Stanford Study: Lockdowns

[pacearrow02]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

Many on this board have spent the better part of the last year calling anyone advocating for a loosening of lockdown restrictions, science denying sycophants.

Turns out when someone finally took the time to look at the "science" those science deniers were right.  The restrictions put in place on businesses and the division it caused amongst us will go down as the single worst decision made in trying to combat the virus imo.  The WH task force, Trump administration, media, and any elected official who parroted this farce has some explaining to do.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

1) discredit the authors.
2) discredit the publication.
3) discredit the poster.
4) profit.

[The Sultan]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

Many on this board have spent the better part of the last year calling anyone advocating for a loosening of lockdown restrictions, science denying sycophants.

Turns out when someone finally took the time to look at the "science" those science deniers were right.  The restrictions put in place on businesses and the division it caused amongst us will go down as the single worst decision made in trying to combat the virus imo.  The WH task force, Trump administration, media, and any elected official who parroted this farce has some explaining to do.

Actually that's not what it says at all.  In fact, if you look at the "Supporting Information," it shows that business closures had a "significant effect on daily growth rate" in the United States.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Feci.13484&file=eci13484-sup-0001-FigS1.pdf

It also shows that school closures did NOT have a significant impact.

Anyway, the study specially says that less restrictive measures make an impact, but more restrictive ones don't add much to the initial impact overall.  This is hardly the case of "science deniers" such as yourself being right.

1) discredit the authors.
2) discredit the publication.
3) discredit the poster.
4) profit.

I know nothing about the authors or the publication.  But the poster made wildly inaccurate assumptions about what the study said in an attempt to being right.

Alas, no profit either.

[pacearrow02]

The timing of this study, Cuomo this week calling for bars and restaurants to reopen, Lightfoot doing the same etc is just all to convenient.

Choose to rationalize it away or call me dumb but it was all so predictable.  And to a previous comment in another thread, the goal of the lockdowns wasn't to prevent Trump from winning NY or IL, that of course was never going to happen.

It was to set a precedent that was then followed across the country to sink the economy thus taking away was his #1 talking point on the trail.  It was meant to divide and beat down the overall moral of the country and then point the finger at his administration as to the reason why.  It was to promote the idea that relaxed election laws were needed to allow for expanded mail in voting cause if it's not safe enough to go out for a bite to eat how can we expect people to vote in person.

It was all a game and we fell for it.  After watching the way Trump has handled the last 2 months I am relieved/excited to see a transition happen and Biden's Covid package he announced yesterday is a great first step to hopefully better days ahead.  I wish him all the luck the next 4 years and pray both sides of the aisle will work with him to move this country forward.  With that said I believe there are a lot of lessons we can all take from the last 4 years to play a small part in just being better people, myself included.

[The Sultan]

The timing of this study, Cuomo this week calling for bars and restaurants to reopen, Lightfoot doing the same etc is just all to convenient.

Choose to rationalize it away or call me dumb but it was all so predictable.  And to a previous comment in another thread, the goal of the lockdowns wasn't to prevent Trump from winning NY or IL, that of course was never going to happen.

It was to set a precedent that was then followed across the country to sink the economy thus taking away was his #1 talking point on the trail.  It was meant to divide and beat down the overall moral of the country and then point the finger at his administration as to the reason why.  It was to promote the idea that relaxed election laws were needed to allow for expanded mail in voting cause if it's not safe enough to go out for a bite to eat how can we expect people to vote in person.

It was all a game and we fell for it.  After watching the way Trump has handled the last 2 months I am relieved/excited to see a transition happen and Biden's Covid package he announced yesterday is a great first step to hopefully better days ahead.  I wish him all the luck the next 4 years and pray both sides of the aisle will work with him to move this country forward.  With that said I believe there are a lot of lessons we can all take from the last 4 years to play a small part in just being better people, myself included.

Jesus dude seriously?  So did European and Asian countries also lockdown because they are anti-Trump?

And are you going to respond at all to the point that you mis-understood the conclusions drawn here or no?

[cheebs09]

The timing of this study, Cuomo this week calling for bars and restaurants to reopen, Lightfoot doing the same etc is just all to convenient.

Choose to rationalize it away or call me dumb but it was all so predictable.  And to a previous comment in another thread, the goal of the lockdowns wasn't to prevent Trump from winning NY or IL, that of course was never going to happen.

It was to set a precedent that was then followed across the country to sink the economy thus taking away was his #1 talking point on the trail.  It was meant to divide and beat down the overall moral of the country and then point the finger at his administration as to the reason why.  It was to promote the idea that relaxed election laws were needed to allow for expanded mail in voting cause if it's not safe enough to go out for a bite to eat how can we expect people to vote in person.

It was all a game and we fell for it.  After watching the way Trump has handled the last 2 months I am relieved/excited to see a transition happen and Biden's Covid package he announced yesterday is a great first step to hopefully better days ahead.  I wish him all the luck the next 4 years and pray both sides of the aisle will work with him to move this country forward.  With that said I believe there are a lot of lessons we can all take from the last 4 years to play a small part in just being better people, myself included.

Did I stumble onto Parler?

[MU11W]

So if I'm following you correctly - the lockdowns were a coordinated effort to tank the US economy so that Trump wouldn't get re-elected? So is the blood on the hands of the state and local governments and not the federal government?  Sounds like you're saying the state & local governments were OK with any associated death as long as the economy tanked and Trump couldn't be re-elected.

I feel like this ignores the fact that lockdowns occurred all across the globe. So was this an international plot to tank the US economy and have how ever many people die all to ruin Trumps chances of re-election? 

Just want to make sure I'm following your logic.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm also confused, why did they wait so long to ask for slight reopens? It's not exactly Nov 5. I know it's right before Biden's sworn in but things have been set that way for awhile now.

[tower912]

Thank you for your input.

[MUBurrow]

The WH task force, Trump administration, media, and any elected official who parroted this farce has some explaining to do.

It was meant to divide and beat down the overall moral of the country and then point the finger at his administration as to the reason why. 

Life comes at you pretty fast.

[MU82]

The timing of this study, Cuomo this week calling for bars and restaurants to reopen, Lightfoot doing the same etc is just all to convenient.

Choose to rationalize it away or call me dumb but it was all so predictable.  And to a previous comment in another thread, the goal of the lockdowns wasn't to prevent Trump from winning NY or IL, that of course was never going to happen.

It was to set a precedent that was then followed across the country to sink the economy thus taking away was his #1 talking point on the trail.  It was meant to divide and beat down the overall moral of the country and then point the finger at his administration as to the reason why.  It was to promote the idea that relaxed election laws were needed to allow for expanded mail in voting cause if it's not safe enough to go out for a bite to eat how can we expect people to vote in person.

It was all a game and we fell for it.  After watching the way Trump has handled the last 2 months I am relieved/excited to see a transition happen and Biden's Covid package he announced yesterday is a great first step to hopefully better days ahead.  I wish him all the luck the next 4 years and pray both sides of the aisle will work with him to move this country forward.  With that said I believe there are a lot of lessons we can all take from the last 4 years to play a small part in just being better people, myself included.

Phew. That's sumthin'.

[jesmu84]

Man. Someone is pissed Trump got impeached again

[SERocks]

I am so sick and tired of people like Pace.  Lockdowns have issues indeed, but they do help.  Look at New Zealand and other countries.  We can argue the nuance of the lockdowns, but to blanket say they do not do any good and were only to torpedo Trump is complete bullshit.  I maintain that if Trump had handled the pandemic with ANY show of leadership, he would be a second term president.  His failure is on him and him alone.  What on earth is wrong with people.....

[pacearrow02]

I am so sick and tired of people like Pace.  Lockdowns have issues indeed, but they do help.  Look at New Zealand and other countries.  We can argue the nuance of the lockdowns, but to blanket say they do not do any good and were only to torpedo Trump is complete bullcrap.  I maintain that if Trump had handled the pandemic with ANY show of leadership, he would be a second term president.  His failure is on him and him alone.  What on earth is wrong with people.....

Follow the science.  If lockdowns help why at a time of exploding deaths and dangerously contagious new strains are we abandoning that strategy?  Are we intentionally trying to make it worse?

[pacearrow02]

Phew. That's sumthin'.

Haha, happy Friday! 

[pacearrow02]

Life comes at you pretty fast.

I acknowledged for quite awhile now that the administration made a huge mistake advocating for these partial lockdowns bast the initial 15-30 day "slow the spread" timeline. 

Not sure what you mean by your comment.  Just cause I supported him on most things doesn't mean all things?

[The Sultan]

Follow the science.  If lockdowns help why at a time of exploding deaths and dangerously contagious new strains are we abandoning that strategy?  Are we intentionally trying to make it worse?

Because the economic challenges are worsening and what we are doing to help people and businesses aren't enough.

And honestly, we are better at navigating safety issues as a society than we were 8-10 months ago.

[tower912]

If your point is merely that it is the wrong time to ease all restrictions, then we agree.    If your point is to try to score political points, it is stunning that you are not Chico's.

[wadesworld]

Lol!

Hilarious Ziggy's all in on it, too. We can make a profit on Scoop? That's dope.

[GooooMarquette]

Actually that's not what it says at all.  In fact, if you look at the "Supporting Information," it shows that business closures had a "significant effect on daily growth rate" in the United States.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Feci.13484&file=eci13484-sup-0001-FigS1.pdf

It also shows that school closures did NOT have a significant impact.

Anyway, the study specially says that less restrictive measures make an impact, but more restrictive ones don't add much to the initial impact overall.  This is hardly the case of "science deniers" such as yourself being right.


I know nothing about the authors or the publication.  But the poster made wildly inaccurate assumptions about what the study said in an attempt to being right.

Alas, no profit either.

Color me shocked....

[pacearrow02]

If your point is merely that it is the wrong time to ease all restrictions, then we agree.    If your point is to try to score political points, it is stunning that you are not Chico's.

Man I would love to meet this Chico character, seems like we'd be besties. 

I guess my point is people can't have it both ways.  Either lockdowns work in helping save lives and the criticism towards politicians who didn't enact them is justified but that means they better come with that same sauce now towards Cuomo, Lightfoot, Biden etc. 

And if you're not going to criticize leaders within your own party for easing these restrictions at a time when our numbers are at their worst, then just acknowledge that your past criticism was rooted in partisan hackery.  Just looking for consistency from our leaders and from the public.  And when leaders reverse course it'd be nice to offer up an explanation why restrictions were ok for the past year but now they're not when the next 60-90 days look quite challenging.

[pacearrow02]

Because the economic challenges are worsening and what we are doing to help people and businesses aren't enough.

And honestly, we are better at navigating safety issues as a society than we were 8-10 months ago.

So now it's ok to prioritize the economic hardships when businesses have been dying for almost a year.  What happened to the ol slogan of to get a healthy economy going again we need to take care of the health of this country?

There is nothing we've learned recently that we didn't know in the first 60 days to help the general public fight this.  Wear a mask and socially distance.  How are we better now as a society compared to say June?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Lol!

Hilarious Ziggy's all in on it, too. We can make a profit on Scoop? That's dope.

Rich kid like you knows all about profit.  Stalker.

[Galway Eagle]

Man I would love to meet this Chico character, seems like we'd be besties. 

I guess my point is people can't have it both ways.  Either lockdowns work in helping save lives and the criticism towards politicians who didn't enact them is justified but that means they better come with that same sauce now towards Cuomo, Lightfoot, Biden etc. 

And if you're not going to criticize leaders within your own party for easing these restrictions at a time when our numbers are at their worst, then just acknowledge that your past criticism was rooted in partisan hackery.  Just looking for consistency from our leaders and from the public.  And when leaders reverse course it'd be nice to offer up an explanation why restrictions were ok for the past year but now they're not when the next 60-90 days look quite challenging.

For the record I'm pretty sure a few Chicago regions are just below threshold for certain venues opening. But I agree with your overall point I don't think it's right for Lightfoot or cuomo to want to open. I think there should be inspectors for restaurants that put in extreme  safety measures over the summer/fall before they were shuttered again, to see if they can open but that's it.

[pacearrow02]

For the record I'm pretty sure a few Chicago regions are just below threshold for certain venues opening. But I agree with your overall point I don't think it's right for Lightfoot or cuomo to want to open. I think there should be inspectors for restaurants that put in extreme  safety measures over the summer/fall before they were shuttered again, to see if they can open but that's it.

👍👍 if the justification is long established benchmarks have been hit and she considers Chicago and low risk for further community spread then that's awesome!!