.​


Despite parent concerns, children have been successfully vaccinated for decades. In fact, there has never been a single credible study linking vaccines to long term health conditions.

As for immediate danger from vaccines, in the form of allergic reactions or severe side effects, the incidence of death are so rare they can't even truly be calculated.

For example, only one death was reported to the CDC between 1990 and 1992 that was attributable to a vaccine. The overall incidence rate of severe allergic reaction to vaccines is usually placed around one case for every one or two million injections.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
This new study is getting used as head line fodder for the denial mob, I found the link to the document its complex and need peer review


https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

FKjL2M0VgAAatb5.jpeg


its generating head lines

https://www.wcjb.com/2022/02/03/eco...-deaths-only-02-according-john-hopkins-study/

Economists find lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths only 0.2% according to John Hopkins study​


By WCJB Staff
Published: Feb. 3, 2022 at 2:35 PM GMT+11|Updated: 15 hours ago


BALTIMORE, Md. (WCJB) - A meta-analysis aimed at determining if lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths called the policies “ill-founded.”
Three economic professors co-authored the study, ‘A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality’ which reviewed 24 relevant studies on the effectiveness of lockdowns. The researchers screened out 18,590 studies that did not meet their criteria.
They found that lockdowns in Europe and the United States reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. Shelter in place orders reduced mortality by 2.9% on average.
The meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns are not effective at protecting public health and “they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
They found that lockdowns in Europe and the United States reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. Shelter in place orders reduced mortality by 2.9% on average.

sounds like it depends on what you mean by "lockdowns". apparently it does not mean closing non-essential businesses.

Washington Times is a pretty conservative source:
Article:
Despite the overall findings, they did note some evidence that closing bars helped to reduce deaths.

“Closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars,” they said.


it sounds like "lock downs" refers to people not being able to meet at parks, or walk their dogs etc.
In America we weren't actually "locked down".. we could go grocery shopping as often as we wanted, we could go to CVS or Walgreens as often as we wanted. Buses and subways and doctors offices were all still going.
All we actually locked down was movie theaters, and baseball games, parks, etc.

more from article:
Article:
They examined deaths early during the pandemic and determined that, by end of the lockdown period studied, on May 20, 2020, a total of 97,081 people had died of COVID-19 in the U.S.

A prominent study at the time had estimated there would be 99,050 deaths without lockdowns.


but we have to remember
1. who came up with 99,000 probable deaths?
2. we got whomped in nursing homes BAD... which are the age groups most likely to die. and nursing homes were not ever "locked down"... nursing home workers came and went as they pleased, after going to other nursing homes, after going to the grocery store, after mingling with other immediate family members who likely were also "essential workers" out in public.
(not to mention Cuomo sending covid positive patients BACK INTO nursing homes to infect everyone else.)

3. i remember they were arresting young people from congregating outside in Washington Square Park or Central Park, so...take a wild guess where those younguns would be forced to gather. yup, inside apartments.
4. In NYCity the bulk of infections were indeed not spread in child care centers but in family homes. basically 1 essential worker would catch it and be stuck inside with their families who, in turn, would also get it.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Economists find lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths only 0.2% according to John Hopkins study
"Economists"? those were the best experts they could find on epidemiology?

lockdowns are supposed to reduce transmission. via "flatten the curve" they are also supposed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. Death prevention isnt their main purpose.

most people who actually die are old. so to protect the elderly, you mostly regulate care home visits, and that's been happening pretty much independently of other lockdowns. vaccinations of staff and residents, and testing, also help.

so, "lockdowns dont reduce death" is similar to "water doesnt reduce hunger"--it looks like it means something, but doesnt
 
Top