Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 298: Blood Sugar Flex Magik

(+) Yeah! (+)

If I cherry pick results and demand that you prove that my conclusions are false, does that make me a real internet debater?

The fact that it's even possible to "cherry-pick" results means the connection isn't nearly as obvious as you all insist it is.

---

Hello here are studies suggesting that lockdowns have had a positive effect during the current outbreak.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32275287/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20076000v2
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070862v1
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32181488/
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/20-256701.pdf?ua=1

I'm not sure this is enough to conclusively settle the matter for various reasons as there are limitations on all of these studies, but I'd at least say this certainly qualifies as evidence.

In the interest of completeness I will also provide a link for what is the only study I found arguing against strict lockdowns--stating that they have not had a larger effect than that observed in countries with only basic social distancing guidelines. This--along with the 2 medarxiv links provided in the above section--have not been peer-reviewed yet. In the case of this study, however, I feel I should point out it has been done by a single investigator whose area of expertise is in...oceanography and fluid dynamics. There is some overlap because it looks like he does a fair bit of numerical modeling, but there's nothing to indicate he has expertise specifically in infectious diseases.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
---

Literally all of those links are within-jurisdiction comparisons that offer no control group. They just say "things in location X were getting bad, then location X implemented a lockdown, then things got better."

Of course, if people lockdown because "things are bad" and things naturally peak and then get better on your own, you'd have to see that result.

I am making cross-jurisdictional comparisons. I am not interested in comparing Texas before lockdown and Texas after lockdown. I'm interested in comparing Texas and Spain. Why did Spain do so much worse than Texas? Is it because it had a stronger lockdown? Clearly and obviously not.

The curve either has flattened or is flattening basically everywhere. Even though every place implemented lockdowns of different serverities at different stages of the epidemic, and some barely locked down at all. Are you not even the slightest bit interested in why that might be? In what that might imply?

---

I am pushing back against the following claim:

there's no evidence the lockdowns did anything.

There is an abundance of evidence that the lockdowns have done something and I've just provided it.

I'm not claiming the evidence to be 100% conclusive, since yes the point you raise is a valid one.
---

Can't you guys just sit back, take a breath, and realize you're arguing with Smart Muffin who is literally always wrong every single time about everything and has never been genuine in his life? We have never taken him seriously before, why are you starting now?

I'm not claiming the evidence to be 100% conclusive, since yes the point you raise is a valid one.

In the same sense that "there are no tigers around" is evidence that my rock that keeps tigers away works, sure.

Basically, my claim consists of two parts:

Part 1: There is significant and extensive variation of COVID-related harms (total cases, total fatalities, per capita cases, per capita fatalities, and IFR) across jurisdictions, both national and regional.

Part 2: This variation is in not correlated with lockdown policy (either time to lockdown or severity of lockdown) in a statistically significant manner.

---

I swear most men in positions of power think with their dicks, and always have.

The #metoo movement isn't anti-man, it's anti-this kind of man.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Part 2: This variation is in not correlated with lockdown policy (either time to lockdown or severity of lockdown) in a statistically significant manner.

Well either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying or this claim is factually wrong. Every article I provided reported a statistically significant reduction in COVID-related metrics that in terms of timing can be linked to the incidence of lockdown policies. Even the article arguing against lockdowns showed this. (But that article was arguing there was no correlation with the severity of the lockdown)

It's very clear that there is a correlation. You're only going to get anywhere if you're trying to argue that the reduction in disease is caused by some factor other than the lockdown policies and that the lockdowns were simply implemented at a time at which reductions in disease-related metrics were already going to happen anyways.
---

link mario samus
shut the fuck up

---

Oh wait no I see you're saying something a bit different than I thought you were so I'll back off the hardline claim that you're factually wrong. Though, I do think all the evidence I've seen still supports the overall point of the message that timing of lockdowns have been correlated with reduction in disease growth metrics in a number of countries.
---

I file LMS in the same category as Luster in the "cannot possibly be real people" category. Once you do that, it's a lot easier to glaze over.

---

Oh wait no I see you're saying something a bit different than I thought you were so I'll back off the hardline claim that you're factually wrong. Though, I do think all the evidence I've seen still supports the overall point of the message that timing of lockdowns have been correlated with reduction in disease growth metrics in a number of countries.

Imagine a scenario wherein the following two things are true:

1. Some significant percentage of the overall population has some sort of "natural immunity" towards COVID such that the potential pool of people who might get infected is well below 100% of the population
2. Lockdowns are implemented primarily as a reaction to "COVID is here and accelerating" rather than a preventative policy taken proactively before community spread happens

The stats you'd see in such a world would look... exactly like the stats we have. I'm not saying #1 is the case (but #2 seems mostly accurate). I don't know. But yes, so long as lockdowns are enacted either at or slightly before the peak, you'd expect the stats to improve on their own anyway, whether the lockdown happened or not.

What your studies prove is that "things have gotten better after lockdowns have happened" but it has not proven "lockdowns caused things to get better." And given that "things get better" happens everywhere... that the curves have roughly similar shapes and rates of increase/decline across basically every possible jurisdiction, regardless of lockdown policy, it seems far more likely that something other than lockdowns is causing things to get better...

---

SmartMuffin posted...

The curve either has flattened or is flattening basically everywhere. Even though every place implemented lockdowns of different serverities at different stages of the epidemic, and some barely locked down at all. Are you not even the slightest bit interested in why that might be? In what that might imply?

I dont even know what youre saying it implies
---

It's pretty clear that the transmission rate is strongly related to population density. When there is a high concentration of people (NYC subway, European soccer games, the New Orleans Mardi Gras celebration, etc.) transmission skyrockets. Where there isn't (see Sweden and Texas) the transmission rate is lower. Lockdowns obviously decrease the concentration of people and therefore decrease the transmission rate, but some areas start out with lower concentrations of people and have a natural advantage.

---

I dont even know what youre saying it implies

That the key variable(s) is something other than lockdowns. I have no idea what it is. Probably a complicated mix of a lot of different factors. But it's not lockdowns.

---

As in you really have no idea, or as in I have some idea that would get me in trouble if I said it.

I can never tell
---

SmartMuffin posted...

That the key variable(s) is something other than lockdowns. I have no idea what it is. Probably a complicated mix of a lot of different factors. But it's not lockdowns.

Lockdowns could be one of a number of different variables.

---

FFDragon posted...

I file LMS in the same category as Luster in the "cannot possibly be real people" category. Once you do that, it's a lot easier to glaze over.

And then it becomes even worse when you realize that they actually are real people

---

It's only one example, but San Francisco locked down very, very early. They also only have 40 deaths so far, despite their population density. Compared to other big cities it certainly suggests that lockdowns work.

---

The point of the lockdowns is not eliminate all chance of getting it, it's limit the spread so medical facilities, supplies, and the overall industry could catch up to the uptick of demand. It additionally gave more time to better understand what we're dealing with, which furthers in helping how to properly deal with it. It is not, it never was, and it never could be, a case of locking down to avoid all infection. It's strictly making it manageable to such a degree that proper treatment and care can be given to those who'll need it, flattening the curve was always directly tied to not overwhelming our systems.

I get that some people have moved the goalposts there and will agree they're in the wrong. As do most people and places from the current situation, based on the way things are opening up and the way people are ignoring rules because weather's getting nicer by the day and we clearly prepped too hard. But better that than the opposite. Phased openings continue that trend so yeah, it'll go up for a bit, people who need treatment will get it, then down. Repeat, with better treatments and understanding as each loop occurs to lower critical and severe cases.

---

Kinglicious posted...

The point of the lockdowns is not eliminate all chance of getting it, it's limit the spread so medical facilities, supplies, and the overall industry could catch up to the uptick of demand.

Is there evidence it actually limits the spread though, is what SmartMuffin is asking
---

NFUN posted...

And then it becomes even worse when you realize that they actually are real people

Uh, sorry for repeating something I said in a previous topic? I dunno, I thought these were the topics if you wanted to get something political off your chest.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Is there evidence it actually limits the spread though, is what SmartMuffin is asking

I think the documented reduction in flu cases after the lockdowns is fairly convincing, as we have a control group to compare to.

---

your post looked like a response to something

but there was nothing here you were responding to
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Is there evidence it actually limits the spread though, is what SmartMuffin is asking

i mean its been pretty effective for NYC based on before/after data. i saw Brazil being used earlier and laughed, they're lying and we know that. just like China, who implemented heavy lockdown - still is! - and have consistently been lying. best data would really be any place with a before/after, NYC's solid for that. but i'm also biased on that one. less people + more cleaning = less spread. did we halt the J curve we had going, yes, immediately after. clear enough evidence in that.


---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1265649545410744321?s=21

Narrator: There was no action to follow.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1265649545410744321?s=21

Narrator: There was no action to follow.

There will be more capacity for action after the election when the Republicans retake the House.

---

twitter's logically and legally a private company owning a public space so there's definitely room for government to get involved. that's the case for youtube, facebook, etc too. whether executive or legislature want to get involved is a different story, especially if they start tackling the publisher/platform issues.

---

I haven't been following closely, but is the gist of this that Trump is trying to bully a private company with empty threats so he can continue his cult of personality without being questioned?

---

FFDragon posted...

I haven't been following closely, but is the gist of this that Trump is trying to bully a private company with empty threats so he can continue his cult of personality without being questioned?

Hes just throwing a tantrum over being fact checked by Twitter
---

not entirely but that's part of it. basically...

a journo from a morning show got mad at Trump talking shit and went full Karen to talking to Twitter's manager.
others latched on.
they found an emotional hook with something Trump said that was factually incorrect.
twitter then fact checked him on an entirely different item.
Trump mad now in bully mode.


---

Didn't Trump accuse that morning show journo of murder? That's a bit more serious than "getting mad at Trump talking shit".

---

Wanglicious posted...

twitter's logically and legally a private company owning a public space so there's definitely room for government to get involved. that's the case for youtube, facebook, etc too. whether executive or legislature want to get involved is a different story, especially if they start tackling the publisher/platform issues.

In what way is social media a public space? It is an advertising platform.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

your post looked like a response to something

but there was nothing here you were responding to

Okay then, that's fine.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

In what way is social media a public space? It is an advertising platform.

They are engaging in interstate commerce. Same as the hotels who wanted to discriminate by race. Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

---

Didn't the courts specifically rule that it was a public forum in their "Trump isn't allowed to block people" decision?

---

I think the issue there is that Trump has explicitly stated that he uses that account for official public statements from his office
---

they did, yeah, specifically an NYC federal court. that's why i said legally there.
AOC also settled a few cases of it, though is dragging a few others out. and various other reps from other states have been hit with it and backtracked. nobody dares challenge that result in their own state because they know they'd probably lose too.

---

Btw Colorado apparently saw a 40% decrease in suicides during March and April.

---

It's not as simple as "the courts ruled Twitter a public forum." Their ruling specifically hinges on the fact Trump said it was official Presidential communication, and that based on the tweets he makes, "under no rational view" could the account be seen as just a personal account. The ruling was based on that designation as "official" communication from the President is what makes it a "public forum" scenario.

---

And I think thats valid. No public official using their account in an official capacity for making statements from their office should be able to block anyone
---

Jakyl25 posted...

And I think thats valid. No public official using their account in an official capacity for making statements from their office should be able to block anyone

If they simply mute someone so that the official can not see their messages but the muted person can still see their "official statements" is that okay?

---

Depends on whether theyve classified the account as just a dispatch for statements or an actual way to communicate with them.
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1265705354161278981

This is certainly a journalism!

---

Yikes
---

Well okay lets think about this semantically

It wasnt a CRIME when it was state-sanctioned, right?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well okay lets think about this semantically

It wasnt a CRIME when it was state-sanctioned, right?

That's not what they meant and you know it.

---

Kind of a useless statement without information on how far back the records go, ain't it

---

The tweet was deleted, now I gotta know.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

The tweet was deleted, now I gotta know.

Headline read:

Anti-Semitic Crime in Germany at Highest Level Recorded
---