Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Were lockdowns ineffective?" video.

Florida also has an older population, with 20.9% being over 65 and California having 14.8% over 65.
6
@sockpastarock7082 Yeah, a couple of rocks in the middle of the ocean with more sheep than people will do better than countries where we live like sardines. Lockdown supporters are planning to lower populational density over here?
4
@terjeoseberg990 Fatality rate in Italy is based on CFR because there was no widespread testing. When you only test people who are critical, fatality rate is absurdly high. While in fact there's evidence of community spread since late 2019 thanks to analysis done to samples taken from blood banks.
4
@PGH Engineer Are those numbers based on the Imperial College models? Several high ranking "experts" have already came out and said Ferguson was wrong and his models were garbage.
4
@theoracle10 BS. This happened before Omicron. Omicron is very recent news, comparatively. This has been going on for two years and you want to pretend something that only reached public consciousness two months ago is the driving factor.
3
@sockpastarock7082 New Zealand is like goddamn Madagascar in Pandemic 2. No shit that putting your country under a metaphorical dome for two years is going to seem to work, you're an outlier.
2
@odradekk What a completely nonsensical retort.
2
"Could have been worse" is a cope. You've just made your hypothesis impossible to falsify because we can't retest and change the variables. How do you know it would have been worse? Maybe all those who were going to go critical anyway, and excess cases wouldn't have lead to excess deaths, just sniffles.
1
@sockpastarock7082 You don't perform "extremely well" by being blessed with geographical and demographic advantages and a sudden 180º in narrative to give you an off ramp. An outlier that cannot be replicated anywhere else is easily understood - we can't do what they did because we're not them.
1
@sockpastarock7082 Nobody said "perfectly". You can't even imperfectly replicate their results. Which aren't phenomenal. They were dealt a lucky hand. There's no strawman. Understanding the factors of NZ? They're NZ. Nobody else is NZ. And their results aren't phenomenal, just expected. What's effective? Huge natural barriers and putting your country inside a bubble. We replicated those factors to the best of our ability, and it didn't work. We can't put a bubble on Spain and a bubble on Germany and a bubble on France. We replicated them by probably 80-90% in Europe. That's better than 0%. We couldn't replicate the results. We aimed to do what they did. Didn't work. Being proactive aligned with what I wanted. But I was called a racist for it. So you can take your proactivity and [REDACTED] on those people who called me racist. Sideways. Do not point the finger at me, and you do not assume things about me. I've had enough of you people, who conveniently forgot how early 2020 went down. The data shows that they were in a naturally priviledged position. You're looking at petri dishes and trying to toss out the ones where the hypothesis wasn't confirmed. Maybe consider that one of the petri dishes was tampered with rather than assume that your experiment was a success. That's real science. Controlling for variables. You want to take raw data and take conclusions from it. Pure "correlation equals causation". That's not science.
1
@sockpastarock7082 "This makes it easier for them to effectively implement lockdowns on international travel because they only need to primarily secure a few distinct airports and sea ports rather than an entire border as well" - This only matters if we're unironically declaring that the pandemic exploded because people in continents such as Europe and Asia got infected and kept crossing borders. Even if people crossed borders, they still had to abide by social distancing rules, curfews and stay at home orders. "if you are willing to present this as a significant factor to their performance then you must concede that, fundamentally, lockdowns are highly effective in this capacity" - No. Because your argument implies the scenario I described above. Not only we'd need a large amount of people immigrating illegally for whatever reason, finding housing/lodging despite most hotels being forced to close, we also need them to then somehow get to population centers and then start breaking the rules to infect others. "you present a false comparison with other measures which were not implemented as proactively or as effectively" - If you can do it "effectively" in NZ but ineffectively in other countries that's not a scientific problem. "had large demonstrations of civil disobedience inline with right wing propoganda about the virus being a hoax" - Did you miss the part where doctors and "experts" said that BLM protests would not cause greater spread of the virus? Do not make this about politics, this is the point where I suggest you take your own advice. You must think people don't have a memory. Also, you seem to think I'm American. Those "right wing" protests didn't happen in most countries where your policies failed. "it is not evidence that fire extinguishers are not effective" - If fire extinguishers fail 99% of the time, pointing to one case where it worked doesn't mean everything's fine. Back to the drawing board, you need to redesign the fire extinguisher because they're failing the real life application.
1
@sockpastarock7082 Yes, it does. You pinned the transmission rate on uncontrolled immigration. This makes no sense. Stopping international travel eliminates the source of spread. Lockdowns cannot control spread and have a tremendous toll on quality of life, health and the economy. We now know that stopping international spread was impossible since the stuff was in Europe and South America in late 2019.
1
@sockpastarock7082 Not having a source of spread prevents spread. Lockdown when the source is already within the community is folly.
1
It didn't work "somewhat". It failed terribly. There were no manageable peaks, just peaks. Thinking that only Omicron changed the game is silly.
1
@theoracle10 Your opinion is your opinion. Hospitals weren't protected anyway and tons of people died. The shots didn't work, which is why boosters are needed in the first place. Don't pad the points in your favor by bringing up blunders and the necessary corrections. But this isn't the topic at hand - incidental hospitalizations are NOT new. Yes, it did happen. "you are 68x more likely to die of Covid if not vaccinated than if vaccinated and boosted" - This is worthless. Then how come deaths weren't 68x higher in 2020??? Everyone who got exposed had no choice but to face it while unvaccinated. When you say things, make sure they make sense. Such as by making sure that deaths were reduced by that order of magnitude. And define "boosted". We know this period lasts about 10-14 weeks last I checked. So you have a ten/fourteen week interval in which you can be exposed and enjoy the 68x lower lethality. You're going to keep boosting 3-4 times a year for the rest of your life?
1
@notlikely4468 This is a complete non-sequitur. Many countries allowed the return of their citizens and kept them under a 10-14 day quarantine in hotels rented for the purpose, or under stay-at-home orders. The whole country was under lockdown so they were not missing much anyway.
1
@notlikely4468 Completely irrelevant. Test or no test, if you wanted to accept people back in the country they could remain in isolation. You don't need to know who has or who doesn't have it if you're only running a mercy operation to repatriate people.
1
@jfryer485 This is ridiculous. It's not my problem that a pilot who was in contact with people who needed to be isolated was not isolated himself. The people in charge needed to do better and they failed at every step of the way. My point was that you can close borders and still accept your own people back home.
1
@jfryer485 This is nonsense. First, they did not exterminate the virus. I remember as clearly as it was yesterday, they just stopped counting. Nobody with half a brain actually believed them then, if you missed this part it might seem plausible when the story is retold, but then you could ask anyone in the street and nobody believed that they had stopped anything. Second, there was no repatriation. People were simply allowed to travel as the WHO recommended against border closures. This means Chinese nationals who immigrated and only went back for the new year celebration were allowed to exit the country with no issues, not just people with citizenship outside China who were visiting relatives. This is how I got infected the first time so I remember it clearly. Third, your timeline is off. We know community spread outside China existed in late 2019. The big boost of cases was triggered by the end of the Chinese new year celebrations, but the pandemic had already started. We just hadn't noticed it yet.
1
@notlikely4468 If someone was asymptomatic, but isolated, then how did it slip? Yes, the second line had to be used. Why did it fail? There were lockdowns. There you have it, the third line of defense. Now what?
1
@notlikely4468 I ask again - what does it matter if you have a positive or negative diagnosis, as long as you didn't come in contact with anyone? Negative? No contact. Positive? No contact. Your transmissibility doesn't depend on diagnosis. History of travel? I mean, we're talking about people being repatriated during a period where borders are closed. Check. They could clear quarantine, and because of quarantine the transmissibility was avoided. That's the point of quarantine. If care givers don't have infection control protocols when treating an infectious disease that's not my problem either. You're trying to shoot down an idea by bringing up the fact that this whole thing has been a two year slow motion train wreck. We get it. Not my problem. Tell the "if it saves one life! flatten the curve! protect our hospitals!" crowd that they were the ones who failed. I'm giving you "solutions" to solve something that isn't really a problem. You're saying it's unsolvable because the people in charge are idiots... Point the finger AT THEM! Not me!
1
@notlikely4468 We eventually stopped pretty much all travel, with countries either closing borders entirely or requiring a justification to enter the country. Claiming we can't is a fallacy because we eventually did it.
1
@notlikely4468 So your complaint is that there wasn't even an attempt to control anything, so we need to control everything else. Non-starter.
1
@notlikely4468 Way more practical than just letting the bug in and then trying to catch up. We failed at that.
1
@notlikely4468 Almost all travel was considered unnecessary, therefore banned. The WHO announced it too late. Nobody is saying people should be refused entry to their own country. The argument is that if you let in everyone from the hot zone, and then plan to lockdown to make up for it... you're being foolish. You're trying to run after a problem. And like we saw, it wouldn't work. As soon as you think the coast is clear, the problem comes back. You're purposefully arguing in bad faith by claiming that people need to be refused entry. Period. End of discussion.
1
@notlikely4468 I did.
1
@notlikely4468 We've been through this. You can enact a travel ban and still accept mercy repatriations. Your argument is "no we can't keep tens of thousands of people on lockdown for two weeks, we MUST keep the world hostage for two years!".
1
@notlikely4468 We've already established that people can return to their country, and still prevent the introduction of the pathogen. You're just arguing in circles and being stubborn. So your solution is bringing hot everyone, and then trying to chase after the problem by having hot everyone stand in line at the grocery store, 6 feet apart. We tried that. Didn't work. You can't lock everything down. You need those hot aircraft and hot crew. They need to go home. They need to go to the grocery store. Like I said, your solution is letting the plague in, and then trying to contain it with half measures. Your opinion is that harming millions of people for two years is more feasible than inconveniencing a few thousands for a couple of weeks.
1
@notlikely4468 But we did ground most aircraft. At one point most airliners had barely any flights because the only people who could board were people with pressing matters, doctors being sent to areas that needed them, and planes chartered to move medical equipment. So we did end up resorting to travel bans anyway. France has a 200 per 100k mortality rate. So what? Replicating what Canada did doesn't give you Canada's results. Science means repeatability.
1