5 ms·

COVID what-ists? You mean all manner of people who have all manner of opinions and reasons for them that just so happen to differ from the views presented as sc

COVID what-ists? You mean all manner of people who have all manner of opinions and reasons for them that just so happen to differ from the views presented as scientific consensus by government, media and celebrities? Here is a summary of over 400 studies demonstrating lockdowns are ineffective or harmful: https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-interventions/ https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the... Prepare a sufficiently convincing argument against each and every one of them, and against the credentials of each and every author, before using the term "denialist" in application to anyone other than yourself.

FabHK 5y ago
- argvargc 5y ago
  Won't even examine 400 counter-claims? That's "denialism". Lockdowns working/not-working and/or causing collateral damage potentially eliminating other gains is not even remotely on par with astrology. Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at. Your rigid adherence to them as beacons of purity only demonstrates your religious-like faith in them, which strikes me as having far more in common with astrology than well-evidenced arguments by well-credentialed individuals that they might not work or be counterproductive.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    You just said it's been proven that lockdowns are harmful. Now you're saying the longterm results can't be known by anyone, only guessed at.
    - argvargc 5y ago
      No, I didn't. I said: > Here is a summary of over 400 studies demonstrating lockdowns are ineffective or harmful: You're welcome to present studies demonstrating the opposite, but even if you can find 400 of them (and I doubt you can), the best we'd have arrived at would be equal uncertainty either way. The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part.
      - squeaky-clean 5y ago
        But then you also said > Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at. So which one is it? Are your studies useful, or can the results only be guessed at, and so what's the point of your 400 studies? > The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part. It's amazing that you tell other people this yet don't seem to understand it yourself.
  - FabHK 5y ago
    I have no strong opinion on the lockdowns. In fact, when you have the optimal amount of lockdown, a large minority of the population might well think that they're too lenient, and a different large minority of the population might well think that they're too strong. What I object to is your demand that anyone disagreeing with you first go through 400 studies, individually, and find the flaws in them, and destruct the credentials of the authors.
xadhominemx 5y ago
Ok. I don’t care what the purported “studies” say. China, Taiwan, Australia had hard lockdowns. Taiwan and Australia have accurate statistics — they had virtually no COVID deaths and no excess deaths.
- argvargc 5y ago
  Sweden is 62nd on a list of 180 countries on deaths per capita. We can argue back and forth like this but why bother? If you don't care what the studies say, your mind is made up, making discussion with you valueless - for you.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    I’m not saying there’s a huge difference between light and lighter lockdowns (ie, Denmark/Norway/Germany vs Sweden). I’m saying lockdowns themselves don’t produce excess deaths vs baseline (as evidenced by Australia and Taiwan). Therefore, the excess deaths that occurred in the US, which are greater than official COVID deaths, indicate COVID deaths are being under counted, not over counted
    - argvargc 5y ago
      Doesn't basing your conclusion on the two countries that support it, out of a pool of ~200 that exist, seem a bit tentative? It's at about the same level as the counter argument regarding Sweden (which is one reason I made it). Have a look through the studies I linked, you'll find several that perform rigorous analysis on a large number of countries, including in some cases specifically regarding excess mortality. For example, have a look at Figures 2A and 2B from the following study. 38 countries compared by length of initial lockdown measures, versus per capita excess mortality for the period, and then the same measure compared across all states of the US: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w289... This doesn't support the hypothesis that lockdowns reduce excess deaths.

FabHK 5y ago

argvargc 5y ago
Won't even examine 400 counter-claims? That's "denialism". Lockdowns working/not-working and/or causing collateral damage potentially eliminating other gains is not even remotely on par with astrology. Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at. Your rigid adherence to them as beacons of purity only demonstrates your religious-like faith in them, which strikes me as having far more in common with astrology than well-evidenced arguments by well-credentialed individuals that they might not work or be counterproductive.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  You just said it's been proven that lockdowns are harmful. Now you're saying the longterm results can't be known by anyone, only guessed at.
  - argvargc 5y ago
    No, I didn't. I said: > Here is a summary of over 400 studies demonstrating lockdowns are ineffective or harmful: You're welcome to present studies demonstrating the opposite, but even if you can find 400 of them (and I doubt you can), the best we'd have arrived at would be equal uncertainty either way. The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part.
    - squeaky-clean 5y ago
      But then you also said > Lockdowns used in this manner are entirely unprecedented, and the long-term results cannot be known by anyone, only guessed at. So which one is it? Are your studies useful, or can the results only be guessed at, and so what's the point of your 400 studies? > The longterm results of anything for which a long term has not yet elapsed can indeed only be guessed at. The fact I need to point this out to many people is striking in its resemblance to some kind of mass delusion on their part. It's amazing that you tell other people this yet don't seem to understand it yourself.
- FabHK 5y ago
  I have no strong opinion on the lockdowns. In fact, when you have the optimal amount of lockdown, a large minority of the population might well think that they're too lenient, and a different large minority of the population might well think that they're too strong. What I object to is your demand that anyone disagreeing with you first go through 400 studies, individually, and find the flaws in them, and destruct the credentials of the authors.

xadhominemx 5y ago

Ok. I don’t care what the purported “studies” say. China, Taiwan, Australia had hard lockdowns. Taiwan and Australia have accurate statistics — they had virtually no COVID deaths and no excess deaths.

argvargc 5y ago
Sweden is 62nd on a list of 180 countries on deaths per capita. We can argue back and forth like this but why bother? If you don't care what the studies say, your mind is made up, making discussion with you valueless - for you.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  I’m not saying there’s a huge difference between light and lighter lockdowns (ie, Denmark/Norway/Germany vs Sweden). I’m saying lockdowns themselves don’t produce excess deaths vs baseline (as evidenced by Australia and Taiwan). Therefore, the excess deaths that occurred in the US, which are greater than official COVID deaths, indicate COVID deaths are being under counted, not over counted
  - argvargc 5y ago
    Doesn't basing your conclusion on the two countries that support it, out of a pool of ~200 that exist, seem a bit tentative? It's at about the same level as the counter argument regarding Sweden (which is one reason I made it). Have a look through the studies I linked, you'll find several that perform rigorous analysis on a large number of countries, including in some cases specifically regarding excess mortality. For example, have a look at Figures 2A and 2B from the following study. 38 countries compared by length of initial lockdown measures, versus per capita excess mortality for the period, and then the same measure compared across all states of the US: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w289... This doesn't support the hypothesis that lockdowns reduce excess deaths.