Canadian Money Forum banner
1921 - 1940 of 3585 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
And to previous poster: you pick and choose your data. That's why it doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
Peer-reviewed study that was linked looks at 160 different Jurisdictions. Not 3-4 like you choose to try to make your point. Anyway, will take peer reviewed study from acclaimed scientists that look at 160 different jurisdictions over anonymous poster picking 3-4 data points to prove his point. And am surprised that anyone with their right mind would do differently.

And I am not presenting my opinion here. I am presenting FACTS from peer-reviewed study
Please provide the direct link (was it inside the nypost.com link? If so, which one?) to the study you are using "facts" from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
This will be the very last time I provide the link. It has been provided 3 times already within last 10 pages:

 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
This will be the very last time I provide the link. It has been provided 3 times already within last 10 pages:

That link takes me to ...

Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation

Where on that page does have to do with what we're disucssing? Are you saying it relates to lockdowns or how covid is transmitted?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
That link takes me to ...

Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation

Where on that page does have to do with what we're disucssing? Are you saying it relates to lockdowns or how covid is transmitted?
I suggest you read it in entirety and then you will know. What's the point of providing research papers if they aren't read?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
I suggest you read it in entirety and then you will know. What's the point of providing research papers if they aren't read?
Honesty I don't think you've read it. I centainly hope that's not the article you're extrapolating your "claimed facts " from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
I have read it in entirety and yes, this research provides facts that I have referenced here. It is very simply to read it for anyone interested. All data, everything is in there.
If you choose to ignore it - there is no one who can stop you from that. Just be aware that all you have doing that is an (uninformed) opinion. If that is sufficient for you (it is for our government) to justify 13 months of extremely harmful policy then all the power to you. Don't claim however, that whatever you write is anything more than that - an uninformed opinion that you are either too lazy or unwilling to confront with actual data
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
I have read it in entirety and yes, this research provides facts that I have referenced here. It is very simply to read it for anyone interested. All data, everything is in there.
If you choose to ignore it - there is no one who can stop you from that. Just be aware that all you have doing that is an (uninformed) opinion. If that is sufficient for you (it is for our government) to justify 13 months of extremely harmful policy then all the power to you. Don't claim however, that whatever you write is anything more than that - an uninformed opinion that you are either too lazy or unwilling to confront with actual data
It's nothing more than a broad statistical macro overview of covid influences, as they mention.

We tested major indices from five domains (demography, public health, economy, politics, environment) and their potential associations with Covid-19 mortality during the first 8 months of 2020

How are you coming to conclusions on lockdown effectiveness or virus transmission based on that? I'll answer that for you ... you can't. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,932 Posts
Sorry, but you lost any kind of credibility with this post. Death rate in Japan is 83/1mln, which means death rate in Brazil is about 20 times higher, not 700. Also, ICU numbers in Brazil are just 8 times higher than in Japan. Study looks at both.

Nowhere am I saying that thin people don't catch COVID. Please, show me that quote?
They catch it, they are just significantly less likely to have symptoms, end up in a hospital, or die.

And to previous poster: you pick and choose your data. That's why it doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.
Peer-reviewed study that was linked looks at 160 different Jurisdictions. Not 3-4 like you choose to try to make your point. Anyway, will take peer reviewed study from acclaimed scientists that look at 160 different jurisdictions over anonymous poster picking 3-4 data points to prove his point. And am surprised that anyone with their right mind would do differently.

And I am not presenting my opinion here. I am presenting FACTS from peer-reviewed study
Oops wrong column, yes it's 83/million, so only 20 times higher.

Sorry, their study doesn't make logical sense, and there are obvious counterexamples that disprove the claim.

Again I am not disputing their study, or even their conclusions.
I am disputing the obviously wrong claim that "government interventions have no impact."

I do believe that some government interventions were effective. Not all, not most, not even necessarily the ones they looked at.
But yes, I do believe that in some cases the government restrictions and interventions did have an impact.

Lets do a few examples that I'm pretty sure on.
I think closing borders reduces the number of variants entering the country or area.
I think Ontario restricting noncritical surgery made more ICU beds available and likely saved lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,932 Posts
Just for interest I looked at the stringency index.

Apparently Japan and Taiwan had "low" stringency for government control measures.
I don't quite understand this.

But if you classify countries with very strict measures as "low stringency" this might be why the study gives weird results.

In short, I think this study is far too ambitious and I don't think the results are useful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
I remember thinking a week ago that I wouldn't put it past our government to start to try and mix and match vaccine types. It was a joke at the time. Not any more.....

"This week, Ottawa doubled-down on its policy of treating the population like human guinea pigs by opening the door to mixing vaccines."

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
Japan had much less strict measures than Canada. I might be wrong here but I don't think they enforced business closures other than nightlife and parlors (on this might be wrong). In comparison to Canada, response of Japan was most definitely 'low' stringency.

You can claim that study doesn't make 'logical' sense, but that is only your opinion. Numbers, evidence, show that government intervention doesn't work, and it is perfectly logical too.

Think about it: less than 0.1% of cases is border related. Border closures would work, if it was used to stop the variants from getting in. They didn't. And once they are already within Canada and 99.9% of transmission happens within the country, then border measures are completely ineffective.

Do you have any single argument against just opening the borders completely down south and letting Canadians drive to get the vaccine in the United States where cases per capita are lower than in Canada and vaccine is readily available?

Curfews? Most idiotic thing one could come up with. You restrict the amount of hours essential business is open, so you are forcing more people to go at the same time. How does that make sense?

Closing tennis courts, golf courses, outdoor team sports? Idiotic. As you mentioned transmissions happen indoors. There were test matches played in Europe to show that the risk of transmission during team sport is completely minimal. Meanwhile obesity - simply most important factor in predicting deaths from COVID - is skyrocketing because people are kept indoors. Idiocy.

Barcelona recently had a music festival for 5,000 people to check on how it will affect the spread. After 2 weeks a total of 6 of participants got infected. Less then average number for the entire population. Big arena, good ventilation - no additional spread.

There is plenty of examples of government intervention that defines any logic whatsoever, and actual data shows that (logically) the government intervention is ineffective in decreasing hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID.

You can cover your eyes and deny the facts however long you choose, but it doesn't change them.


Footnote: another fun fact that shows science isn't always 'logical' until you dig deeper. Smokers are vastly underrepresented when it comes to sever COVID cases.
Seems completely illogical, right?
Well, it has been shown that nicotine decreases inflammation and likelihood of cytokine storm. Therefore it decreases the immune system response to the virus and decreases severity.
Completely counter-intuitive at first, but also true. Science doesn't always follow 'your' logic, but it doesn't make a fact any less true just because you didn't think of it
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
You can claim that study doesn't make 'logical' sense, but that is only your opinion. Numbers, evidence, show that government intervention doesn't work, and it is perfectly logical too.
No I'm claiming that study doesn't support your assertions about lockdowns and virus transmission. So far you've just given your opinion without anything to back it. But continue on, you are certainly not the first and won't be the last to do that.

BTW, I do agree some of the restrictions placed on people don't make sense. I also wish all provinces would release more detailed contact tracing numbers to show people where and how the known transmissions are taking place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
There have been multiple studies done on this, not just the one. I googled and the first hit I found was this one:

One conclusion from it was:
We showed that the most effective measures include closing and restricting most places where people gather in smaller or larger numbers for extended periods of time (businesses, bars, schools and so on).
Here's the 2nd one:

Their conclusion is:
Limiting gatherings to fewer than 10 people, closing high-exposure businesses, and closing schools and universities were each more effective than stay-at-home orders, which were of modest effect in slowing transmission.
Essentially it depends on how you define lockdown. Both the studies above found that full stay-at-home order lockdowns weren't necessary but that limiting gatherings and closing high-exposure places were important measures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
No I'm claiming that study doesn't support your assertions about lockdowns and virus transmission. So far you've just given your opinion without anything to back it. But continue on, you are certainly not the first and won't be the last to do that.

BTW, I do agree some of the restrictions placed on people don't make sense. I also wish all provinces would release more detailed contact tracing numbers to show people where and how the known transmissions are taking place.
You telling the lie 3 times doesn't make it true.
Direct quotes from the research paper I posted numerous times:

"The government's responses (i.e., the severity index and the containment and health index) are strongly correlated with the second factorial axis (Figures 2, 4). The death rate from Covid-19 is not correlated with this axis. Therefore, the death rate appears not to be linked with the responses of governments. "

"The correlation matrix (Figure 6) shows that the Covid-19 mortality rate is positively correlated to a group of variables composed of the inactive lifestyle (r = 0.46, p < 10−6), obesity rate (r = 0.55, p < 10−11), GDP (r = 0.40, p < 10−7), economic support index (r = 0.31, p < 10−3), life expectancy (r = 0.50, p < 10−11), burden of mortality due to CVD (r = 0.33, p < 10−3), cancer (r = 0.47, p < 10−9), and deviation from latitude 0 (r = 0.41, p < 10−3). The mortality rate due to Covid-19 is negatively correlated to another group of variables composed of the mortality rate from infectious diseases (r = −0.50, p < 10−9), the progression of life expectancy (r = −0.37, p < 10−4), longitude (r = −0.36, p < 10−3), the deviation from optimum temperature (r = −0.39, p < 10−5), UV index (r = −0.37, p < 10−43). There is no significant correlation with the deviation from optimum humidity (r = 0.03, p = 0.52), the containment and health index (r = 0.07, p = 0.51), the original stringency index (r = 0.07, p = 0.36), and population size (r = −0.05, p = 0.35). A negative correlation also relates obesity and longitude (r = −0.33, p < 10−4)."

"Regarding government's actions (i.e., containment and stringency index), no association was found with the outcome, suggesting that the other studied factors were more important in the Covid-19 mortality than political measures implemented to fight the virus, except for the economic support index."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
Really, could you list all the countries that have extended the first to second dose to 4 months?
Just look at the currently vaccinated rates for each of those countries and you'll see the second dose is not tracking along with the first doses. Many of the EU countries appear to be doing the same thing, not just G7.
Who knows how long will they wait for a second dose ... I gather when the first dose numbers start to drop then they'll open up second dose shots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,705 Posts
Anyway its up to good old Saskatchewan to lead the way out of never ending lock downs & BS rules...hopefully Alberta will post a plan as well. I doubt lil Potato will ever post a plan.

Tying reopening to vaccinations should get the morons a bit of incentive to get it done.

21643



Based on the current pace of vaccinations, it is estimated that Saskatchewan could enter Step One about the last week in May, Step Two the third week in June and Step Three the second week in July.

Rider Pride!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,103 Posts
I thought Japan and Taiwan had very effective government interventions that gave them relatively low deaths, despite their relatively high population density.

I'd be interested to read your study. I honestly don't see how they can claim there was no significant impact.
I think it is interesting that you didn't link to it.

I would suggest that government intervention was the primary reason these countries also did quite well.
I'm not sure. There are many reasons that have been speculated. One is that there are other coronavirus strains endemic in east Asia that confer greater resistance to COVID-19. Even some poor/not exceptionally well-managed Asian countries have done very well like Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
You telling the lie 3 times doesn't make it true.
Same applies to your extraoplations ...

Direct quotes from the research paper I posted numerous times:

"The government's responses (i.e., the severity index and the containment and health index) are strongly correlated with the second factorial axis (Figures 2, 4). The death rate from Covid-19 is not correlated with this axis. Therefore, the death rate appears not to be linked with the responses of governments. "

"The correlation matrix (Figure 6) shows that the Covid-19 mortality rate is positively correlated to a group of variables composed of the inactive lifestyle (r = 0.46, p < 10−6), obesity rate (r = 0.55, p < 10−11), GDP (r = 0.40, p < 10−7), economic support index (r = 0.31, p < 10−3), life expectancy (r = 0.50, p < 10−11), burden of mortality due to CVD (r = 0.33, p < 10−3), cancer (r = 0.47, p < 10−9), and deviation from latitude 0 (r = 0.41, p < 10−3). The mortality rate due to Covid-19 is negatively correlated to another group of variables composed of the mortality rate from infectious diseases (r = −0.50, p < 10−9), the progression of life expectancy (r = −0.37, p < 10−4), longitude (r = −0.36, p < 10−3), the deviation from optimum temperature (r = −0.39, p < 10−5), UV index (r = −0.37, p < 10−43). There is no significant correlation with the deviation from optimum humidity (r = 0.03, p = 0.52), the containment and health index (r = 0.07, p = 0.51), the original stringency index (r = 0.07, p = 0.36), and population size (r = −0.05, p = 0.35). A negative correlation also relates obesity and longitude (r = −0.33, p < 10−4)."

"Regarding government's actions (i.e., containment and stringency index), no association was found with the outcome, suggesting that the other studied factors were more important in the Covid-19 mortality than political measures implemented to fight the virus, except for the economic support index."
Also note the following from your link,

This is reinforced by our findings regarding the lack of any association with the government's actions taken during the pandemic. In that sense, the determining demographic, health, development, and environment factors seem much more important to anticipate the lethal consequences of the Covid-19 than government's actions, especially when such actions are led by political goals more than by sanitary ones. This last result however cannot predict that other types of measure would not reduce the pandemia death load.

The "government actions taken" are far too broad spectrum, they throw everthing in together both political and sanitary based. They don't specify actions as "lockdowns" and even state other types of measures they can't predict what the outcome would be. All "lockdowns" are not created equal by any means.
 
1921 - 1940 of 3585 Posts
Top