Canadian Money Forum banner

5121 - 5140 of 5161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
@damian13ster,

I honestly don't know the point you're trying to make.
We KNOW that if people aren't interacting, communicable dieseases like COVID spread less.
That's the entire point. We do not KNOW.
It is possible that just by being in the same space within specified period of time (shopping, any enclosed building, same airspace with poor ventilation or air movement) you can get infected.
If that is the case then it makes lockdowns absolutely useless because it is physically impossible not to have multiple people in the same airspace in any extended time period, as there are still basic needs that need to be satisfied.

There is zero indication that any of the forbidden activities, or sum of all those activities, are less risk than going to grocery store at 25% capacity. And since you can't forbid people from eating and acquiring the food, then they already are exposed to the virus no matter how else they spend rest of their time.

If that is the case then lockdowns don't result in significant risk reduction, therefore only effect they have is negative one on mental health, finances, stability, and physical health.

There are indications too that it is indeed the case. That masking, mechanical ventilation, and limiting total time spent indoors is effective use. Lockdowns are not.
Locking people down to spend more time indoors is literally the single worst thing that can be done
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
The point I am trying to make is that science doesn't indicate lockdowns are helpful.
They are done purely for political reasons as inaction could be seen negatively, as polls continue to show.

Government is either unintelligent enough or pragmatic enough to ignore science, and not introduce measures that could be helpful (repurposing of ventilation system in public buildings, limiting time spent indoors, providing as many outdoor activities as possible so people don't stay home or even worse, in apartment buildings), but instead introduce measures that harm the population (restricting outdoor activity, restricting access to medical services, telling people to stay home, closing borders) only because they are popular in polls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,205 Posts
The point I am trying to make is that science doesn't indicate lockdowns are helpful.
They are done purely for political reasons as inaction could be seen negatively, as polls continue to show.

Government is either unintelligent enough or pragmatic enough to ignore science, and not introduce measures that could be helpful (repurposing of ventilation system in public buildings, limiting time spent indoors, providing as many outdoor activities as possible so people don't stay home or even worse, in apartment buildings), but instead introduce measures that harm the population (restricting outdoor activity, restricting access to medical services, telling people to stay home, closing borders) only because they are popular in polls.
True! There is no any proof that Covid waves coming because of level of lockdowns. When 3rd wave started in Ontario, practically nothing got changed (allowing outdoor patios in March is dumb), we were in lockdown before 3rd wave and stayed in lockdown after 3rd wave, people were partying before 3rd wave and during 3rd wave.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
The point I am trying to make is that science doesn't indicate lockdowns are helpful.
They are done purely for political reasons as inaction could be seen negatively, as polls continue to show.
You're missing the point.
We know that if person A has COVID, and is far away from person B, person B will not get COVID.

We know this, because this is how this disease spreads.

I'm not arguing the political nature of this, just that we know that keeping people apart will slow or stop transmission.
I'm also not arguing the political or practical impact of any particular directive or policy.

Just from first principles, if we want to stop the spread, we should reduce the opportunities for spread. Lockdowns are a simple way to accomplish that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
That is not true.
We know that if person A has COVID, goes shopping, spends some time (depending on mask, viral load, ventilation in the store), then a person B being 60ft away will also get COVID simply by being in the same store.
This is literally what the MIT research states.
We also know that if a person A has COVID, stays in apartment, stays at home, then significant proportion of people in same apartment building, same home, will also get COVID due to central ventilation system.

We know that if a person A has COVID, goes playing golf, tennis, walk in the park, swimming pool, plays soccer with friends, they will not get COVID. Yet all of those activities were limited at some point, with some still being limited.

Lockdowns are forcing people indoors - and that is where the transmission happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
That is not true.
We know that if person A has COVID, goes shopping, spends some time (depending on mask, viral load, ventilation in the store), then a person B being 60ft away will also get COVID simply by being in the same store.
This is literally what the MIT research states.

We know that if a person A has COVID, goes playing golf, tennis, walk in the park, swimming pool, plays soccer with friends, they will not get COVID. Yet all of those activities were limited at some point, with some still being limited.

Lockdowns are forcing people indoors - and that is where the transmission happens.
You are arguing what you think good and bad restrictions are.

If you are playing soccer with someone who has COVID, it is possible that you could catch COVID from them. Having played soccer, sometimes you can smell what they had for dinner, clearly that's an opportunity to spread an airborne respiratory virus, basketball is even worse. I have not read any study that says it is safe to have a COVID19 person breathing on you.

Just like if you're in the same store, swimming pool, apartment building, city bus etc.

It's a political decision what to restrict and what not to restrict.
I'm saying restricting works, I'm specifically remaining neutral on the trade offs of any particular restriction.

Remember, I was not in favour of closing schools in 2021, because schools (surprisingly) don't spread COVID.


In summary my position is
1. Lockdowns and restrictions (if complied with) work (to some degree).
2. The restrictions may not be appropriate depending on the required trade offs.

It's a reasonable argument to discuss trade offs, but to say there is "no risk", and claim restrictions "don't work" is simply garbage.
That's like the supervised injection site "research" claiming "no downsides"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
And that is my position:
1. Lockdowns force people indoors
2. Vast majority of transmission happens indoors
3. For that reason Lockdowns don't limit the spread - they enhance conditions necessary for the spread.

For this reason it is far from 'garbage' to say lockdowns don't work.

Regarding your other points:
  • there were multiple test matches in soccer (not aware of any in basketball) that showed there was no transmission
  • there were actual test, packed music festivals that showed no transmission - being outdoors is extremely low risk
  • 'restrictions don't work' in the context means restrictions introduced by governments, not any single hypothetical action that possibly could be used
The one thing we do agree on is that all decisions made are political and completely ignore or openly contradict the science.
Case in point:
And all government did was to increase penalties
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
And that is my position:
1. Lockdowns force people indoors
2. Vast majority of transmission happens indoors
3. For that reason Lockdowns don't limit the spread - they enhance conditions necessary for the spread.

For this reason it is far from 'garbage' to say lockdowns don't work.

Regarding your other points:
  • there were multiple test matches in soccer (not aware of any in basketball) that showed there was no transmission
  • there were actual test, packed music festivals that showed no transmission - being outdoors is extremely low risk
  • 'restrictions don't work' in the context means restrictions introduced by governments, not any single hypothetical action that possibly could be used
Except that if only the family is in that residence, they have nobody to spread it to.
With or without lockdowns a household is very likely to spread.

I'm not aware of any study showing that COVID19 positive players don't spread to other players. I can accept that the risk might be low, but it isn't zero.

I think reducing the number of closed spaces that people can congregate in is a lockdown measure that does limit spread. We actually DO agree on a number of restrictions that are effective.

You just think that the trade off isn't worth it, which is a distinctly different argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Maybe. So lockdowns only for single-family detached house owners?
People in apartments, condos, and townhouses are encouraged to go out as often as possible to avoid the spread?
Maybe that's the idea to stop the housing cost inflation :ROFLMAO:

Liverpool ran a bunch of music festivals, business conference, and party in the clubs.
Among 13,000 participants 4 were determined to have COVID prior to attending, a total of 7 were tested positive a week after the event. No masks, no social distance. Virtually all of the positives were from a club showing that ventilation is key.

Risk of outdoor activities even in unmasked crowds at massive concerts is extremely low as shown in the pilot tests.
You think that running by someone in soccer is higher risk than a full on rave?

Reducing the number of closed spaces that people can congregate in is a lockdown measure that actually increases the concentration of people and time spent in enclosed spaces that remain open. Simply because people have fewer places to go. Have you had a pleasure of visiting a shopping mall during pandemic? Never seen such crowds prior to other businesses and safe outdoor activities being forced to close. The absolute gem was limiting hours shops can be open to make sure as many people as possible try to go at the same time :ROFLMAO:

Perhaps we DO agree on a number of restrictions that are effective, but not a single one was actually introduced so there is no way to verify them. The governments introduced only ineffective measures, as is proven by lockdowns being longest in the world and peaks being 14 months into restrictions.

Hard to even talk about trade-off. Something that proved to be completely ineffective if not counter-productive can't be really called a trade-off. There is no positive to it, it is completely useless. On that alone it should never be introduced, without even having to quantify the harm that was caused
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
Maybe. So lockdowns only for single-family detached house owners?
People in apartments, condos, and townhouses are encouraged to go out as often as possible to avoid the spread?
Maybe that's the idea to stop the housing cost inflation :ROFLMAO:

Liverpool ran a bunch of music festivals, business conference, and party in the clubs.
Among 13,000 participants 4 were determined to have COVID prior to attending, a total of 7 were tested positive a week after the event. No masks, no social distance. Virtually all of the positives were from a club showing that ventilation is key.
Don't know this,don't know if all 4 COVID19 positive were communicable at the time of the event, but even then this is nearly an R of 2, which would cause the disease to spread.

Risk of outdoor activities even in unmasked crowds at massive concerts is extremely low as shown in the pilot tests.
You think that running by someone in soccer is higher risk than a full on rave?
No opinion, though it's likely higher than 0.

Reducing the number of closed spaces that people can congregate in is a lockdown measure that actually increases the concentration of people and time spent in enclosed spaces that remain open. Simply because people have fewer places to go.
Fewer?
Every new location is an additional risk, that's my point.

Have you had a pleasure of visiting a shopping mall during pandemic?
No, wouldn't call it a pleasure either.

Never seen such crowds prior to other businesses and safe outdoor activities being forced to close. The absolute gem was limiting hours shops can be open to make sure as many people as possible try to go at the same time :ROFLMAO:
Again, I think that is a dumb idea, I even said so.
I think stores should have been open nearly 24/7 except for restocking.

Perhaps we DO agree on a number of restrictions that are effective, but not a single one was actually introduced so there is no way to verify them.
Except the precipitous drop in new cases.

The governments introduced only ineffective measures, as is proven by lockdowns being longest in the world and peaks being 14 months into restrictions.
You claim that there was no way to verify, then claim that they only introduced "ineffective measures", you can't have it both ways.

The peaks happened after holidays where people intermixed a great deal.

Hard to even talk about trade-off. Something that proved to be completely ineffective if not counter-productive can't be really called a trade-off. There is no positive to it, it is completely useless. On that alone it should never be introduced, without even having to quantify the harm that was caused
"No Positive" again a biased view.
I think that basketball should have been shut down long before tennis or golf, due to the close proximity.
However then there would be the class based discrimination argument, so the "positive" reason to ban golf was to avoid that and appear "fair".
Appearing "fair" is an important political consideration.

Myself I think that they should have closed the borders, locked down super hard right from the beginning, like all the countries that were successful.
As it is we have more contagious variants and we'll be bouncing around, though I think lockdowns are effectively over, the political will is gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Don't know this,don't know if all 4 COVID19 positive were communicable at the time of the event, but even then this is nearly an R of 2, which would cause the disease to spread.


No opinion, though it's likely higher than 0.


Fewer?
Every new location is an additional risk, that's my point.


No, wouldn't call it a pleasure either.


Again, I think that is a dumb idea, I even said so.
I think stores should have been open nearly 24/7 except for restocking.


Except the precipitous drop in new cases.


You claim that there was no way to verify, then claim that they only introduced "ineffective measures", you can't have it both ways.

The peaks happened after holidays where people intermixed a great deal.


"No Positive" again a biased view.
I think that basketball should have been shut down long before tennis or golf, due to the close proximity.
However then there would be the class based discrimination argument, so the "positive" reason to ban golf was to avoid that and appear "fair".
Appearing "fair" is an important political consideration.

Myself I think that they should have closed the borders, locked down super hard right from the beginning, like all the countries that were successful.
As it is we have more contagious variants and we'll be bouncing around, though I think lockdowns are effectively over, the political will is gone.
The amount of infections didn't deviate from general population.
Same with test music festival in Spain.
Therefore it isn't an event with R of 2. It showed that the event didn't add to spread seen in general populace.

Well, if you didn't go then I understand how you would have an idea that keeping less areas open will not contribute to higher density in those areas - that idea is incorrect though. If you give people less options, more will choose the available ones. Those that would normally spend their time playing soccer, tennis, staying safely outdoors are left with no options other than go to open indoor spaces and increase the risk of spread.

I think you misunderstood me. The modifications I believe would be effective weren't introduced, therefore one can't verify their effectiveness.

Your next point is useless as it is based on misinterpretation from my previous one. I don't have it both ways.
Only commenting on restrictions introduced as data shows they were ineffective.
Not commenting on restrictions that weren't introduced, as there is no data on them. I can have an opinion on them, but it isn't verifiable therefore it is nothing more than an opinion.

Didn't governments make it a point to have tough restrictions in time of holidays? Just another proof that restrictions are ineffective.

Other restrictions were introduced, and data from 160 jurisdictions have shown they didn't decrease the numbers (just so we don't go into weird cycle, I am not drawing any conclusions, just stating that data have shown that restrictions introduced didn't have any correlation with ICU numbers or lower deaths - verifiable and peer-reviewed fact).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts

- When the impact of measures taken to control COVID‑19 are examined, what is import‑ ant is also the ultimate impact on mortality. Cao, Hiyoshi and Montgomery (2020) using aggregate international data found testing policies are associated with a 2.23% decrease in case fatality rates (CFR) while strictness of anti-COVID‑19 measures—from the COVID‑19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT)7 was not statistically signifi‑ cantly associated with CFR overall, but a higher position in the OxCGRT was actually associated with higher CFR in higher-income countries with active testing policies.

Meanwhile, Cao, Hiyoshi, and Montgomery (2020) use global country-level data to investigate the relationship between the COVID‑19 case-fatality rate and demographic and socio-economic factors. They find a significant positive correlation between COVID‑19 case fatality rates (CFR) and the population size of countries—especially in higher- and middle-income countries—as well as the proportion of female smokers in a country. There was a negative correlation between COVID‑19 CFR and diabetes preva‑ lence and also with the rate of death from cardiovascular disease. They also found that the COVID‑19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT)—a composite measure based on nine indicators—was not a statistically significant determinant of Case Fatality Rates and even found some positive association in the higher-income countries.
Summarizing, these studies suggest that age structure—namely the proportion of elderly in the population—was an important determinant of the severity of the COVID‑19 pan‑ demic with low income also being a factor. While none of these studies stressed income inequality as a factor in the severity of COVID‑19, the issue has been raised in some literature along with the view that global income inequality has been made worse by the pandemic.26 International travel also seems to have been a factor, but this result is usually from studies made early on in the pandemic and, given the travel shut-downs that also occurred within the first few months, a longer time series would likely see less emphasis from this effect. The proportion of smokers was of some significance but, of pre-existing conditions, only obesity seemed to be of some consequence in raising mortality while other conditions like diabetes or cardiovascular disease seemed to have mixed effects. As well, testing for the virus was seen to be important in reducing infection rates and mortality but the stringency measures in general were also more mixed in their effects on outcomes.

Again, this suggests that protracted restrictions were of limited effectiveness in combat‑ ting the pandemic over the longer term but quite effective in reducing economic activ‑ ity. Given that changes in restrictions are statistically significant variables but not the level of restrictions in specific months suggests that it may be abrupt stops and starts to restrictions that damage growth rather than extended but steady periods of restrictions. Indeed, the case has been made that short and very sharp lockdowns with clear direc‑ tives work best in dealing with the pandemic rather than long lockdowns with porous restrictions enacted as a sort of political compromise between fighting the virus and keeping the public happy (e.g., Sheikh and Sheikh, 2021; Fasani, 2020).

Lockdowns, quarantines, and travel restrictions have hurt the international travel indus‑ try and the labour-intensive personal services, food and accommodation, tourism, and arts and entertainment sectors as well as disrupted the global supply chain. The severity of containment measures and restrictions as measured by the OxCGRT varied across countries. Aside from measures enacted early on in the pandemic, levels of stringency or a ramping up of stringency do not appear to have significantly reduced COVID‑19 cases per million population though high rates of testing do seem to have been a factor in eventually reducing the number of cases. Moreover, increased testing also appears a factor in mitigating the death toll. However, stringency again does not appear to have been a major factor in curbing the death toll from COVID‑19 aside from early on in the pandemic. This would suggest that the use of stringency measures such as lockdowns are best employed as short, sharp measures early on rather than as a protracted long-term tool. However, whether lock‑ downs are a substitute or complement for other comprehensive public-health measures such as case testing and tracking, wearing of masks, and general public compliance with rules is not possible to answer with this evidence. As well, the experience of individual countries like Taiwan, which stayed largely open for business during the pandemic, is worthy of further study

An important factor raising mortality from COVID‑19 appear to have been the popula‑ tion share of elderly while an important factor reducing the mortality was the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population. This latter variable is interesting because, while it was significant, the percentage share of GDP devoted to health spending was not. This suggests that in the end, even with abundant medical resources, it was probably not just how much you spent on dealing with COVID‑19 but how it was spent and allocated in the recent past that mattered more. In the case of hospital beds, for example, even for the IMF35 advanced economies, hospital beds per 1,000 population ranged from a high of 13.1 in Japan, 12.2 in South Korea. and 8.0 in Germany to lows of 2.5 in Canada and Denmark, 2.4 in Singapore, and 2.2 in Sweden.

As a further point of interest, countries that were heavily affected by the SARS in 2004 collectively appear to have had significantly lower incidence of COVID‑19 and fewer deaths, though even here the experience seems variable. Five countries experienced more Di Matteo • Global Storm—Effects of COVID-19 and Responses around the World • 53 fraserinstitute.org than 100 cases during the SARS outbreak in the first decade of the 21st century—China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Canada. However, as figures 27A and figure 27B illus‑ trate, if there were any lessons to be learned from SARS about containing a pandemic and reducing the death rate, they do not appear to have been as well heeded in Canada, which during the COVID‑19 pandemic had the highest numbers of cases and deaths per million of these five countries.

While stringency measures such as lockdowns had limits in dealing with either the spread or mortality from COVID‑19, they certainly appear to have been effective in having a consistently negative impact on real GDP growth in 2020. In the end, it was not the deaths from COVID‑19 per se that devastated economies, but more the restrictions and stringency measures enacted to reduce its spread. Exports were a particularly important variable and countries that managed to increase their exports during the pandemic did better. Oddly enough, economic growth in countries with larger public sectors appear to have done worse during the pandemic and it is not entirely clear as to why that might be.



Canada did brilliantly :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
  • highest increase in government spending
  • 2nd highest increase in unemployment
  • highest reduction in revenue
  • 2.5x higher deficit than mortality would indicate
  • 26/35 in testing levels
  • highest deficit in developed world (4th highest in the world overall, behind a country that had its capital leveled by equivalent of 40 atomic bombs and nations with tourism responsible for >60% GDP)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,951 Posts
And that is my position:
1. Lockdowns force people indoors
2. Vast majority of transmission happens indoors
3. For that reason Lockdowns don't limit the spread - they enhance conditions necessary for the spread.

For this reason it is far from 'garbage' to say lockdowns don't work.

Regarding your other points:
  • there were multiple test matches in soccer (not aware of any in basketball) that showed there was no transmission
  • there were actual test, packed music festivals that showed no transmission - being outdoors is extremely low risk
  • 'restrictions don't work' in the context means restrictions introduced by governments, not any single hypothetical action that possibly could be used
The one thing we do agree on is that all decisions made are political and completely ignore or openly contradict the science.
Case in point:
And all government did was to increase penalties
So, you think a bunch of office workers should be manning their cubicles right now, because social distancing doesn't work. And might as well have stores, gyms and restaurants at full capacity, to maximize exposure to others in enclosed spaces?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I don't claim anything. Science claims that with a proper ventilation system and masking there is no spread in classrooms or offices if time spent there is less than 7 days continuously. Just read the MIT study.
Exactly the same applies to all the other spaces you have mentioned. Proper ventilation + masks. Time limit based on air exchange capacity. It turned out that if you close those spaces then people will get infected regardless. Science and data show that restrictions don't limit deaths from COVID.

Again. I don't claim anything. Science does. Restrictions introduced by governments past early stage of the pandemic don't work. I am not claiming I am smart enough to understand everything that is going on and what the reasons are. That's why I look at science and data.

Read the excerpts from the post directly before yours, entire report, and if you wish then all individual scientific studies referenced in it. Feel free to verify all the data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
I don't claim anything. Science claims that with a proper ventilation system and masking there is no spread in classrooms or offices if time spent there is less than 7 days continuously. Just read the MIT study.
But magically in hospitals and long term care homes we kept having outbreaks?

Again. I don't claim anything. Science does. Restrictions introduced by governments past early stage of the pandemic don't work. I am not claiming I am smart enough to understand everything that is going on and what the reasons are. That's why I look at science and data.
Again you are making an overly broad claim.
You can't claim all restrictions didn't work, you even agree the mask mandate likely worked, as suggested by your summary of the MIT study.

That's all I'm saying, the measures had a wide range of effectiveness.

I just look at jurisdictions with high and low levels of interventions and I see those like Taiwan and Australia where they were very effective. It is obvious that some interventions are effective.

I understand you're an anti restriction guy, but your overly broad claims make people dismiss your opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
But magically in hospitals and long term care homes we kept having outbreaks?


Again you are making an overly broad claim.
You can't claim all restrictions didn't work, you even agree the mask mandate likely worked, as suggested by your summary of the MIT study.

That's all I'm saying, the measures had a wide range of effectiveness.

I just look at jurisdictions with high and low levels of interventions and I see those like Taiwan and Australia where they were very effective. It is obvious that some interventions are effective.

I understand you're an anti restriction guy, but your overly broad claims make people dismiss your opinion.
Yes, in hospitals and long term care homes we had outbreaks. Because people were kept inside with central ventilation system. They were kept indoors for extended period of time - and for that reason they were exposed. Same reason they were outbreaks in apartment buildings. Keeping people inside in such settings helps the spread

I don't consider mask mandate as restriction - it is a mandate. You don't restrict anyone from running their business. You don't restrict anyone from attending any activity. You don't restrict anyone from taking care of their health, taking care of their loved ones, from participating in an economy. You mandate that they were a mask while doing it. I was never anti-mask indoors

Taiwan didn't have high restrictions at all. They never shut down businesses, they never had a lockdown. And yes, among 200 countries they look at there will be outliers to both sides. That's why you look at entirety of data instead of dismissing entire data because of couple of outliers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
Taiwan didn't have high restrictions at all. They never shut down businesses, they never had a lockdown. And yes, among 200 countries they look at there will be outliers to both sides. That's why you look at entirety of data instead of dismissing entire data because of couple of outliers
What are you talking about? Taiwan had very aggressive restrictions.
That's why they had almost no cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
What are you talking about? Taiwan had very aggressive restrictions.
That's why they had almost no cases.
They never closed any businesses, they had no lockdowns. At least that's what all the sources I found say. They had strict border restrictions early in the pandemic.
Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
They never closed any businesses, they had no lockdowns. At least that's what all the sources I found say. They had strict border restrictions early in the pandemic.
Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
Nope, but that's what I said, they had very aggressive restrictions, and they worked.
 
5121 - 5140 of 5161 Posts
Top