Lockdowns don't work.

doublejj

Well-Known Member
A UCSF doctor did some math to estimate the number of lives the San Francisco Bay Area may have saved by jurisdictions acting quickly and residents following strict shelter-in-place orders.
Dr. George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and the head of the division of infectious disease and global epidemiology, believes some 34,000 to 44,000 lives have been saved partially through the region's early action, such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed issuing a state of emergency on February 28.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
A UCSF doctor did some math to estimate the number of lives the San Francisco Bay Area may have saved by jurisdictions acting quickly and residents following strict shelter-in-place orders.
Dr. George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and the head of the division of infectious disease and global epidemiology, believes some 34,000 to 44,000 lives have been saved partially through the region's early action, such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed issuing a state of emergency on February 28.
And you believe that? Can’t be true! To many hours spent by OP to expose the truth and present it in a concise way. Soooo you are incorrect in your assumption any lives were saved. Go out, have fun, get a burger and go sunbathing at the beach, it’s all good............ cough.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
And you believe that? Can’t be true! To many hours spent by OP to expose the truth and present it in a concise way. Soooo you are incorrect in your assumption any lives were saved. Go out, have fun, get a burger and go sunbathing at the beach, it’s all good............ cough.
I know...just another quack Dr. Amirite? ;)
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Publicly horse whipping a man ain't allowed, I hear it's against the constitution, something about cruel and unusual...
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Miami Has Recorded No Homicides in 6 Weeks Despite Deliberate Decline in Police Enforcement

Fears of COVID-19 infection may have emptied the streets of Miami, but criminals are not taking advantage of the situation. Miami Police Chief Jorge Colina says that not only has violent crime plunged in the city, but Miami has not reported a homicide in six weeks. That hasn't happened since 1964.
 

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Miami Has Recorded No Homicides in 6 Weeks Despite Deliberate Decline in Police Enforcement

Fears of COVID-19 infection may have emptied the streets of Miami, but criminals are not taking advantage of the situation. Miami Police Chief Jorge Colina says that not only has violent crime plunged in the city, but Miami has not reported a homicide in six weeks. That hasn't happened since 1964.
No problem when women know where their man is at. :hump:
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
You use the same tactics that climate science deniers use and you learned their tricks well.

There are other tactics that I've seen you borrow from the enemy but I'm not interested in writing an even longer reply that won't be read. A couple of tactics that are common between them and your medical science denying rants are:

Treating dynamic data as if it were static. For example:

It's snowing outside, so much for global warming
2000 people died of coronavirus yesterday. Lockdowns don't work.
I never used this tactic though.
Another tactic is to pose an alternative theory and then look for data to back it up.

"Satellite data shows the earth is cooling"
"Sweden isn't locked down and they aren't experiencing an epidemic"
I never made an argument like this either.

You're completely full of shit and just making up shit I never said. I never made any argument like either of those.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
bet you feel like a right fucking idiot now..
No. I actually did see this:
We refrain from estimating current infection numbers based on these updated detection rates because the findings show that the assumption of constant detection rates is not valid.
Which was why I made it clear that I was not stating anything as if it were fact. It was very obvious that I was applying verified stats to a model. However, for the US it may still be accurate due to the very fact that the detection rates in the US may not have appreciably changed. It was always tentative. You're the one who misread, misunderstood and then distorted what you thought you read.

You're so desperate for a win after you went from "they work" to "they help" that you're grasping at anything you can. I was well aware it was an estimate.
to try to extrapolate future deaths from it
Again, I did nothing of the sort. I took the number representing US detection rates and applied it to confirmed cases to estimate the infection rate.

I don't get why you're so dishonest and then turn around and cry as if I can't have an honest debate. Literally nothing you said was honest.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I never used this tactic though.

I never made an argument like this either.

You're completely full of shit and just making up shit I never said. I never made any argument like either of those.
I practically quoted you word for word. Did quote you exactly on the second point. All the way down to trying to make me prove you wrong on this when you were directly quoted. Classic science denial tactics.

That you went all attack mode means you have nothing more to say. Your concession is accepted. You are alright.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I practically quoted you word for word.
No, you didn't. You didn't even truncate. You hardly even distorted. You fabricated. I never made those arguments.

I never said Sweden wasn't experiencing an epidemic. Nor did I ever point to a spike in deaths on a given day. In fact, I have cautioned against tracking deaths as a way to guage anything because that is not the metric used by epidemiologists in regard to "flatten the curve". Reducing deaths is the overall goal, not the metric. Flattening the curve was always about reducing the number of new cases per day and that is how I have always argued. I even told you your graph was useless in an argument about that curve because IT"S THE WRONG FUCKIGN CURVE.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
No, you didn't. You didn't even truncate. You hardly even distorted. You fabricated. I never made those arguments.

I never said Sweden wasn't experiencing an epidemic. Nor did I ever point to a spike in deaths on a given day. In fact, I have cautioned against tracking deaths as a way to guage anything because that is not the metric used by epidemiologists in regard to "flatten the curve". Reducing deaths is the overall goal, not the metric. Flattening the curve was always about reducing the number of new cases per day and that is how I have always argued. I even told you your graph was useless in an argument about that curve because IT"S THE WRONG FUCKIGN CURVE.
word for word
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
temp.png

I just checked and the CDC model that is used to track progress relative to their model is shown above. The lockdown is working. I can't help that some people don't like the CDC's metrics. Too bad the world won't just do what he says.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
View attachment 4543417

I just checked and the CDC model that is used to track progress relative to their model is shown above. The lockdown is working. I can't help that some people don't like the CDC's metrics. Too bad the world won't just do what he says.
Right at the top it says "infections minimized". That means that the plan is to minimize infections. All that has been minimized is testing. Any change in number of deaths therefore, can not be attributed to a change in infections, and this is particularly true, when the number of new infections is still increasing daily. However, even that can't be accurately quantified because of the lack of testing.

I don't really make arguments based on number of deaths, because my argument has always regarded "flatten the curve". That's the argument I am and have consistently been making. What you did is comparing apples to oranges. Not my fault you lack the intellectual capacity to make the distinction. Also, the number of deaths is regularly revised. We won't know the actual death toll for years.

The graph you posted is based on a past projection of how many would die vs how many have died to date. I never said I didn't like it either. It's a great metric. A beautiful, great metric. The CDC has the best mtrics. Nobody has better metrics.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
1 out of 5 in New York City.
A state survey of about 3,000 people found that nearly 14% had antibodies, suggesting they had been exposed to the virus, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at his daily news briefing.

In New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S., 21% of the people tested had antibodies.
 
Top