Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....

[Gaetan]

No, because they are (a) outside (where infection is much less likely) and (b) socially distanced.

It's mixing indoors for prolonged periods that gets you the virus, and lockdowns reduce those opportunities to a minimum.

You can get that virus a mile away, if you are locked down in a house and one guy have the virus every one will get it, the study said that is the opposite of what they want, they are more infected, it is just common sense. I don't make one big grocery, i do it when i have the opportunity as most people do.

 

[Foster Zygote]

They get the virus when they line up

No. For one thing, they aren't supposed to line up butts to nuts like they're waiting for the signal to jump from an AC-130. They're also supposed to wear masks, and not tongue-kiss or share lolly pops or anything like that. Lockdown doesn't mean you have to forego food shopping. It just means that you are expected to do it in a manner that minimizes your risk of transmitting the virus between individuals.

 

[Pixel42]

You can get that virus a mile away, if you are locked down in a house and one guy have the virus every one will get it, the study said that is the opposite of what they want, they are more infected, it is just common sense.

Which is why you minimise the chances of any member of the household bringing it back by reducing everybody's opportunities to catch it. Which is what lockdown does. This really isn't complicated.

I don't make one big grocery, i do it when i have the opportunity as most people do.

I used to do that too, but then there was this pandemic and I switched to a weekly big shop. Because I'm not an idiot.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The study focused in on a number of western countries where lockdowns came far too late or people (and government officials) flouted and politicized the issue.

Cherry-picked hogwash.

Moving on.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You can get that virus a mile away...

Citation needed. Even if so, what are the odds that you'll get infected a mile away vs. standing two feet from an infected individual with no masks between the two of you?

If you are locked down in a house and one guy have the virus every one will get it...

That's why lockdown and social distancing doesn't include people within an individual household. You practice social distancing and isolation outside your home to protect those within.

e study said that is the opposite of what they want, they are more infected, it is just common sense.

No, it's nonsense. You can't expect the entire human population to isolate individually from every other individual. Are people with children supposed to make them live alone in sheds? That would be stupid.

It's like watertight compartments on a ship. If one is holed, it will flood. But the compartments remain isolated as long as the doors and hatches are dogged. Preventive measures are in place to protect households from exposure to one another. They do not increase transmission compared to having no protective measures.

I don't make one big grocery, i do it when i have the opportunity as most people do.

Why? Knowing that every time you go to buy groceries you are increasing your chances of exposing yourself and others, why would you not say to yourself, "as long as I'm here, I should stock up on items that I know I'm going to need"? Is it just laziness?

 

[Aridas]

Cherry-picked hogwash.

In short, this. That's before taking into account how what it actually says doesn't back up Gaetan's claims anyways.

 

[bruto]

They get the virus when they line up

That's not a lockdown, then, is it? If you're out and about and lining up at the grocery store, you're not locked down. Besides, as I'm sure others have noted, the point of lining up is to stay outdoors where virus transmission is less, and if done properly at a safe distance and masked, and to minimize the number of people assembled indoors.

Your theories do not actually hold up in places where these things are being done in the right way.

You would do well to lay off the wacko right-wing conspiracy sites, and do some actual research, and maybe even do some actual thinking.

Absent that unfortunately pie-in-sky wish, you'd do your credibility a favor if you could find any corroboration of your ideas from any site that isn't also infected with the most radical right-wing ideas and conspiracy theories. It's possible for people of many different stripes to share a good idea, its wise to avoid well poisoning, but if that idea is considered worthwhile only by wacko conspiracy nuts, that should be a red flag.

And just to be plain, yes, I believe the signatories of the "Great Barrington Declaration" fall into that category: misrepresenting bad science, bad economics and political motivation as expert guidance. If they have even a small residual morality left, I think they will end up thoroughly ashamed of their actions, but I doubt that will occur, as they are much more likely to follow the trend of their political leadership and lie to the bitter end.

 

[Gaetan]

In short, this. That's before taking into account how what it actually says doesn't back up Gaetan's claims anyways.

The more lock up, the more people die, that's just common sense and the study confirms that. The more sanitary mesures the more people die, that just common sense, they almost shut down the hospitals, they can't work with half the staff, that's what they did, the more sanitary mesures the more people die, it is just common sense, the decisions were taken by incompetent or corrupted people. The olders are the victimes of corruption, China cures covid with plants and vitamins and there are hundred of thousands of less victimes. For doctors in US any plants or vitamins are useless because pharmas can't put them under patent, the whole medical system is deeply corrupted.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The more lock up, the more people die, that's just common sense and the study confirms that. The more sanitary mesures the more people die, that just common sense, they almost shut down the hospitals, they can't work with half the staff, that's what they did, the more sanitary mesures the more people die, it is just common sense, the decisions were taken by incompetent or corrupted people. The olders are the victimes of corruption, China cures covid with plants and vitamins and there are hundred of thousands of less victimes. For doctors in US any plants or vitamins are useless because pharmas can't put them under patent, the whole medical system is deeply corrupted.

You'll have to explain this:

How do Canadian provinces and territories compare to American states in terms of COVID-19 cases? We’ve calculated reported cases per million people each day of the pandemic to get an idea of how the two countries stack up. Overall, even Canada’s highest-reporting regions are low compared to places south of the border.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coron...vinces-rank-against-american-states-1.5051033

 

[Foster Zygote]

The more lock up, the more people die, that's just common sense and the study confirms that.

Clearly your debate strategy is to ignore what everyone else has to say and keep repeating the same lie over and over.

"Sanitary measures" don't increase the number of people exposed to the virus. That's a stupid argument. If you consider the members of a household as a single unit, then minimizing the unit's contact with other people will reduce the odds of it being exposed to COVID19. Behaving exactly as one did before the pandemic - going to restaurants, attending social gatherings, not wearing masks, casually going grocery shopping for a couple items at a time, etcetera - will result in greater odds of the unit being exposed. Claiming that quarantining with a handful of other people places you at greater risk than not quarantining with a handful of other people is an utterly asinine argument that has nothing to do with common sense.

The more sanitary mesures the more people die, that just common sense, they almost shut down the hospitals, they can't work with half the staff, that's what they did, the more sanitary mesures the more people die, it is just common sense, the decisions were taken by incompetent or corrupted people.

What the hell are you talking about? They haven't shut down hospitals or cut staff in half. Hospitals have been overwhelmed with cases in locations where people haven't practiced social distancing.

The olders are the victimes of corruption, China cures covid with plants and vitamins and there are hundred of thousands of less victimes. For doctors in US any plants or vitamins are useless because pharmas can't put them under patent, the whole medical system is deeply corrupted.

********

 

[Trebuchet]

The more lock up, the more people die, that's just common sense and the study confirms that. The more sanitary mesures the more people die, that just common sense, they almost shut down the hospitals, they can't work with half the staff, that's what they did, the more sanitary mesures the more people die, it is just common sense, the decisions were taken by incompetent or corrupted people. The olders are the victimes of corruption, China cures covid with plants and vitamins and there are hundred of thousands of less victimes. For doctors in US any plants or vitamins are useless because pharmas can't put them under patent, the whole medical system is deeply corrupted.

Your avatar could speak more sensibly than that.

 

[Resume]

Nothing like a little amateur epidemiology during a global pandemic; not only do experts have to fight the virus, the also have to fight the idiotic public-health notions of those who imagine themselves experts. Just because you have a face-plant page doesn't make you an expert in anything save "sharing" cement-headed claims about HCQ, oleandrin, anti-mask propaganda, and other conspiratorial nonsense.

Want to do some good? Shut the **** about it already.

 

[Gaetan]

I am not interested by your imagination but what the science says and what the people of the University of Stanford says. That study was made by an international expert in infection and that what it says.

 

[Aridas]

The more lock up, the more people die, that's just common sense and the study confirms that.

It doesn't confirm that. It doesn't confirm anything close to that.

The more sanitary mesures the more people die, that just common sense, they almost shut down the hospitals, they can't work with half the staff, that's what they did, the more sanitary mesures the more people die, it is just common sense, the decisions were taken by incompetent or corrupted people. The olders are the victimes of corruption, China cures covid with plants and vitamins and there are hundred of thousands of less victimes. For doctors in US any plants or vitamins are useless because pharmas can't put them under patent, the whole medical system is deeply corrupted.

It doesn't confirm that. It doesn't confirm anything close to that... and your common sense, well... needs its assumptions re-evaluated.

Either way, feel free to cite the parts of the study itself that you think actually support your claims. The study itself has serious problems, but you seem to be simply making up things and falsely claiming that it supports them.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I am not interested by your imagination but what the science says and what the people of the University of Stanford says. That study was made by an international expert in infection and that what it says.

"The science" is not found in a single study.

A study which apparently never considered how the narrow sample selection might differ from other places where lockdowns did reduce spread.

As I pointed out earlier, the "lockdowns" addressed are those which came late or were minimally enforced (if not outright denied, rescinded, and denigrated by officials).

The only conclusion I draw from such data is "late and/or voluntary NPIs which are only partially practiced by the public may be ineffective."

 

[Gaetan]

"The science" is not found in a single study.

A study which apparently never considered how the narrow sample selection might differ from other places where lockdowns did reduce spread.

As I pointed out earlier, the "lockdowns" addressed are those which came late or were minimally enforced (if not outright denied, rescinded, and denigrated by officials).

The only conclusion I draw from such data is "late and/or voluntary NPIs which are only partially practiced by the public may be ineffective."

You are not an expert

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 10

the mundial known expert says that lockdowm increased contamination.

 

[Aridas]

You are not an expert

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breaches of rules

the mundial known expert says that lockdowm increased contamination.

Cite it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

the mundial known expert says that lockdowm increased contamination.

Other experts say something else. Why is this one the one you accept?

 

[bruto]

Gaetan, bad sources are bad enough, but failure to read them right is even worse. Even your crackpot site does not say what you seem to think it does about sanitary measures. Even they, it seems, realize that the contention that sanitary measures increase infection is too ridiculous to maintain. Even they, though they seem often enough to dip their brains in ****, know enough to wash their hands after!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Actual research by real scientists:

We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

Seth Flaxman, Swapnil Mishra, Axel Gandy, H. Juliette T. Unwin, Thomas A. Mellan, Helen Coupland, Charles Whittaker, Harrison Zhu, Tresnia Berah, Jeffrey W. Eaton, Mélodie Monod, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, Azra C. Ghani, Christl A. Donnelly, Steven Riley, Michaela A. C. Vollmer, Neil M. Ferguson, Lucy C. Okell & Samir Bhatt