About covid-19 lockdowns

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#1
Obviously these lockdowns could have all been avoided, it would however had increased the deathtoll unless other more effective measures had been put in place.

Lockdowns are an effective short-term solution but then eventually you need to open up again. What lockdowns do is simply buy you time until you can get other measures in place like providing everyone with FFP3 masks and extensive testing.


 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#2
About Sweden
Sweden didn't do any significant legally mandated lockdowns but the population did follow a lot of voluntary measures including social distancing, Sweden did not do too well in terms of stopping the disease, currently we are #13 in the world in terms of deaths/1000000

For some reason Anders Tegnell doesn't really believe in masks and because of that most people are not using them even though there are masks that are effective at preventing infection, less effective masks may still provide limited protection against severe disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DANEqOPcDwc

If we had been using FFP3 masks at large scale early on it's likely we would have done a lot better.

It's likely that the reason why some authorities have denied that masks are effective is because they initially lied in an attempt to make sure hospitals would not run out of masks and now they cannot admit they lied to they have to continue denying science to avoid losing face.

It does seem like swedish authorities underestimated the Infection Fatality Rate and overestimated the transmissiveness of the virus which may have contributed to them going for the herd immunity strategy

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#3
Why the herd immunity strategy is insanity
One strategy to deal with the virus is to just let it spread. One obvious problem with that strategy is that it would overwhelm the hospital system so the deathrate would be needlessly high (around 2%).

Another strategy is to just manage it enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed but then you have to do restrictions for a long period of time which will end up being more expensive than doing more aggressive measures to eradicate the virus.

Even if the same number of people do get infected a delay is beneficial for another reason, over time the healthcare system will become better at treating covid-19 which will lower the mortality rate.

Eventually a vaccine will be ready and this might allow us to immunize the population in a far safer manner than natural infections.
 

Creamer

Well-known member
Messages
661
#5
Pffft, lockdowns. Normies just put the masks on their chins only. They still party
And group.
Only incel tier scientists can solve corona, but why the fuck would they.
Even if they were paid milions for it, which they wont cause some becky will get that and the credit, also the chads tallfags at management. And the money cant buy them anything of value beyond what min wage can get them.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#9
One argument against lockdowns is that "the same number of people would go on to die later anyway" this is clearly false. Over time the healthcare will improve and thus for the same number of infections later fewer will die. Now vaccinations have started and thus we can get to herd immunity without killing 0.5 to 2 percent of the population.


 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#10
Why the mandatory masks failed
They told people to wear mask but authorities were were unwilling to recommend masks that actually protects people since they were afraid of hospitals running out of them. As a result most people ended up just wearing some cloth masks and the pandemic continued.

Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%),
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100

The pandemic would have ended if they had pushed for FFP3/N99 masks instead, an UK study showed that they offered near 100% protection
The model also suggested that the introduction of FFP3 respirators provided 100% protection (confidence interval 31.3%, 100%) protection against direct, ward based covid infection.
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1663

Only FFP3 masks (roughly equivalent to international standards such as N99, EN149 and P3) effectively protect the wearer from droplet aerosols, protein molecules, viruses, bacteria, fungi and spores
dw.com/en/coronavirus-face-mask-face-shield-ffp2-n95-kn95-whats-the-difference/a-52291265

1631532891758.png


https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30276-0/pdf

The "hospitals need FFP3 masks" excuse obviously does not hold, if there is a bigger demand for masks more will be made and hospitals should have that stocked up. It's been almost 2 years since the pandemic started but still people are not told to wear masks that effectively protect them, why is that?

There are gas masks "P3" that do protect even better (99.997% filtration) but these are overkill for everyway use and also very unpractical.

FFP3 masks with exhaust valves still protect other people

People taking measures to protect themselves such that they never get in fected in the first place cannot pass in on to others. Furthermore even with an exhaust valve a lot of air still get filtrated so it should also offer some protecting against others even if you end up being infected yourself, other people can use FFP3 masks themselves for further protection.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#11
Ted Noel vs masks and social distancing
Here he did an illustration on how limited protection various masks offers


It does seem like some were not properly fitted but this will also be the case a lot in the real life. One big issue in his reasoning is discarding a mask as useless for only protecting the wearer, if everyone would wear masks like that it would still have a big impact in stopping transmission. If you do not get infected in the first place you will probably not infect other people.

Here is a test done that includes an N95 mask:

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#12
Randomized Controlled trial: cloth masking reduced seroprevelant infection by 2.6%
This study showed no statistically significant benefit of cloth masks but surgical masks did show some benefit.

1632220073548.png

This does further illustrate how worthless clothmasks are, they offer so little protection they probably do more harm than good since if it wasn't for these masks many people would use masks that actually protects them.

The study found that masking actually resulted in people doing more social distancing rather than less and this may explain why a small reduction was found when 51% started wearing a mask (dropped down to 25% later on).
The first wave of surveillance took place between May 21-25, 2020 in 1,441 places in 52 districts. About 51% out of more than 152,000 individuals we observed were wearing a mask. The second wave of surveillance was conducted between June 19-22, 2020 in the same 1,441 locations, and we found
that mask-wearing dropped to 26%, with 20% wearing masks that covered their mouth and nose.
poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf


The masks did offer more protection against symptomatic infection:

1632222862337.png
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#13
Test: FFP3 mask offered complete protection against infection
Not even multiple layers of surgical masks and tape was enough to even reach the protection FFP2 masks offer they didn't find any leakage at all when they tested the FFP3 masks.


This means that we do not need any vaccines, we do not need any lockdowns, we do not need any social distancing. All we need is to just use one of these masks and we will get near 100% protection enough to crush the delta variant with zero vaccines or natural immunity.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#14
Sweden never changed strategy
Sweden never imposed lockdowns and people were and the only scenario where masks was recommended was on public transsport during some over (this was only a recommendations and people didn't take it seriously). The main aspect that has been recognized as an error was the failure to protect very old people (nursing homes, etc) from the virus but the general strategy has never changed and Anders Tegnell is still in leading "Folkhälsomyndigheten" (Swedish CDC equivalent).


The main draconian thing Sweden did was to shortly limit the number of people in public gatherings to just 8 (down from 50) but this was later reversed to become more lax than it was originally (the limit used to always be 50 but that obviously didn't make sense so the rules now depend on the scenario.

https://archive.is/lOYrY

For example current rules allow up to 3000 people to meet outside if there is at least 1 metre distance between the seats (has to be fixed seats).

It is worth nothing that authorities did not expect vaccines to come so early which is part of the reason why sweden opted for very limited government restrictions, then when the vaccine was on they way they may have realized that tightening it up a bit for a while until they can vaccinate people most at risk was worth the effort.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#15
The Taiwanese no-lockdown strategy
Rather than locking down the entire society they just quarantined high-risk individuals (in terms of spread) and by executing this well they were mostly able to keep the virus under control without lockdowns or vaccines (they did slip up once but that was very much avoidable).

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#16
Why the Swedish strategy wasn't a great success
First we have to understand why people look towards Sweden in the first place, when your government implemented draconian policies destroying the economy while still failing to control the pandemic Sweden in comparison looks like a paradise, at least people there were able to keep most of their freedoms.

When your government is incompetent or mostly focused on virtue signaling to their voters you generally want to limit the power of government as much as possible since otherwise you just end up with the worst of both worlds.

What many people praising Sweden forget is that the voluntary restrictions Swedes followed had a lot of negative effects, arguably more negative effects than what a successful covid zero strategy would have had.

The big mistake in the reasoning behind the Swedish strategy was the notion that it wouldn't be too hard to maintain a covid zero strategy, while it would have been hard initially when we didn't have enough FFP3 masks or any vaccines over time you will be able to get more and more tools to limit the negative effects.

Very early in the pandemic the healthcare for covid patients wasn't particularly great since we didn't have any effective treatments, ventilators mostly resulted in people just dying a little bit later (some survived but they were a small minority, less than 20%). Later we got more and more effective treatments and better data regarding current treatments. There is actual value in having the same number of people get infected but having them be infected a year later.

Swedish authorities also expected it to take several years before vaccines were ready, instead the vaccines came very quickly allowing countries who had done covid zero successfully to let people of great risk for severe infection get vaccinated.

One common mistake a lot of people make is to only look at deaths (excess mortality) and while most of the killed by the virus are old/sick (who are generally a burden for society anyway) many younger people who survived still got severe complications from it "long covid" and this is another big issue with the herd immunity strategy.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#18
The UK 'no lockdown' strategy
They instead developed an app that was supposed to prevent a national lock-down, as you could probably guess that didn't work out too well.

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#19
China is still pursuing covid-zero
China is still doing draconian lockdowns, is the omicron variant really that dangerous?



These lockdowns might not even be needed for covid-zero given how effective FFP3 masks are. CCP screwed up by recommending "surgical masks or better" even though these surgical masks offer very limited protection, this is made worse by the fact that a lot of people are leaving their homes to get tested being in queues close to others.

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/cms-search/xxgk/getManuscriptXxgk.htm?id=25974dfc8cc045c28638e30ab8558155

China has never actually been able to even come close to zero covid cases, sure they were able to heavily suppress it but they always ended up hitting a flor at around 20 cases per day.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1245622.shtml

 

adolf512

Staff member
Moderator
Messages
367
#20
omicron variant now being no worse than the flu (probably)
Actually when you look at the actual data the reduction in severity is only around 25% after adjusting for confounding factors

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.12.22269148v1

Monoclonal antibodies is one example of effective new treatment greatly reducing the mortality. Vaccines and previous infections probably also offer significant protection.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#21
Why lockdowns failed to stop the spread
The first obvious issue was that they were often used as a panic measure to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed instead of doing them in an attempt to eradicate the virus. For that reason it's not surprising that late lockdowns are associated with more deaths.

sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

In addition when lockdowns were done they were often not even that strict making them largely pointless.

cfgaussian wrote:

Where i live we have had at least 5 "lockdowns" so far and not a single time did i notice any real change in people's behavior. They just went to work as usual, went shopping as usual, went out jogging or walking as usual, went to meet friends and have celebrations and eat together.

It was apparently said that gatherings of more than 4 people would not be allowed but almost nobody gave a shit. Privately people did whatever they wanted.

Then they wonder why the "lockdown" didn't work.

It was simply not enforced. But at the same time people were crying that it's tyrannical and having demonstrations against the lockdowns and now it has gotten to a point where further "lockdowns" are considered impossible to implement because it would be political suicide.

So now we're at a point where we're seeing cases exploding again but all the schools and preschools are still open, all the restaurants are still open, no measures are being taken except for having the mask mandate and requiring proof of vaccination when you go to the restaurant.

People are now convinced that anti-Covid measures don't work and that we just have to live with the virus.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#22
chief epidemiologist: China not to adjust dynamic zero-COVID policy for the time being
This while most democracies couldn't even control the initial wariant with R0 of 2, omicron has R0 of 8.

Wu Zunyou, China's CDC chief epidemiologist

As long as China has no new measures to prevent the imported strains of the coronavirus from triggering large-scale transmission and with no effective way to contain the epidemic, the country will not adjust its dynamic zero-tolerance policy for now, because relying on only vaccines cannot contain COVID-19, Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Global Times in an exclusive interview.

Responding to the question whether vaccinating 70 percent of the global population could end the acute phase of the pandemic, Wu said such an assertion is still open to discussion. Ahead of the fourth wave of the pandemic, many countries in Europe have already reached 70 percent total vaccination, and some countries like Germany, France and the UK have vaccination rates above 70 percent, but the occurrence of Omicron with breakthrough cases challenges the concept of herd immunity.

This means if you want to end the epidemic through building up the herd immunity but mutated strains can evade immunity, this concept will no longer apply, Wu noted.

"China has already reached a 70 percent vaccination rate, but as long as the virus can evade herd immunity, people can still get infected, like the recent outbreak in Tianjin, where many infected people were vaccinated, although the symptoms were milder," he said.

No matter how hard Western media outlets and observers slander China's zero-tolerance policy in fighting COVID-19, Chinese policymakers and epidemiologists consider that it is still the best way to reduce the catastrophic outcome of a reckless reopening.

"We previously thought COVID-19 could be basically contained through vaccines, but now it seems that there's no simple method to control it except with comprehensive measures, although vaccines are the most important weapon in curbing the epidemic, including Omicron," the chief epidemiologist said.

While the Beijing Winter Olympics organizing committee reports new COVID-19 cases among the athletes and relevant staff upon the arrival on a daily basis, effectively implementing the zero-tolerance approach and top-down mobilization help Chinese authorities limit those cases inside the closed loop, therefore there will be no infections outside the loop that are related to those within the closed loop, experts and officials said.

With the help of its zero-tolerance policy, China has experienced a much less severe epidemic compared to other countries. In sharp contrast to the death toll of more than 800,000 in the US, China has not seen a large number of deaths caused by the epidemic after the early outbreak in Wuhan in 2020. Reduced death toll proves this policy works, which has been also effective for the social and economic development, Wu noted.

In January, a study conducted by Christopher J L Murray from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle and published in The Lancet said that COVID-19 will continue but that the end of the pandemic is near, stating that the virus will become another recurrent disease that health systems and societies will have to manage.

By March 2022, a large proportion of the world will have been infected with the Omicron variant. With continued increases in COVID-19 vaccination, the use in many countries of a third vaccine dose, and high levels of infection-acquired immunity, for some time the global levels of SARS-CoV-2 immunity should be at an all-time high. For some weeks or months, the world should expect low levels of virus transmission, the study said.

Wu believes there are some practical challenges to Murray's hypothesis as there are a lot of differences between the novel coronavirus and influenza.

"First, immunity can last up to a year after infection with influenza, while it generally lasts about 3-6 months after infection with COVID-19. Second, although influenza also has variation, its variation is regular, and its variation cycle is relatively long, usually once a year, meaning that this year, its variation will not affect the protection rate," Wu said. "But the variation of COVID-19 is very fast, almost every day."

The pandemic has gone through four waves. Seeing from the past two years, I can say the view that March has become the key point for ending the pandemic is not supported by sufficient scientific evidence, Wu said. "But, from a global perspective, it is possible, and very likely, that the trend will wane in March or for some time to come."

Some Western media reports also said that although Omicron has strong transmissibility, it is less severe compared to other variants like Delta, so people could treat it as a "flu" in a more optimistic way.

However, Wu said that Omicron cannot be a "flu" because it infects a different part of the respiratory tract than the flu (flu infects the upper respiratory tract, while COVID-19 infects the lower respiratory tract). Upper respiratory tract infections rarely cause pneumonia, unless the illness is prolonged.

Outside China, Omicron has a much higher rate in severity and fatality than that of influenza, so it cannot be a "big flu," the expert said.

Some other people also believe that the novel coronavirus can infect not only humans but also animals, so humans may never end the pandemic and have to live with the virus for a long time.

It seems that coexisting with COVID-19 is a permanent task for humans and the problem is the extent and scale of the pandemic will be affected by people's efforts, Wu said.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#23
How accurate are the official chinese figures?
Plenty of people try to cope claiming china had a massive covid-19 death-toll that they are somehow hiden, there has of course hever been any good evidence for that, instead independent studies have found the government stats to be rather accurate (more accurate than many other countries)

healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n415

Based on more careful and comprehensive analyses, our study indicated that during three months of the covid-19 outbreak, about 6000 more deaths occurred in January to March 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, including 3653 deaths from covid-19 related pneumonia and 920 excess deaths from other types of pneumonia, primarily unspecified viral pneumonia. Most of the excess deaths from non-covid-19 related pneumonia occurred before mid-February (ie, before testing for covid-19 became widely available), suggesting a high proportion of the deaths could be due to covid-19, which would increase the total estimated number of covid-19 deaths to around 4500. Apart from pneumonia, about 1400 additional deaths were due to several chronic diseases.


 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#24
Why the World Needs China’s Covid-Zero Policy
The alternative is a massive surge in infections and deaths that could bring global supply chains to a halt, sending inflation higher.

Over the past two years, China’s zero-tolerance policy of lockdowns, mass testing, and strict border quarantines for Covid-19 has prevented a huge number of deaths at home and ensured that everything from iPhones and Teslas to fertilizer and car parts continues to flow to the rest of the world.
If consumers and businesses want to continue to buy goods made in China without having to endure shortages and further price hikes, they should want China to stick with its “Covid-zero” policy, as President Xi Jinping does.

Yet that’s not the message you hear outside of China. Criticism of Beijing’s determination to quash every outbreak is increasing—criticism that emphasizes the damage to China’s economy, the risks posed to global supply chains, and even the threat to Olympic athletes’ human rights.

Gita Gopinath, a senior official at the International Monetary Fund, told media last month that authorities need to “recalibrate” their response to Covid outbreaks, warning the disruptions caused by more lockdowns could have “very important consequences for global supply chains.” A Goldman Sachs report from January posited that if multiple provinces were hit with the omicron variant this winter and the government imposed a national lockdown, growth in China could plunge to 1.5% this year, the lowest since 1976.
Those concerns are real—there are serious economic, fiscal, and human costs from the attempt to halt the spread of Covid within China, and these could get worse if outbreaks continue to spread.

But in truth, these risks to both China and the rest of the world pale next to the human and economic toll if the country were to abandon Covid zero, allowing the virus to spread more or less unchecked among a population of 1.4 billion people that, despite an impressive 87% vaccination rate, are highly vulnerable.

A surge in infections after China reopened might be worse than in other countries currently battling the omicron variant. Its own vaccines have been shown to be less effective than the mRNA shots used elsewhere, and its success so far in protecting almost everyone from infection means the nation faces a “huge immunity gap,” according to Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.
China would face a “colossal outbreak” on a scale beyond anything any other country has yet seen, with more than 630,000 infections a day if it were to reopen in a similar manner to the U.S., according to modeling by researchers at Peking University. Even if deaths could be kept to the low levels achieved in South Korea or Japan, China would still likely see many more people die than the 4,636 official Covid deaths over the past two years. (In the U.S., which has less than one-quarter the population, the number recently surpassed 900,000.)

China has had repeated outbreaks since the virus first appeared in Wuhan, but these have all been quashed by government controls like the recent lockdown of the city of Xi’an, which kept 13 million people indoors for about a month through late January. Repeated rounds of mass testing and contact tracing have so far been enough to control recent outbreaks of the omicron variant in Beijing, Tianjin, Hangzhou, and elsewhere.

While these restrictions have led to temporary shutdowns of ports and factories, the country’s industries have so far come through the pandemic remarkably unscathed. Exports hit records in 2020 and then again in 2021, and if it had not been for that constant stream of goods, prices of U.S. imports would have risen even faster, and shortages of products, both essential and luxury, would have been even more pronounced.

China’s Exports
1644414338109.png


That steady supply may be difficult to maintain when China does eventually reopen its borders and gets rid of internal Covid controls. Australia, which had for a long time maintained a Covid-zero policy like China’s, suffered a spike in infections and deaths in January after most of the country ended lockdowns and it scrapped mandatory border quarantine for everyone entering the country.

At whatever point China looks to do the same, unless the virus has mutated into something even less harmful than the omicron variant, the reaction of the Chinese is likely to be similar to that of Australians: People will stay home to avoid getting sick, or because they’re ill or have been in close contact with someone who is.

In the early days of the pandemic in 2020, many Chinese chose to isolate, even without the government forcing them to. If infections and deaths were to spike across the nation, that would likely happen again, especially if hospitals became overrun with the sick and dying.

In that event, the blow to supply chains would be worse than anything seen so far during the pandemic. Globally, there’s no ripple effect from supermarkets in Sydney having to limit purchases or shut temporarily because they can’t get workers; if absenteeism forced factories and ports across China to slow or shut down, that would feel like a giant wave crashing.

Even if only temporary, shortages of a broad range of goods would push up already elevated inflation and drag on a global economic recovery that’s looking more fragile than it did before the advent of omicron. (The IMF recently downgraded its forecast for world growth in 2022 to 4.4%, from 4.9%.)

Although omicron has breached Beijing’s defenses, it’s seen as a certainty by many that the policy of trying to contain Covid will continue through 2022 and even beyond. The government acknowledges the policy has costs, but still believes these are outweighed by the benefits, according to a recent IMF report.

Even access to better vaccines might not be enough to push China to change track because relying on shots alone isn’t effective at stopping infections as mutations can evade immunity, according to Wu Zunyou, the chief epidemiologist at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We previously thought Covid-19 could be basically contained through vaccines, but now it seems that there’s no simple method to control it except with comprehensive measures,” he told the state-backed Global Times newspaper recently, adding that China will continue its current policies as long as imported infections have the ability to trigger large-scale outbreaks.

Yet as the past two years have demonstrated, temporary and isolated shutdowns don’t mean manufacturers and exporters stop working and goods don’t get onto ships. So the longer China sticks with Covid zero, the better it’ll be for the rest of the world.

https://archive.ph/nZjkT#selection-3707.0-3755.252
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#25
Omicron mortality estimate
Let's take a look at data from Sweden

1644967096045.png


The peak was slighly less than 50000 cases/day on average. Now let's look at what the peak mortality is

1644967145905.png


It's now around 20 days from the peak and mortality is at around 50/day. Slightly more than 0.1% of the ones infected with omicron died with it (for any reason).

Data was taken from https://c19.se
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,915
#26
Is china losing the war against omicron?
While it earlier looked like they were getting it under control we now see a long and gradual increase in official cases

1645779942064.png


This was not unavoidable. This happened due to the CCP not pushing for proper mask usage (KN95,, N95, FFP2. N99, FFP3, P3 gas masks).
 
Top