@no1marauder saidThat number is BS, the bureaurats admit it is BS, in the US, UK and NZ there was push back on the BS. The method of attributing CV deaths went from 'dying with CV' to 'dying from CV'. The turning point in NZ was when the police shot a guy with CV and his death was attributed to CV. In the US there were financial incentives for hospitals to report cases coming through their doors as having CV.
It's not that surprising that an increase in depression might occur during a pandemic that caused (so far) almost a million deaths in the US alone - sickness and death of loved ones is a common cause of depression.
More likely depression was from friends and families being divided, businesses being destroyed, social interaction halted, jab or job bullying, a jab which in some cases led to injury or death itself, an explosion of little hitlers, control freaks, busybodies and dobbers. Old folks homes which became prisons with no end date.
Why is it over, where did it go. Finally enough people stood up and began to see through the lies, so the pollies whose sole motivation is being in power and satisfying their power tripping delusions saw what was coming. The end of the covid drama can be attributed not to politicians, not to the seizure syrup, especially not to the stupid face rag, not to school closures, not to the destruction of thousands if not millions of small businesses.
The end of the covid drama is because enough people stood up and called the BS.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidMy conclusions quoted the authors. So I don't see your point. Their conclusion is that the data supports policies that mask in schools during pandemics. They also mentioned vaccines are important. But they did not write the same about school closures.
It's rather remarkable that you can come up with conclusions at variance with the authors of the study while pretending to rely on it.
Figure 1B clearly shows that weekly death rates are much higher in person re-openings with mask mandates than with remote learning (about double). And:
" Fig. 6A shows that the coefficients of visits to colleges and K–12 schools are ...[text shortened]... r you nor anyone else here has made a plausible case for it under these extraordinary circumstances.
Moreover, your conclusion "would have meant thousands of fewer deaths" clearly goes beyond what the authors show or claim. This is a retrospective study, so deaths have already happened.
Figure 1B shows what you wrote. Double the rate. It also shows nearly the same magnitude of difference among counties before schools were open. The attributable percentage due to in-person schooling was a small fraction of this (5% ). This suggests other factors (public policy decisions, demographics, decisions made at local businesses) had a much larger effect on these numbers than schools.
That schools were reopened in areas with higher COVID rates to begin with just shows the recklessness of this largely politically motivated government action.
Now we're definitely going beyond the conclusions of the research. I'm not sure how much interaction you have with adolescents, but they are not ok. It is impossible to separate the psychological effect of school closures from other variables associated with lockdowns, but anything, everything that could be done to re-establish normalcy among this demographic should have taken the highest priority. Without a doubt in my opinion, open the schools before you open basketball arenas. Open the schools before the bars. Open the schools before dine in restaurants. The fact that all three of these things were happening maskless in areas where schools were closed is really disheartening and cruel.
I don't know how to respond to your insistence on cost-benefit justification. Just like you looked up these studies that support your position, you can google it. The thousands of lives you are guessing were lost due to school reopenings could have easily been mitigated by any number of areas of society that are seemingly less important than education. Isolating vulnerable populations. Reducing speed limits. Outlawing tobacco. Banning firearms.
Instead we chose to close schools.
@wildgrass saidAttacking he source is what cowards do when they are incapable of attacking the facts. Are you trying to fool yourself into thinking facts are irrelevant or other people?
Newspunch.com
Hahahahahahaha
@sh76
Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea pointed out during the ICIC group discussion that corroboration of Nixon’s findings is not easy to come by, since in the United States, for example, “it is a criminal offense to look at the Pfizer vials.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australian-doctor-finds-chips-self-assembling-structures-forming-in-pfizer-vaccine-contents/
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidkev will be happy to hear a loving parent/child relationship has been sacrificed despite there being ample un-juiced blood donor volunteers and the situation being completely legal in other countries, that of being able to nominate donors.
Yet a baby can be sacrificed to your whack job theories and outright lies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/new-zealand-parents-refuse-use-of-vaccinated-blood-in-life-saving-surgery-on-baby?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Just control freaks being control freaks, that's all this is, kev fantasises about being able to bully people now he can get his bully boy disorder satisfied vicariously through the NZ goobermint.
@wildgrass saidYou are being disingenuous. You wanted studies that supported my claim that school in-person reopenings v. remote learning led to more cases and deaths in 2020; I provided three of them reaching that exact conclusion. The studies were not done to make recommendations regarding future actions; moreover, the one article have most talked about was published in October 2021, long after vaccines became widely available. Even at that:
My conclusions quoted the authors. So I don't see your point. Their conclusion is that the data supports policies that mask in schools during pandemics. They also mentioned vaccines are important. But they did not write the same about school closures.
Moreover, your conclusion "would have meant thousands of fewer deaths" clearly goes beyond what the authors show or claim ...[text shortened]... s. Reducing speed limits. Outlawing tobacco. Banning firearms.
Instead we chose to close schools.
" The decision to open or close K–12 schools requires careful assessments of the cost and the benefit by policymakers. "
That supports my insistence on a cost-benefits analysis which you "don't know how to respond to". In fact, your only response was a few "whataboutisms" that are besides the point; that other actions may have saved lives and may have met a reasonable cost benefit analysis is irrelevant to whether in-person learning v. remote learning in Fall 2020 did. Neither you, sh or anyone else has pointed to any possible benefit that justified the costs shown by these studies; that schools are "important" doesn't mean that in-person learning is so "important" as compared to remote learning that it justifies a substantial increase in deaths and cases due to a pandemic among an unvaccinated populace.
@no1marauder saidseizure syrup versus seatbelts
You are being disingenuous. You wanted studies that supported my claim that school in-person reopenings v. remote learning led to more cases and deaths in 2020; I provided three of them reaching that exact conclusion. The studies were not done to make recommendations regarding future actions; moreover, the one article have most talked about was published in October 2021, ...[text shortened]... stifies a substantial increase in deaths and cases due to a pandemic among an unvaccinated populace.
- If seatbelts weren't working there'd be recalls
- If seatbelts were injuring and killing people there'd be investigations
- If seatbelts didn't prevent the injuries they were intended to. It would mean they're not working.
4 edits
@no1marauder saidI acknowledged that you provided the studies I asked for, though. That's not disingenuous.
You are being disingenuous. You wanted studies that supported my claim that school in-person reopenings v. remote learning led to more cases and deaths in 2020; I provided three of them reaching that exact conclusion. The studies were not done to make recommendations regarding future actions; moreover, the one article have most talked about was published in October 2021, ...[text shortened]... stifies a substantial increase in deaths and cases due to a pandemic among an unvaccinated populace.
And - they did make policy recommendations. They stated that the "data supports masking in schools".
If it is your position that discussing the relative benefit of various COVID restrictions - and noting that shuttering schools had a relatively minor impact - is a whataboutism, then I guess we're both being disingenuous.
Weighing the relative cost-benefit is what you're after. Prior to school openings, counties that opened schools in person no mask had a 2X higher death rate. That margin got slightly worse with school openings. In person school openings had a relatively minor impact on COVID deaths compared to other policies implemented in those same counties. But when you see those numbers you maintain that closing schools was a good idea, and other policies contributing to the death rates at time zero are "whataboutisms". That seems myopic.
Unlike COVID deaths, it will take a long time to figure out how harmful a full year of only online life had on teenagers. Undoubtedly it was bad. It was bad for education, mental health, productivity of the parents etc. Teachers are predicting that the 13% lower test scores coming in from students who learned remote last year might be permanent. Here's a story from PBS.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/preliminary-testing-shows-online-learning-has-put-u-s-kids-behind-some-adults-have-regrets
I maintain that cost-benefit is not possible. How do you compare the value of an 80 year old COPD patient on hospice who dies of COVID to a 17 year old who does not graduate, develops depression and resentment, and blames his/her problems on the government for closing schools?
Kids should have been in schools.
@sh76 saidReframing this thread, sh.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/26/health/rsv-immunity-gap
Nobody can really know for sure, but there's a growing consensus that RSV and flu-like illness in general are spiking much earlier than normal this year because we largely avoided those illnesses with covid restrictions in 2020 and 2021.
Now, I'm not saying that all restrictions were a bad idea, per se. What I am sayin ...[text shortened]... ets normalized by a very tough winter and hopefully by next year, the ILI season will be normalized.
You are stating that COVID restrictions avoided illness.
But we just spent all of last year arguing about the effectiveness of masks.
Which is it? Did restrictions work or not?
There are a lot of studies showing that COVID infections lead to long term immunosuppression. So one possible mechanism is that the immunity gap is caused by COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.
@wildgrass saidThe gene vaccine causes immunosuppression. DARPA came up with the gene vaccines. It came from the military.
Reframing this thread, sh.
You are stating that COVID restrictions avoided illness.
But we just spent all of last year arguing about the effectiveness of masks.
Which is it? Did restrictions work or not?
There are a lot of studies showing that COVID infections lead to long term immunosuppression. So one possible mechanism is that the immunity gap is caused by COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.
https://expose-news.com/2022/12/10/mccullough-covid-vaccines-are-a-us-military-program/
2 edits
@wildgrass saidIt wasn't really an argument about masks, anyone with a basic knowledge of the physical world would realise what it takes to process the litres of air a human breathes in and out and a rag doesn't come close.
Reframing this thread, sh.
You are stating that COVID restrictions avoided illness.
But we just spent all of last year arguing about the effectiveness of masks.
Which is it? Did restrictions work or not?
There are a lot of studies showing that COVID infections lead to long term immunosuppression. So one possible mechanism is that the immunity gap is caused by COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.
The only argument to be had about masks is if they did more harm than doing nothing at all. The mis-handling, the constant touching and adjusting, taking your virus farm off when sitting down to eat and placing it on the shared cafe' table.
It's basically over here in Queensland Aus despite the goobermint trying to scare everyone by going back to the roundly ignored amber setting. But still there are mask zombies to be seen, the woman in the supermarket constantly playing with her mask while handling pot scrubbers then returning them to the shelf.
During my career as a welder I've used every mask going, from the T-shirt wrapped around the face to full BA. And what is required to ensure the air you breathe in is safe? A full seal around your face, your entire face including eyes, no facial hair, a fit test, i.e. spray a special aerosol around the mask, if you can smell it, fail, you've got a leak. And even this expensive equipment didn't process the air you breathed out, your exhale shot straight out untreated through a non-return valve. Even some paper masks have these valves to ease breathing, your untreated breath just went straight out, it made me laugh to see these ijits and the ijit mask nazis who thought at least that person is being a good citizen wearing a mask. For me it just added to the farce. Throughout the whole 3 years I managed 5 minutes of mask time and my head nearly exploded with the pointlessness of it.
So there was no argument about the effectiveness of masks, only about the harm they caused, for example when it came to kids, literally child abuse.
@wajoma saidCool. Kind of like how water filters don't work either. Liters and what not.
It wasn't really an argument about masks, anyone with a basic knowledge of the physical world would realise what it takes to process the litres of air a human breathes in and out and a rag doesn't come close.
The only argument to be had about masks is if they did more harm than doing nothing at all. The mis-handling, the constant touching and adjusting, taking your virus ...[text shortened]... of masks, only about the harm they caused, for example when it came to kids, literally child abuse.
If COVID restrictions didn't work then what caused the immunity gap?
@wildgrass saidIt's common sense that masking is going to decrease infections somewhat, even if their effectiveness is overstated. Cloth masks and even surgical masks that are not worn properly don't do much, but they do something. While schools are not big covid spreaders, they are huge flu and RSV spreaders and closing schools in the Fall of 2020 and the masking during that school year clearly suppressed flu and RSV in 2020/2021.
Reframing this thread, sh.
You are stating that COVID restrictions avoided illness.
But we just spent all of last year arguing about the effectiveness of masks.
Which is it? Did restrictions work or not?
There are a lot of studies showing that COVID infections lead to long term immunosuppression. So one possible mechanism is that the immunity gap is caused by COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.
But more so than masking, the dramatic decrease in travel and in public activity in general in 2021 clearly decreased the number of flu and RSV infections.
===There are a lot of studies showing that COVID infections lead to long term immunosuppression. So one possible mechanism is that the immunity gap is caused by COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.===
That's possible, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.
@wildgrass saidANALOGY FAIL, ANALOGY FAIL, ANALOGY FAIL
Cool. Kind of like how water filters don't work either. Liters and what not.
If COVID restrictions didn't work then what caused the immunity gap?
Water filters do work, depends on the filter, how much water and to what standard. If you think filtering it through a rag makes it safe to drink your analogy just back fired big time and I have some snake oil to sell you, won't even bother disguising the name for you.
11000 liters a day BTW, and you think that stupid rag is able to process that amount, filtering the inhale and exhale.
@wajoma saidSaying something three times in all caps doesn't make it true.
ANALOGY FAIL, ANALOGY FAIL, ANALOGY FAIL
Water filters do work, depends on the filter, how much water and to what standard. If you think filtering it through a rag makes it safe to drink your analogy just back fired big time and I have some snake oil to sell you, won't even bother disguising the name for you.
11000 liters a day BTW, and you think that stupid rag is able to process that amount, filtering the inhale and exhale.