Covid-19 discussion and humor thread [Was: CDC says don't touch your face to avoid Covid19...Vets to the rescue!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, spartacus said:

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no-benefit-over-placebo-preventing-covid-19

fortunately, the UM study did nothing to "prove" the lack of a viable covid treatment.

Studies on SARS and others, back when medicine was actually looking for treatments, clearly show that zinc severely limits the replication of a virus. 

To be effective, however, zinc needs a transport assist to cross into a cell to fight the virus.

  Hydroxychloroquine is one of the items that zinc can use as a transport vehicle. 

 

you would think a better study might want to measure how effective zinc stops the covid virus.

The MN study only evaluates the transport vehicle- not for its effectiveness in transporting zinc - but to cure the disease -= which seems to be a pretty badly designed study.

 

It would be like doing a study to evaluate the success rate of heart surgeons doing heart transplants.

The MN study designed their test to study the taxi cab that transported the surgeon to the hospital and concluded that taxi's did not improve the transplant success rate.

Somehow their study failed to address the efficiency of the surgeon (zinc) that was actually the active element in the success of the procedure.  

 

Spartacus, I "get it" that you are a zinc true believer.

Can you provide evidence that hydroxychloroquine has its effect by transporting zinc across the cell membrane?

   (and I'm talking actual controlled studies with data, not a link from a supplement site claiming to solve the world with their product)

What is the evidence that if this were so, healthy exposed people getting prophylaxis would actually require zinc supplementation to reach adequate levels of zinc?

 

Because otherwise, your analogy is clever but pretty much unsubstantiated

 

 

4 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

Yes, I am. Thanks. 

 

OK, but it is not my native language so I'll take time to check my calcs.  Probably be a few days, unless I run into someone online who is doing it for me.

[BillsFan4]

@Hapless Bills Fan it’s not a big deal or anything. I don’t want you to have to put a bunch of time + effort into explaining it. I understand why it can take 4+ weeks. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

@Hapless Bills Fan it’s not a big deal or anything. I don’t want you to have to put a bunch of time + effort into explaining it. I understand why it can take 4+ weeks. 

 

TBH, it's the sort of thing I'd do for shucks and giggles because that's how I roll, but if I'm sharing it I want to be sure I've got the equations right

Right now I have several personal kettles of fish to fry and an accumlating "To Do" list of updates I want to make to the facts-only thread (vaccine update, clinical trials etc)

 

[The Dean]

It's obvious some (a very few) choose to believe the outliers' information on this. They also tend to seek out information that confirms their skepticism and buy completely (and sometime immediately) into anything they find that supports their views. That's classic confirmation bias. 

 

For something like this: a new disease, with various models predicting outcomes, research information released publicly while still very tentative, etc, one should expect to see some contradictory "evidence". I put evidence in quotes as much of it isn't even really evidence yet. It's POSSIBLE evidence.

 

To me, completely untrained in medical science, but very trained in research and data analysis, the most logical way to parse through this all is to:

 

Look to the scientific/medical community for your information. Ignore politicians of any persuasion. Their focus is by necessity distracted by political issues. Unless they are qualified in the field, their opinion on what to do is only as good as those who advise them---and if they listen, of course. Also ignore any media accounts that proport to have "the truth". They do not. 

 

Look to the consensus of experts in the field. Sometimes there are central outlets for that kind of information, who compile and analyze this information. In this case, the CDC, WHO, Dr Fauci, etc. On this forum, I look to Hapless as a great source for what the BEST current thinking is at any moment. I also have friends who are doctors and medical researchers who I consult. While there are some minor differences in their beliefs, they are all pretty much in agreement with the mainstream thoughts on most of the issues.

 

Look to basic logic. The idea that social distancing has done NOTHING to stop the spread of this disease, and the deaths it causes, is almost too ridiculous to consider, IMO. It's a CONTAGIOUS disease that passes from one person to another. Just let that sink in for awhile. The basic flu can be passed by people with no symptoms (this can mean totally asymptomatic or simply have shown no symptoms to date).  That's pretty well documented. Despite some variations in what individual reports may say, why not take the cautious approach? Is there REAL evidence this is spreading in some novel way that is counter to what we already know about viruses?  Places where people are crammed together on a daily basis (NYC for example) had bigger outbreaks (percentage of the population) than the plains states, where the population is more diffuse. Countries and states that put social distancing rules into effect early generally experienced  a lower percentage of their population infected than those who did little---or were late to the party. Yes, you can find the odd outlier. Why focus on that and distract yourself from the main impact of the data on hand?

 

With that said, I think it is useful, and interesting, to look to alternative explanations. Sometimes mainstream thought is mistaken. We're finding more and more evidence that some natural medicines (marijuana is one example) have real benefits that mainstream science dismissed for years.  Look to find information that conflicts with the general consensus, if you like. That's actually a pretty revealing exercise. But don't just buy into it because it reflects your beliefs. Use the same level or analysis you would for any explanation. If it is an exceptional outlier, give it exceptional scrutiny.  The wheels of science more very slowly, by design. Findings have to be tested and retested. On multiple populations/situations. They should be replicated by other scientists and peer reviewed, for methodological and analytical bias and error. Latching on to a new study that contradicts a large body of previous findings is a fools' folly.

 

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Not having all the information is ignorance. When it comes to Covid 19, we are all a bit ignorant. Even those who are actively involved in studying the disease. Actively avoiding information, or chasing/believing only the information that supports your ignorant conclusions is about as stupid as anything I can think of.

Edited June 10, 2020 by The Dean

[plenzmd1]

Agree with all your points @The Dean, except you forgot an extremely important piece , and that is the media. Both MSM and social media create opinion , and the bias, both ways btw, is appalling. 
 

just today , depending on the source , I can read how GA deaths and hospitalizations have fallen dramatically, or read that AZ ICU s are about to be overrun, both used , depending on author, as evidence that one way was better than the other.
 

my point as evolved from the “‘experts” know , to nobody knows. Everything keeps changing, yet I am told to take continually take what the experts say as gospel. 
 

I get Breyer safe than sorry, but we ain’t safe under lockdown, just face a different set of risks.  

[The Dean]

20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Agree with all your points @The Dean, except you forgot an extremely important piece , and that is the media. Both MSM and social media create opinion , and the bias, both ways btw, is appalling. 
 

just today , depending on the source , I can read how GA deaths and hospitalizations have fallen dramatically, or read that AZ ICU s are about to be overrun, both used , depending on author, as evidence that one way was better than the other.
 

my point as evolved from the “‘experts” know , to nobody knows. Everything keeps changing, yet I am told to take continually take what the experts say as gospel. 
 

I get Breyer safe than sorry, but we ain’t safe under lockdown, just face a different set of risks.  

 

I agree, and I've edited my post. I might add, this forum is part of "the media" as is everything on the Internet. 

 

"Nobody knows" at least for sure, is valid, but not that useful. Some know WAY more than others as they are involved in the research, can understand the data, etc. That's why I preach following the scientific consensus. And it seems to me, the consensus hasn't changed all that much when it comes to the big picture. Sure there are variances, but the basics are still in play and supported, from what I can tell. Don't get lost/confused by the minutiae. 

 

Yes, lockdown has some downsides---but for the most part, they are not life threatening (as long as those in lockdown can afford food and find shelter). I'll take economic risks over real health risks any day. And this is just my opinion as there really isn't an answer to which you think is more important---human life or the economy. I'll side with Frankie Primo on this:

 

Quote

“Healing people, not saving (money) to help the economy (is important), healing people, who are more important than the economy,”-Pope Francis

 

And no, I'm not a practicing Catholic or really religious in any way. But the economy can come back as it has many times. People, once dead, do not. At least until the Zombie Apocalypse.

[shoshin]

Asked this over at PPP too but there seem to be more Covid-knowledgeable people (though less discussion) here: Has anyplace that got hit with an initial hard first wave seen a true second wave yet? 

 

I ask this not to make an argument but just to see the numbers:

 

(1) Nate Silver has lightly posited (not with certainty) that the case rises happening in the US are mostly being driven in areas that never really had a first wave. Yes, they are reopening, but when you look at a place like AZ, it never got hit initially so this is its first big exposure. 

(2) In the EU countries that have reopened a few weeks ahead of us, have they seen a spike up? Answer seems to be no. 

 

It's something to watch, along with the anecdotal reports from Italy and the UPMC medical system that healthcare professionals are seeing far fewer critical patients after that initial crush of patients. 

[BillsFan4]

Quote

Unintentional case study on the use of masks wraps up in Springfield MO.

 

Mask use by both client and stylist

>15 minutes of close contact with a known symptomatic infected person

42 tested people: 0 positives (Everyone was offered testing, many declined - unfortunate)

Everyone (146 people 140 clients 6 stylists): > 2 weeks quarantine with 2x/day health checks by DPH - 0 symptoms

 

No one wanted it to happen, and it wouldn't have been ethical to set up a study like this, but the results are very encouraging. 

 

https://www.springfieldmo.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=6941

The health department is currently gathering further information about the type of masks worn, how they were used, etc

 

 

@Hapless Bills Fan this is your post from the facts thread. I just had a quick question and didn’t want to clog up the other thread.

 

Definitely very encouraging!

 

By any chance do you know how those 2x a day health checks were done? Was it in person? Or over the phone? 

 

Also, do you know if they screened for all potential symptoms? Like the less common and/or unusual symptoms? Or just the more common stuff like fever, cough, loss of smell etc? 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

@Hapless Bills Fan this is your post from the facts thread. I just had a quick question and didn’t want to clog up the other thread.

 

Definitely very encouraging!

 

By any chance do you know how those 2x a day health checks were done? Was it in person? Or over the phone? 

 

Also, do you know if they screened for all potential symptoms? Like the less common and/or unusual symptoms? Or just the more common stuff like fever, cough, loss of smell etc?

 

It was over the phone, as I understand it.  They requested a temperature log. Other than that, I don't know what symptoms they asked about, sorry.

 

Just some more calculations: the planners of the Minnesota hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis study estimated, based on learnings from contact tracing etc in other countries, that 10% of the people they enrolled would become ill (all people with known exposures to covid-19 family members or patients).

 

The actual infection rate they saw in that study was (and again, not everyone was tested, so they may have missed whatever % is asymptomatic), was 13%. 

 

Applied to the 42 haircut recipients, one would expect that 5-6 people would become infected.  Now, expecting 5-6 people and getting zero is kinda borderline for the statistical significance; sure wish everyone had accepted the offered testing. 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, shoshin said:

Asked this over at PPP too but there seem to be more Covid-knowledgeable people (though less discussion) here: Has anyplace that got hit with an initial hard first wave seen a true second wave yet? 

 

I ask this not to make an argument but just to see the numbers:

 

(1) Nate Silver has lightly posited (not with certainty) that the case rises happening in the US are mostly being driven in areas that never really had a first wave. Yes, they are reopening, but when you look at a place like AZ, it never got hit initially so this is its first big exposure. 

(2) In the EU countries that have reopened a few weeks ahead of us, have they seen a spike up? Answer seems to be no. 

 

It's something to watch, along with the anecdotal reports from Italy and the UPMC medical system that healthcare professionals are seeing far fewer critical patients after that initial crush of patients. 

 

Good questions. 

 

One example of a clear second wave (that I know of) would probably be Hokkaido, Japan.  They had a covid-19 outbreak driven by seasonal visitors from mainland China attending the Snow Festival in Sapporo at the end of January, including a covid-19 patient from Wuhan China (2 Million visitors total. Visitors would have started to pour in at the start of the lunar New Year, 25 January; there were probably infected people visiting from Wuhan earlier in January)

 

By Feb 28, they had 66 known cases and shut down.

March 18, new cases were in the low single digits and businesses were complaining.  They reopened.

They asked residents to continue to restrict social interaction and stay home if they felt unwell and kept 34 government facilities and many schools closed.

April 9, they had a record number of new cases in one day

April 18, with 80% more new cases than when they'd opened up, they locked down again

 

Another example of a clear second wave (that I know of) would be South Korea.  They were like an epidemiology model in how they revved up testing, enabled contact tracing, set up effective systems to model quarantine, and shut off the spout from 100s of new infections a day down to single-digits or less.  Now, as they've loosened restrictions (allowing professional sports to resume, for example), they're seeing 45 new cases per day in Seoul (region of 25 million people) which are more diffuse and harder to contact-trace than earlier disease clusters.   Public health authorities are worried, but government is reluctant to re-impose restrictions.

Singapore, too, was a model of efficiency initially, but had a huge blindspot in ignoring its migrant worker dormitories.  Guess where their second wave popped up.

 

China - people question its transparency, but it's notable they launched a campaign ~12 May to test every single one of the 11 million residents of Wuhan.  By May 26 (two weeks later) they'd tested 6.5 million Wuhanese.  One kind of doubts they launched such a campaign without significant concern for a 2nd peak. (they used some interesting strategies, too, including pooled testing.  we should be doing that.)

 

So I guess it depends on how you define "second peak" - if you define second wave as another "red emergency, hospitals overflowing, doctors and nurses exhausted and overwhelmed, well, No.  If you define second wave as examples where a country seemed to have a sweet lock on the covid-19 thing where cases went to zero and are now seeing dozens of new cases per day with an exponential trajectory brewing - Yeah, that's happening.

In a bunch of places where we opened back up, such as Atlanta GA, we never really finished the "first wave", but just flattened it and slowed it down.  They're still on a "new cases doubling every 5 weeks" trajectory.  It's kind of inevitable in those circs that as long as travel is still taking place, the disease will eventually move from areas with dense population to outlying areas.  Is it a continuation of the first wave or a second wave? You could argue for that, I guess, but it may be a semantic distinction.

We also have to keep in mind that even as cities and areas re-open, a lot of people are taking a "wait and see" approach.  At least in my neighborhood, this is not driven along party lines.  As my Trump-voting neighbor says, "I just don't want to get my 90 yr old mother-in-law sick".  She and her boyfriend are still wearing masks outside the home or when working on their cars, still using Instacart or Walmart curbside pickup for groceries, socializing only outdoors and with a very limited friend group.  If a store doesn't require masks, they shop somewhere else.  If someone who comes to see stuff they're selling doesn't want to wear a mask, they advise them to look elsewhere for their purchase.  So there's almost a sort of pseudo-herd-immunity of people who are still taking actions to block transmission chains.

 

Going back to Hokkaido and making a secondary point.  If we are going to have a second wave, when do we expect it?  People are "all in" looking at the 2 week incubation time and be like "oh, hey, it's more than 2 weeks since we saw photos of Party Cove on Lake of the Ozarks, no spike in cases, We're Good!"  But the timeline from Hokkaido indicates - it took a good 5 weeks from multiple introductions, to the point where disease spiked noticably (to 66 new cases/day).  There's a similar dynamic elsewhere; it's now believed that the introductions to the US were mid Jan/February  and it took a good 6 weeks for cases to surge. 

We have a bit of a different picture now of the disease and how it spreads, than we did back in March.  We know now that there are a large number of people who are either asymptomatic, or who develop mild symptoms and recover uneventfully.  So a "surge" in cases may be in epidemiology terms "cryptic", undetectable outside good surveillance testing, until it makes its way into a pocket of people who are more susceptible and have enough contact with other susceptible people to spread disease.

 

 

Oh wait, what was your question?  Did I answer it?

 

[shoshin]

That’s a good answer but I don’t buy that Korea or Hokkaido ever had a legit first wave, since they both handled it so well. This is kind of my point: I’m not sure anyplace that got hit hard once has had a second wave. It’s just something to watch and I agree: 2 weeks is not a legit incubation period to see what happens. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, shoshin said:

That’s a good answer but I don’t buy that Korea or Hokkaido ever had a legit first wave, since they both handled it so well. This is kind of my point: I’m not sure anyplace that got hit hard once has had a second wave. It’s just something to watch and I agree: 2 weeks is not a legit incubation period to see what happens. 

 

So wait, if your city or country has to deal with a contagious disease, and you successfully stop it at an early stage of its exponential growth, it doesn't count as a "wave"?

Not buying that.  They all had enough infections that if they didn't take prompt action, they coulda been NYC.

 

I think I may see where you're going though?  You may be wondering if there are enough immune people in places the virus hit hard, to keep a second wave from taking off?  It's not likely.  I think the thing to remember is that even places that were hella hard hit, like NYC, Chelsea MA, Spain and Northern Italy, are running about 20-25% prevalence by serology tests.  Most parts of the country are 3-6%, including places that had a significant outbreak such as St Louis.

 

The thing about places that were hard hit, though, is that many people who weren't infected heard the ambulances night after night and saw the refrigerated trucks for corpses, and they're like "yeah, Imma wear my mask" and the stores are all requiring masks because they want to stay open.  I think it's possible that between people who are still working from home and restricting contacts, people who are out and about going to work, and people who are actually recovered and immune, some of the hard hit places have a sort of "effective herd immunity" going down.

 

I think 142 people in Springfield MO say "masks work, even those paper procedure things"

[shoshin]

15 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So wait, if your city or country has to deal with a contagious disease, and you successfully stop it at an early stage of its exponential growth, it doesn't count as a "wave"?

Not buying that.  They all had enough infections that if they didn't take prompt action, they coulda been NYC.

 

What I'm saying is they didn't take the hit of that wave. What they did was amazing--nearly avoiding the wave altogether.

 

Quote

I think I may see where you're going though?  You may be wondering if there are enough immune people in places the virus hit hard, to keep a second wave from taking off?  It's not likely.  I think the thing to remember is that even places that were hella hard hit, like NYC, Chelsea MA, Spain and Northern Italy, are running about 20-25% prevalence by serology tests.  Most parts of the country are 3-6%, including places that had a significant outbreak such as St Louis.

 

The thing about places that were hard hit, though, is that many people who weren't infected heard the ambulances night after night and saw the refrigerated trucks for corpses, and they're like "yeah, Imma wear my mask" and the stores are all requiring masks because they want to stay open.  I think it's possible that between people who are still working from home and restricting contacts, people who are out and about going to work, and people who are actually recovered and immune, some of the hard hit places have a sort of "effective herd immunity" going down.

 

I'm not saying we achieved herd immunity. Outside of maybe just NYC, the herd hasn't caught enough Covid to have much effect. I'm wondering something different: Could it be that there is a population that is more vulnerable to this, who gets hit hard and fast, and on reopening, there is not a second massive wave but just a steady stream of lesser-severity cases? 

 

We went from 0 cases sometime in late Nov.early Dec to 2000 deaths/day in March and April. You'd think that on reopening, going from hundreds of thousands of active cases, we would see a pretty decent rise in other countries, and quickly. But so far we are not. The data is still in progress but it's worth watching what is happening in Europe since they are ahead of us on reopening. 

 

And I discount the south and SW in the US--they are literally going through their initial wave now. 

 

Quote

I think 142 people in Springfield MO say "masks work, even those paper procedure things"

 

People who don't think masks work are unlikely to be worth engaging in meaningful discussions. There are some no-mask advocates here and it boggles the mind. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by shoshin

[K-9]

There is no second wave. The first wave never ended; just brought under control in the hottest spots and that made our improvement stats look really good for a while. 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Just wanted to say the lockdown was complete BS and i told you so .

 

 

[shoshin]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Just wanted to say the lockdown was complete BS and i told you so .

 

 

Link to the BS claim?

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 hour ago, shoshin said:

Link to the BS claim?

 

 

"Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/05/14/neurosurgeon-says-face-masks-pose-serious-risk-to-healthy-people-n392431?fbclid=IwAR3iBMKeFEQ0Co2BZxcXj9a10MwqOI66JORRz_VO30JCk75VYF3uDe83GYI

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2020/05/22/600-physicians-say-lockdowns-are-a-mass-casualty-incident/?fbclid=IwAR1AAViEn2qGHbq2UTln-VatlFkOJV80HY3gxxTi6nGpuA0sgHs1hwWH-uU#205a73d350fa

 

 

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/cdc-says-covid-19-does-not-spread-easily-from-touching-contaminated-surfaces-objects?fbclid=IwAR1M5Dbk5hSj52nf0bBEDqCxdNesG1YWsmk9bO1oSChN67WBTz2gWiocecY

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds?fbclid=IwAR3sZeuSiVMZ16a_61Oqf59q0Mu5pw4exLsyDPiYC0Dc3jwdi2EXpMYsHq8

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Just wanted to say the lockdown was complete BS and i told you so .

 

 

So would they have been better  off getting it  earlier?  When the  hospitals were crushed and the Healthcare workers would  have to pick and choose  who gets treated and who  dies. ??

 

Or.   Stay  home  and get it later  when the choice didn't  have to be made?

 

Maybe people  didn't  stay home long enough?

 

The lockdowns were  so the  system didn't  get crushed and ethical choices  were  avoided.

What part  did you miss about why the lockdowns existed?

 

We saw the stats in 1919 AND still made  the same  mistakes  this time.  If healthCare  facilities  get crushed, then the area  opened up too soon.

 

The only  thing this is showing  is that  people are spoiled, impatient  children  that can't  be told what to do that  is best  for the group. They have  to kick, scream, complain... Which only  makes  the process  take even longer.  It's  like raising three year olds.

 

Should  have been  hard universal federal lockdowns till June 1st. States like MA rode  the coattails  of the rest of NE, no stay at home ORDER.  What did you  think was gonna happen  with 50 different  states doing  50 different  things.  Now the sad part, we wasted time and may have to move to hard universal  lockdown.  Again.   Like dealing  with  spoiled children  that can't  sit still.

Edited June 13, 2020 by ExiledInIllinois

[shoshin]

7 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

 

"Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/05/14/neurosurgeon-says-face-masks-pose-serious-risk-to-healthy-people-n392431?fbclid=IwAR3iBMKeFEQ0Co2BZxcXj9a10MwqOI66JORRz_VO30JCk75VYF3uDe83GYI

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2020/05/22/600-physicians-say-lockdowns-are-a-mass-casualty-incident/?fbclid=IwAR1AAViEn2qGHbq2UTln-VatlFkOJV80HY3gxxTi6nGpuA0sgHs1hwWH-uU#205a73d350fa

 

 

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/cdc-says-covid-19-does-not-spread-easily-from-touching-contaminated-surfaces-objects?fbclid=IwAR1M5Dbk5hSj52nf0bBEDqCxdNesG1YWsmk9bO1oSChN67WBTz2gWiocecY

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds?fbclid=IwAR3sZeuSiVMZ16a_61Oqf59q0Mu5pw4exLsyDPiYC0Dc3jwdi2EXpMYsHq8

 

 

Do you think people living in high density housing got Covid after being exposed to no humans?

 

Get some basic science. Just because some people can’t trace their exposure doesn’t mean they weren’t exposed. That Cuomo line got traction from a lot of people who latched onto Covid magical transmission and that was not the point. 
 

Your anti-mask stuff at this point makes you sound really ill informed. Not yet as bad as B-Gal but getting there.

Edited June 13, 2020 by shoshin

[BillsFan4]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/872441984/modelers-suggest-pandemic-lockdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19

“Two new papers published in the journal Nature say that lockdowns put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus were highly effective, prevented tens of millions of infections and saved millions of lives.”

 

Quote

 

"Our estimates show that lockdowns had a really dramatic effect in reducing transmission," says Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer at the Imperial College London's School of Public Health, who worked on one of the papers published in Nature. 

 

Bhatt's team analyzed infection and death rates in 11 European nations through May 4. They estimate that an additional 3.1 million people in those countries would have died if lockdowns had not been put in place.

"Without them we believe the toll would have been huge," Bhatt says.

In addition to the paper from Bhatt and his colleagues, Nature also published a separate study from the Global Policy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. That study analyzed lockdowns in China, South Korea, Iran, France, Italy and the United States.

 

It found that the lockdowns in those six countries averted 62 million confirmed cases.

 

From May:

 

Lockdown Delays Cost at Least 36,000 Lives, Data Show

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html

 

Quote

If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers.

 

And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation’s deaths — about 83 percent — would have been avoided, the researchers estimated.

 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-lockdowns-successful-evidence-from-around-the-world-2020-4

Lockdowns save lives. The evidence is clear around the world.

 

Quote

• Overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths.
• Italy's lockdown prevented around 200,000 hospitalizations, according to a recent study.
• Another study found that Wuhan's restrictions prevented tens of thousands of infections throughout the Hubei province.