One chart exposes the lie behind universal lockdowns

[TBoneTX 45,571]

For our statisticians and lockdown proponents.

Quote

One chart exposes the lie behind universal lockdowns

Daniel Horowitz · May 14, 2020

 

What is the true infection fatality rate of COVID-19, broken down by age and health status?  This is a simple question for which the CDC should have a clear answer by now, accompanied by a readable chart – a chart showing everyone's demographic risk assessment so that we can better target our infection mitigation efforts.  Yet it's the one thing our government hasn't done. Wonder why?  [...]

 

Continues here: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-one-chart-exposes-lie-behind-universal-lockdowns/  

[Dashinka 24,629]

Darn those statistics.

[90DayFinancier 910]

13 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

For our statisticians and lockdown proponents.

What a joke: 

Without the help of a statistician, physician or epidemiologist, this columnist found a chart of resident's of the Netherlands, in Dutch, on data from an unknown timeframe, for people that are the (apparently a asymptomatic) who donated blood and were tested by an unknown method. translated it to English, by Google translate and from that he divined that he divined that all of the measures put in place are a waste.

 

Just like the now discredited Palo Alto study, you cannot extrapolate how many people have been exposed from a small  subset of the population and determine who has and has not been exposed in a large nation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,629]

27 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

What a joke: 

Without the help of a statistician, physician or epidemiologist, this columnist found a chart of resident's of the Netherlands, in Dutch, on data from an unknown timeframe, for people that are the (apparently a asymptomatic) who donated blood and were tested by an unknown method. translated it to English, by Google translate and from that he divined that he divined that all of the measures put in place are a waste.

 

Just like the now discredited Palo Alto study, you cannot extrapolate how many people have been exposed from a small  subset of the population and determine who has and has not been exposed in a large nation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are correct, the extrapolation to the entire population is tenuous at best, but the anti-body testing is showing a lot more folks have been exposed to this virus than what has been identified so far.

[90DayFinancier 910]

14 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

You are correct, the extrapolation to the entire population is tenuous at best, but the anti-body testing is showing a lot more folks have been exposed to this virus than what has been identified so far.

I think that goes without saying, the capacity to test is so far behind the infection rate. Undoubtedly many who passed in January due to pneumonia actually had the virus.

[OriZ 3,157]

I know someone who lives in NYC who swears she had it in mid Jan. At the time there were no known cases there and nobody thought she did. Who knows how many other people she gave it to. She said it was like nothing she has ever had before. No doubt there are many more people who have it or have had it. The stats used in this article are totally skewed however. 

 

Regarding asymptomatic - 97% is highly unlikely. Even in Iceland, where they have tested a large portion of the population, it's around 50%, and even then, that is only at the time of testing. It includes people who were tested, and then went on to develop symptoms.

Edited May 18, 2020 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,629]

9 hours ago, OriZ said:

I know someone who lives in NYC who swears she had it in mid Jan. At the time there were no known cases there and nobody thought she did. Who knows how many other people she gave it to. She said it was like nothing she has ever had before. No doubt there are many more people who have it or have had it. The stats used in this article are totally skewed however. 

 

Regarding asymptomatic - 97% is highly unlikely. Even in Iceland, where they have tested a large portion of the population, it's around 50%, and even then, that is only at the time of testing. It includes people who were tested, and then went on to develop symptoms.

If that person you knew wore a mask or self quarantined when she was sick, she could have minimized her spreading it to anyone else.  I had a strange illness a few days after returning from China in mid-December.  In my case, it was relatively mild with a low grade fever, dry cough, and just weird flu like symptoms.  Luckily when I came home I was on a work break for two weeks, so I stayed away from everyone.  Was it Covid?  Maybe the flu even with a flu shot?  Who knows?  But it definitely was something I hadn’t experienced before.

[yuna628 9,686]

17 hours ago, Dashinka said:

You are correct, the extrapolation to the entire population is tenuous at best, but the anti-body testing is showing a lot more folks have been exposed to this virus than what has been identified so far.

Honestly? We can't take any anti-body testing numbers to heart yet because those tests have many many problems which give out false results. 

[Dashinka 24,629]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Honestly? We can't take any anti-body testing numbers to heart yet because those tests have many many problems which give out false results. 

Yes, the antibody testing is questionable right now especially the home versions being peddled.  However, if we are to take the fact that this virus is extra contagious as compared to other viruses, it stands to reason there are many people out there that had it with no symptoms.

[OriZ 3,157]

14 hours ago, Dashinka said:

If that person you knew wore a mask or self quarantined when she was sick, she could have minimized her spreading it to anyone else.  I had a strange illness a few days after returning from China in mid-December.  In my case, it was relatively mild with a low grade fever, dry cough, and just weird flu like symptoms.  Luckily when I came home I was on a work break for two weeks, so I stayed away from everyone.  Was it Covid?  Maybe the flu even with a flu shot?  Who knows?  But it definitely was something I hadn’t experienced before.

I am definitely on board with anyone who is sick, even with the cold, staying home. I always hated it when sick people came to work where I used to work, and would always try to stay away from them. The problem is, in the US, employers encourage you to come to work sick. I remember back when my wife used to work for a large grocery chain - if she wasn't dying, she could get in serious trouble. This is common in the US where employers don't care about their employees.

 

There are other countries, such as the Netherlands, where it's strongly discouraged to show up for work when you're sick. This is the much smarter approach, even from the employer's own perspective if they weren't so short sighted. Why bring someone in who is sick and will infect others and risk potentially losing an even larger portion of your workforce just because you couldn't handle this one person not showing up? It's dumb.

 

The other issue is the employees themselves - in the US sick days are nowhere near aplenty as other countries, so an employee isn't only facing the prospect of getting written up or fired, but also simply running out of days. It's totally backwards.

 

People with any cold, flu, covid or other symptoms should stay home. period.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

16 hours ago, OriZ said:

I am definitely on board with anyone who is sick, even with the cold, staying home. I always hated it when sick people came to work where I used to work, and would always try to stay away from them. The problem is, in the US, employers encourage you to come to work sick. I remember back when my wife used to work for a large grocery chain - if she wasn't dying, she could get in serious trouble. This is common in the US where employers don't care about their employees.

 

There are other countries, such as the Netherlands, where it's strongly discouraged to show up for work when you're sick. This is the much smarter approach, even from the employer's own perspective if they weren't so short sighted. Why bring someone in who is sick and will infect others and risk potentially losing an even larger portion of your workforce just because you couldn't handle this one person not showing up? It's dumb.

 

The other issue is the employees themselves - in the US sick days are nowhere near aplenty as other countries, so an employee isn't only facing the prospect of getting written up or fired, but also simply running out of days. It's totally backwards.

 

People with any cold, flu, covid or other symptoms should stay home. period.

Those symptoms are simple coughs, elevated temp, and so on, things that are so general it's utterly moronic to stay home for.. it can very easily not even be an illness, or one that's transmittable, just someone feeling like poop.

 

It's also essential to understand this in biological and historical context as far as individual and societal function goes. For one, humanity didn't survive because it locked itself up away from illnesses. It fought them. Why? Because that's how you develop an immune system. Do you have any kids? From when they can crawl around, they stick their mouths, tongues, fingers/hands all over everything, stick their wet hands and fingers with their own saliva all over everything, and put their fingers back in their mouths. They're human petri dishes, and it gets worse when they start school, where they touch all the walls, the water fountains, other kids, clothes, playground equipment, rails, tables, chairs, and so on, meaning by just being young kids they spread disease like wildfire. But that's exactly how they become adults with functional immune systems. Also, there's nowhere you can run from microscopic things in the air. We don't know where viruses come from, so we don't know how we can wipe them out. The only way we know of their presence is confirmed infections. Two, yes, it's polite to stay home, if you can, and you are clearly sick and symptomatic with something that's contagious. If one presumes every cough or sickly feeling someone has means illness and doesn't come in to work, society halts and is crippled to a stand-still. 

 

So there's really no justifying this sort of overreaction for things such a high percent of the populace easily survives. Those few who are vulnerable in this case, we logically isolate them, not all of us.

 

It's also not to remove personal responsibility. If someone knows they have a contagious illness, are advised, and they ignore warnings, as was done here in Alberta, and they flout that and go get a bunch of people sick anyways, they deserve to suffer the consequences. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,293]

I don't know why we should trust someone who has had issues with interpreting statistics before: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2019/10/13/conservative-review-daniel-horowitz-made-misleading-claims-migrants-arizona/2421708001/

 

I tried to find out what his background is in besides being a senior editor for Conservative Review but I came up with pretty much nothing. I do this because when it comes to COVID19, I'm trusting experts. When it comes to the economy, I'm listening to economists and those in financial services in their areas of knowledge and expertise. When it comes to the effects of the virus on people of all ages, I'm listening to epidemiologists and public health officials. I listen to the stories of the health care professionals who are treating patients to hear about symptoms and how the virus presents itself in patients and what recovery looks like. I'm looking for consensus. I also look for criticism from trustworthy critics -- those who are experienced in an area relevant to their criticism. 

 

It's not about automatically distrusting a messenger, but where there are issues of health and safety involved, I want to hear from people who have relevant experience and depth of knowledge. I have no idea who Daniel Horowitz is or why I should trust what he's saying.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Those symptoms are simple coughs, elevated temp, and so on, things that are so general it's utterly moronic to stay home for.. it can very easily not even be an illness, or one that's transmittable, just someone feeling like poop.

 

It's also essential to understand this in biological and historical context as far as individual and societal function goes. For one, humanity didn't survive because it locked itself up away from illnesses. It fought them. Why? Because that's how you develop an immune system. Do you have any kids? From when they can crawl around, they stick their mouths, tongues, fingers/hands all over everything, stick their wet hands and fingers with their own saliva all over everything, and put their fingers back in their mouths. They're human petri dishes, and it gets worse when they start school, where they touch all the walls, the water fountains, other kids, clothes, playground equipment, rails, tables, chairs, and so on, meaning by just being young kids they spread disease like wildfire. But that's exactly how they become adults with functional immune systems. Also, there's nowhere you can run from microscopic things in the air. We don't know where viruses come from, so we don't know how we can wipe them out. The only way we know of their presence is confirmed infections. Two, yes, it's polite to stay home, if you can, and you are clearly sick and symptomatic with something that's contagious. If one presumes every cough or sickly feeling someone has means illness and doesn't come in to work, society halts and is crippled to a stand-still. 

 

So there's really no justifying this sort of overreaction for things such a high percent of the populace easily survives. Those few who are vulnerable in this case, we logically isolate them, not all of us.

 

It's also not to remove personal responsibility. If someone knows they have a contagious illness, are advised, and they ignore warnings, as was done here in Alberta, and they flout that and go get a bunch of people sick anyways, they deserve to suffer the consequences. 

Totally moronic to not stay home for it. If you feel sick, stay home. This really can't be any clearer. I'm not talking about allergies...a person knows if they're sick or not.

 

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I'm all for not over-sanitizing. I always liked to play in mud...nowadays as an adult I just make sure to get my dose of sporebiotics. We haven't changed how we clean our house either since this pandemic started, I think the recommendation to constantly sanitize counters and stuff is ridiculous. 

 

But someone bringing their sickness to you because either they or their employer don't want them to stay home? Baloney. no justification whatsoever.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Totally moronic to not stay home for it. If you feel sick, stay home. This really can't be any clearer. I'm not talking about allergies...a person knows if they're sick or not.

 

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I'm all for not over-sanitizing. I always liked to play in mud...nowadays as an adult I just make sure to get my dose of sporebiotics. We haven't changed how we clean our house either since this pandemic started, I think the recommendation to constantly sanitize counters and stuff is ridiculous. 

 

But someone bringing their sickness to you because either they or their employer don't want them to stay home? Baloney. no justification whatsoever.

No they don't. They guess. For example, despite young children being sick often fighting contagious pathogens, the vast majority of the people who diagnose their young children as sick are wrong way over 90% of the time. If we used your criteria simultaneously for keeping children home they'd miss like half the year, especially in colder climates. 

 

So "feeling sick" is a garbage criteria for missing work, when people associate "feeling sick" with anything from a fever/low grade fever, to coughing, to runny nose, to seasonal allergies (which you sort of mentioned), to something non-contagious and non-debilitating. In a perfect world, people would only work (or be in an environment around others) under the most ideal/optimal conditions. In the real world, it doesn't work that way.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Oliversmom 250]

On 5/19/2020 at 1:13 AM, OriZ said:

I am definitely on board with anyone who is sick, even with the cold, staying home. I always hated it when sick people came to work where I used to work, and would always try to stay away from them. The problem is, in the US, employers encourage you to come to work sick. I remember back when my wife used to work for a large grocery chain - if she wasn't dying, she could get in serious trouble. This is common in the US where employers don't care about their employees.

 

There are other countries, such as the Netherlands, where it's strongly discouraged to show up for work when you're sick. This is the much smarter approach, even from the employer's own perspective if they weren't so short sighted. Why bring someone in who is sick and will infect others and risk potentially losing an even larger portion of your workforce just because you couldn't handle this one person not showing up? It's dumb.

 

The other issue is the employees themselves - in the US sick days are nowhere near aplenty as other countries, so an employee isn't only facing the prospect of getting written up or fired, but also simply running out of days. It's totally backwards.

 

People with any cold, flu, covid or other symptoms should stay home. period.

I agree.  I used to be a preschool teacher and I was told to come in even when I had fever.  It was ridiculous.  When I would get a doctor's note that said I had to stay home she would want the diagnosis written on it.  She constantly questioned me about my medical history.  I was so happy to quit that job.