Are restrictions on meeting with people justified?

[mattyman]

Of all the 'lockdown' measures that have been brought in around the world, one of the most oppressive has to be restrictions on meeting with people outside the household. Variations include total bans on meeting people outside the household, not being able to meet indoor with people from outside the household or severe restrictions on the number of people you can meet (such as 6). This has never been done before and according the World Health Organisation's guidance on managing pandemic influenza, the quality of evidence is weak. Here is the link to the document;
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... pdf#page=9

There's only 2 reasons people might be supportive such oppressive measures;

• They over-estimate the risk of catching covid for themselves (some really believe it's the next bubonic plague)

• They think it's justified on grounds of asymptomatic spread to elderly or clinically-vulnerable vulnerable segments

The logical solution is;

• Inform people of the risk of severe illness or death per age group, including informing people about who the clinically-vulnerabe segments are

• Make people are of better ways to protect the clinically-vulnerable

RE the risk to oneself. It's been known in public health advice that people over 70 are at higher risk of severe illness and death. Why is it then that people haven't been asking the obvious question when the media quotes the covid death figures; what percentage of those deaths are over 70? What percentage are under 70? It's the obvious elephant in the room isn't it?

Did you know that only 0.6% of covid-related deaths are healthy people under 65?

The 'at risk' or 'clinically-vulnerable' are clearly-defined, here's an article from Sweden's public health agency, nice loud and clear bulleted list;
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the ... sk-groups/

People under 65 without those listed conditions, make-up only 0.6% of covid-related deaths.

The infection fatality rate; the percentage of those confirmed infected who die is estimated to be between 0.2 and 0.5% of people who get infected. Note that this figure includes ALL demographics, the elderly and the clinically-vulnerable groups. Lets go with 0.5%

Now, what about the infection fatality rate for those who're a) under 65 and b) without the listed clinical vulnerabilities? We know that they're 0.6% of total deaths of an infection fatality rate of 0.5. It's basically 0.6% of 0.5%. So 0.6 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 0.003%.

So the infection fatality rate for people a) under 65 and b) not in those at-risk groups is 0.003%. That's just going with that upper-estimate figure of an infection fatality rate of 0.5%. So there you go, I hope that puts things in perspective.

Re transmission to elderly or clinically-vulnerable segments, there's also better ways of solving that problem without shutting people up in their homes.

Lets be honest, no-one likes restrictions on freedom violations of basic human rights. My goal for this thread is to destroy all the justification and hopefully get people asking questions that challenge the narrative.

[yick]

Of all the 'lockdown' measures that have been brought in around the world, one of the most oppressive has to be restrictions on meeting with people outside the household. Variations include total bans on meeting people outside the household, not being able to meet indoor with people from outside the household or severe restrictions on the number of people you can meet (such as 6). This has never been done before and according the World Health Organisation's guidance on managing pandemic influenza, the quality of evidence is weak. Here is the link to the document;
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... pdf#page=9

There's only 2 reasons people might be supportive such oppressive measures;

• They over-estimate the risk of catching covid for themselves (some really believe it's the next bubonic plague)

• They think it's justified on grounds of asymptomatic spread to elderly or clinically-vulnerable vulnerable segments

The logical solution is;

• Inform people of the risk of severe illness or death per age group, including informing people about who the clinically-vulnerabe segments are

• Make people are of better ways to protect the clinically-vulnerable

RE the risk to oneself. It's been known in public health advice that people over 70 are at higher risk of severe illness and death. Why is it then that people haven't been asking the obvious question when the media quotes the covid death figures; what percentage of those deaths are over 70? What percentage are under 70? It's the obvious elephant in the room isn't it?

Did you know that only 0.6% of covid-related deaths are healthy people under 65?

The 'at risk' or 'clinically-vulnerable' are clearly-defined, here's an article from Sweden's public health agency, nice loud and clear bulleted list;
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the ... sk-groups/

People under 65 without those listed conditions, make-up only 0.6% of covid-related deaths.

The infection fatality rate; the percentage of those confirmed infected who die is estimated to be between 0.2 and 0.5% of people who get infected. Note that this figure includes ALL demographics, the elderly and the clinically-vulnerable groups. Lets go with 0.5%

Now, what about the infection fatality rate for those who're a) under 65 and b) without the listed clinical vulnerabilities? We know that they're 0.6% of total deaths of an infection fatality rate of 0.5. It's basically 0.6% of 0.5%. So 0.6 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 0.003%.

So the infection fatality rate for people a) under 65 and b) not in those at-risk groups is 0.003%. That's just going with that upper-estimate figure of an infection fatality rate of 0.5%. So there you go, I hope that puts things in perspective.

Re transmission to elderly or clinically-vulnerable segments, there's also better ways of solving that problem without shutting people up in their homes.

Lets be honest, no-one likes restrictions on freedom violations of basic human rights. My goal for this thread is to destroy all the justification and hopefully get people asking questions that challenge the narrative.

Lockdowns work if people DO THEM

Singapore had a lockdown and if there is one place where COVID should have ran ragged it was there - but guess what? Yep - people complied with the lockdown and the total deaths were

29

That's right.

What you need to do 'future leader of tomorrow' is start thinking why lockdown in Singapore (or South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Taiwan etc) worked but it didn't in the UK - because lockdowns work - there is undeniable proof for me to make this statement.

[fschmidt]

Why are cows kept in stalls? Because this makes them easier to manage. Let cows form herds and they become more difficult to manage.

Americans have become as stupid as farm animals, so they deserve to be treated like farm animals. So yes, keep them in their stalls and milk them as needed. They are too stupid to be considered fully human. They deserve to lose their freedom.

[yick]

Why are cows kept in stalls? Because this makes them easier to manage. Let cows form herds and they become more difficult to manage.

Americans have become as stupid as farm animals, so they deserve to be treated like farm animals. So yes, keep them in their stalls and milk them as needed. They are too stupid to be considered fully human. They deserve to lose their freedom.

Have you not moved to Nicaragua yet?

[fschmidt]

Have you not moved to Nicaragua yet?

We will look at Mexico and Costa Rica first. It will be a few months before I move.

[mattyman]

@ Yick, can I ask you to provide any evidence?

Can I ask you to compare data with harsh lockdown countries with non-locdown countries?

@ Yick, did you read what I actually wrote or did your brain run off on a tangent?

What about Japan? It's death rates per 100,000/per million that matter, not total numbers that matter. If you can give me a figure for outcomes on this premise, you might be taken seriously.

[yick]

@ Yick, can I ask you to provide any evidence?

Can I ask you to compare data with harsh lockdown countries with non-locdown countries?

@ Yick, did you read what I actually wrote or did your brain run off on a tangent?

What about Japan? It's death rates per 100,000/per million that matter, not total numbers that matter. If you can give me a figure for outcomes on this premise, you might be taken seriously.

I have done, lockdown country of Singapore has 29 deaths with a population of approx 5.7 million people living in an area of 18 square miles.

Lockdown works if people do the lockdown.

[yick]

What about Japan?

What about Japan, it's in a far better state than the UK where people DIDN'T do the lockdown because they need to go to the pub.

[yick]

Cambodia did lockdown and they have ZERO deaths from COVID.

Any 'non-lockdown' countries who did better than that?

No.

Face it, it's your selfishness that is dictating your views on this because you're unlikely to die from it, you just don't give a flying f**k about the people who might die if they catch it - that's all it is about - if it was ebola, you would stay in the house!

[mattyman]

You seem very fanatical about lockdowns, almost closed to any views of alternatives, why's this?

[mattyman]

RE

I have done, lockdown country of Singapore has 29 deaths with a population of approx 5.7 million people living in an area of 18 square miles.

You're only comparing one country to nothing.

You're also missing-out the other costs of lockdowns; missed appointments, cancer screenings, the mental health impacts. You'll see when you start to see the bigger picture.

[Cornfed]

Cambodia did lockdown and they have ZERO deaths from COVID.

Presumably meaning that they didn't bother to test anyone for covid19. Good for them.

[yick]

RE

I have done, lockdown country of Singapore has 29 deaths with a population of approx 5.7 million people living in an area of 18 square miles.

You're only comparing one country to nothing.

You're also missing-out the other costs of lockdowns; missed appointments, cancer screenings, the mental health impacts. You'll see when you start to see the bigger picture.

Is that not impressive?

29 people dying of COVID in a small land mass like SIngapore - who should we compare it to? Belarus (who are now experiencing a massive spike).

[yick]

Cambodia did lockdown and they have ZERO deaths from COVID.

Presumably meaning that they didn't bother to test anyone for covid19. Good for them.

We can only go on the figures they give us.

[yick]

You seem very fanatical about lockdowns, almost closed to any views of alternatives, why's this?

Lockdowns work - your fantasy doesn't - and is it me who has brought this topic on here or is it you?

It's you - so you're a lot more obsessed about lockdowns than me and dressing it up as if it is ruining your life.