Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Prager: Has The Lockdown Worked?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • L84CABO
    Calguns Addict
    • Mar 2009
    • 8652

    Prager: Has The Lockdown Worked?

    Prager makes some valid points.


    Why are governments the world over rendering hundreds of millions of their citizens jobless, impoverishing at least a billion people, endangering the family life of millions (straining marriages, increasing child and spousal abuse, and further postponing marriage among young people), bankrupting vast numbers of business owners and workers living paycheck to paycheck, and increasing suicides?The reason given is that we must lock down virtually all human social and economic activity in order to prevent millions of people from dying of the coronavirus and overwhelming hospitals.But is it true? Was this lockdown necessary?In order to answer these questions, we need to know how many people would have died from COVID-19 if we hadn’t ruined the world’s economic life.The truth is we don’t know. And the truth is we never knew. A large swath of the “expert” community cloaked itself with unscientific certitude, beginning, on March 16, with a model from the Imperial College London — the source governments relied upon for the decision to ruin their economies — which projected about 2.2 million Americans and half a million Brits would die.Almost every national leader, politician and media outlet in the world believed that model. As I explained in my last column, modern men and women have substituted “experts” for prophets and priests. Science is the secular religion, and “experts” are its prophets and priests. In fact, they have greater authority among the secular, especially those left of center, than the pope of the Catholic Church has among Catholics. Whereas popes have invoked the doctrine of “infallibility” twice in the history of the Catholic Church, “experts” invoke it every day among the secular faithful.But on what grounds are we to believe that millions would die without ruining the American — and the world’s — economy? Without our being told by an omniscient God, there is no way to know the definitive answer.But here are some data that cast doubt on those assumptions, based entirely on the only metric that matters: deaths per 1 million. The number of confirmed infected people is meaningless, since so few people anywhere have been tested for the virus, and we don’t know how many people already had the virus and never knew it. (Moreover, asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic carriers of the virus constitute the majority of those infected.)As of yesterday, according to the Worldometer website, the United States ranked 12th, with 71 deaths per 1 million people. (I have not included San Marino and St. Martin because they have such small populations.)France’s death rate is 229 per 1 million, three times greater than that of the United States, and it went on national lockdown March 17. America didn’t go on national lockdown because that decision is the responsibility of states. So, let’s take California, the most populous American state (and therefore nearest to France’s population). California went on statewide lockdown March 19, two days after France. The death rate from coronavirus in California is 2 per 100,000. Two. Deux.That means France, which went on lockdown only two days prior to California, has more than 10 times the death rate.And Nebraska, one of the few U.S. states that has not locked down — to the intense anger of the state’s Democrats at its Republican governor — has a death rate of less than 1 per 100,000 (according to the Washington Post’s daily listing of U.S. coronavirus deaths).What do these statistics say about the efficacy and indispensability of a lockdown?To give you an idea of how unreliable much “expert” thinking is, the Los Angeles Times published an article on April 10 titled “California’s Coronavirus Death Toll Is Way Below New York’s. Here’s Why.”In it, the authors, needless to say unquestioningly, reported that Nicholas Jewell, identified as “a UC Berkeley biostatistician,” explained why California had so many fewer deaths than New York:“Just putting those controls in place a single day earlier makes a huge, huge difference in the growth rates,” Jewell said, referring to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s March 19 lockdown order, whereas New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo waited three more days to lock down New York state. That, according to the expert from UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times, explains the “huge, huge difference in the growth rates” between the two states.Then the article added a line that undermined its entire thesis:“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis didn’t impose a stay-at-home order until April 1.” Apparently, it never occurred to the Los Angeles Times authors to even look up Florida’s death rates. The nonconservative media have been largely worthless during this crisis — intellectually vapid, and, along with “experts,” the primary stokers of panic.If a few days’ delay in ordering the lockdown of a state (or country) makes a “huge, huge difference” in death rates, Florida should have had a worse death rate than New York, let alone California. Yet Florida’s death rate is among the lowest in the country: 24 per 1 million — despite the fact that Florida, along with Maine, has the largest percentage of elderly people (those 65 and over) in any American state.And then there is Sweden, the one industrialized Western democracy that did not shut down — engendering intense anger from scientists and other “experts,” as well as left-wing media (i.e., virtually all major media) across the world. Sweden, which still has its restaurants and businesses open, is far below Spain, Italy, Belgium, France, the U.K., the Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxembourg — all of which have national lockdowns — in deaths per 1 million. Yes, Sweden’s death rate per 1 million is higher than its Scandinavian neighbors, Norway and Denmark, which did lock down their economic life. But as of the latest report, in the past two days, Sweden, which has almost exactly the same number of people as Denmark and Norway combined, lost 20 of its citizens to the coronavirus, while its neighbors lost 18.The left blames President Donald Trump for our crisis (as if only America is undergoing economic ruin and loss of life).If they were honest, they would blame reliance on “experts” and “modeling.” But they hate Trump more than they love Americans — or truth.Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” came to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.


    Why are governments the world over rendering hundreds of millions of their citizens jobless, impoverishing at least a billion people, endangering the family life of millions (straining marriages, increasing child and spousal abuse, and further postponing marriage among young people), bankrupting vast numbers of business owners and workers living paycheck to paycheck, and increasing suicides?

    The reason given is that we must lock down virtually all human social and economic activity in order to prevent millions of people from dying of the coronavirus and overwhelming hospitals.

    But is it true? Was this lockdown necessary?

    "Kestryll I wanna lick your doughnut."

    Fighter Pilot
  • #2
    The War Wagon
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Apr 2011
    • 10294

    Originally posted by L84CABO
    Prager: Has The Lockdown Worked?

    On an AIRBORNE virus?

    ONLY if everyone stops breathing during the lockdown!
    sigpic

    Comment

    • #3
      HibikiR
      Senior Member
      • May 2014
      • 2417

      So far, the only country that got it right was Taiwan. No lock-down, but everybody voluntarily wears masks, and a better grip on the virus than the US.
      Last edited by HibikiR; 04-18-2020, 7:18 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        L84CABO
        Calguns Addict
        • Mar 2009
        • 8652

        Originally posted by HibikiR
        So far, the only country that got it right was Taiwan. No lock-down, but everybody voluntarily wears masks, and a better grip on the virus than the US.
        Didn't Sweden basically do the same thing?
        "Kestryll I wanna lick your doughnut."

        Fighter Pilot

        Comment

        • #5
          HibikiR
          Senior Member
          • May 2014
          • 2417

          Originally posted by L84CABO
          Didn't Sweden basically do the same thing?
          People who don’t like government-mandated shutdowns often point to Sweden as a model. This is a mistake. Instead of pointing to a nation that has seen rapidly increasing deaths from coronavirus while avoiding lockdowns, we should be looking at a place with very few deaths from coronavirus, which also avoided widespread lockdowns. It’s too soon […]


          I'm guessing implementation of the plan didn't go that well for Sweden.

          Comment

          • #6
            TrappedinCalifornia
            Calguns Addict
            • Jan 2018
            • 9030

            This is the salient line... and fact... from the piece...

            The reality is that how successful the lock down has been will likely never be (fully) known and any credit (valid or not) will be assigned after-the-fact, mainly by those who don't have to deal with it in "the now."

            Is too much credit being claimed for slowing the spread? In my opinion, yes... at least at this point. That doesn't mean it wasn't a 'correct' strategy; though the implementation has left A LOT to be desired. Three things to bear in mind, however...
            • We don't know what impact the lock down has had. We are presuming/assuming given that we, as of yet, don't know that much regarding transmission; i.e., estimates are still being refined. As I noted in this thread - "COVID-19 Lethality Not Much Different Than Flu"... As Kestryll suggests in the OP of that thread, the temptation is usually/often to go "all in" and bluff it out; i.e., 'gamble' that you can find a way to come out a 'winner.' (Not that they're hoping for a greater 'lethality,' but that they and their advice with regard to possible, future contagion will not be ignored or dismissed.) However, if it should turn out that the virus was here earlier than now conjectured, a certain amount of 'herd immunity' may have developed, meaning that the lock down was, in some measure or in large part, unnecessary.
            • Every region is different; i.e., urban vs. rural, differences in urban landscape/infrastructure, dispersion of population, et al. In other words, there are myriad factors which have yet to be explored and accounted for in relation to transmission and risk of exposure.
            • What is the "X" factor which is present in nearly all diseases and plagues? Genetics? Sex? Underlying health conditions? Age? Length of exposure? Other? Once again, virtually none of that is known; despite much speculation in the media.

            The answers will not be known until much later. The problem is that Praeger (and a whole lot of others) are missing the point and spinning when they say...

            Experts rely on empirical evidence which is inserted into models to provide predictions, which become assumptions insofar as developing strategies for dealing with all kinds of things... diseases, elections, baseball seasons, horse races, and virtually anything else that involves "seeing into the future." The problem? The strategies are only as good as the assumptions and the assumptions are based on predictions which are reliant upon the empirical evidence available and what, of that, is fed into the models.

            The ONE thing we do KNOW at this point is that we did not and do not have ALL the data and, some or even most of the data we've had is inaccurate, false, and/or flawed. But, as is continually asked when someone criticizes a candidate favored by members on this site: "Who else are you going to vote for?" Same thing here: "What else were the experts supposed to base their advice on?"

            The bottom line is that it is far too early to be assigning absolute credit for anything, let alone finger pointing, assigning blame, and saying... "If we'd only gone with...???... instead." Such may appeal to a given audience, allow for a venting of frustrations, provide a platform for pontificating, and even be a source of 'fun.' Unfortunately, as an effective criticism or unbiased assessment, it's unrealistic, preemptive, and subject to the exact, same types of biases being castigated.

            Are those on the Left 'taking advantage' by not letting a 'good crisis go to waste' to push their agenda? I'd say... Absolutely. Just keep in mind that they are not alone in pushing agendas under cover of this virus. A bit more blatant and over-the-top, but not alone.

            As I observed in this thread, Democrats seem to be 'ready' to shut things down, extend the shut down of the economy indefinitely, close gun shops as 'non-essential' or not "life preserving," see religious meetings as potentially harmful to 'public safety' (bearing in mind, as Praeger observed, that the Left has a different 'religious' bent), and generally let Big Government do its thing. Meanwhile, Republicans seem to be less inclined to shut things down. They are more ready to get the economy going; not simply wishing to return to a sense of normalcy, but because most experts cannot comprehend how an indefinite or months-long shut down will do anything but cripple the U.S. as a whole. They are more inclined to allow gun shops to continue to function, seeing them as, potentially, providing "life preserving" products and allowing for religious services, understanding the role God plays in the lives of many, especially conservatives. (Or, as Obama might have phrased it: "More amenable toward clinging to their guns and religion rather than more 'enlightened' philosophies?") Put another way, they are more restrained in allowing Big Government to do it's thing; though they do acknowledge it may, ultimately, be required.

            All we CAN do, objectively, at this point, is look at the costs (thus far) in terms of civil liberties, the economy, the national debt, et al.; note the potential costs (including the opportunity costs) of continuing to allow leaders to further what has been done; and make a decision as to whether we want to keep "going there" or try "something else." Either is a gamble and that gamble is only mitigated, not resolved, by things such as more data, vaccines, treatments, etc.

            Comment

            • #7
              Bert Gamble
              Veteran Member
              • Mar 2011
              • 3230

              Originally posted by The War Wagon
              On an AIRBORNE virus?

              ONLY if everyone stops breathing during the lockdown!
              Please site source for the "Airborne" claim. There is a difference between person to person and airborne transmission, and it is vast.
              WARNING: This post will most likely contain statements that are offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense, and or maturity.

              Satire: A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
              _____________________________________________

              Comment

              • #8
                The War Wagon
                I need a LIFE!!
                • Apr 2011
                • 10294

                Originally posted by Bert Gamble
                Please site source for the "Airborne" claim. There is a difference between person to person and airborne transmission, and it is vast.



                I see the nurse is NOT telling him to "drop trow, bend over, and say, "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..."

                It wouldn't get in the nasal passages, via bunnies bearing pancakes...
                sigpic

                Comment

                • #9
                  SanDiego619
                  I need a LIFE!!
                  • Jan 2013
                  • 11907

                  Originally posted by Bert Gamble
                  Please site source for the "Airborne" claim. There is a difference between person to person and airborne transmission, and it is vast.
                  Fartborne virus. Who smelt it has it.

                  If we did nothing, the number of infections would not have been reduced.
                  Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    smashycrashy
                    Veteran Member
                    • Sep 2011
                    • 2999

                    Originally posted by HibikiR
                    So far, the only country that got it right was Taiwan. No lock-down, but everybody voluntarily wears masks, and a better grip on the virus than the US.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      timdps
                      CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                      CGN Contributor
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 3467

                      Singapore seems to be back up to a near exponential rate on the Johns Hopkins page.

                      T

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        HibikiR
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2014
                        • 2417

                        Originally posted by smashycrashy
                        I’d put South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong in that category as well. And they all have the same thing in common, the ability to rapidly test/isolate/trace at scale before it got widespread. Once that happens the amount of testing you need to get out of lockdown early is huuuge.

                        We need a national strategy for scaling testing and Trump is off on twitter saying it is up to governors, so stupid.
                        South Korea doesn't get a higher ranking because they got hit hard at first before they got a grip. But if the U.S. can't match Taiwan (that ship has sailed) then we can at least aspire to mimic South Korea's success.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          smashycrashy
                          Veteran Member
                          • Sep 2011
                          • 2999

                          Originally posted by timdps
                          Singapore seems to be back up to a near exponential rate on the Johns Hopkins page.

                          T
                          You are right. Migrant workers living in cramped conditions weren’t being tested. Wow, just goes to show if you aren’t up to speed and testing widely.. you are going to get bit.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            SanDiego619
                            I need a LIFE!!
                            • Jan 2013
                            • 11907

                            Bit by the flu
                            Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              smashycrashy
                              Veteran Member
                              • Sep 2011
                              • 2999

                              Originally posted by HibikiR
                              South Korea doesn't get a higher ranking because they got hit hard at first before they got a grip. But if the U.S. can't match Taiwan (that ship has sailed) then we can at least aspire to mimic South Korea's success.
                              SK had that huge cluster due to that church ignoring face mask and distancing requirements but were still able to break the back of the outbreak. I was saying the big Coronavirus thread how SK and Italy were both at 7k cases on March 7th or 9th.. and I said anyone can see that SK is going to have a much better outcome than Italy just based on the number of people tested. Fast forward ~40 days and SK grew by 3500 cases while Italy added 171k. Italy now how has tested its population at over twice the rate per million SK has.

                              Just goes to show that early quick all out response is the least cost option.. we fiddled around and the danger was minimized at almost every turn. Our response has been unquestionably terrible.. and it continues to be.. people are wanting to come out of social distancing too soon.. you can look to 1918 to see what happens when people do that. Second wave is coming if they get their way.

                              The charts here are excellent for 1918 influenza:

                              Social distancing isn’t a new idea—it saved thousands of American lives during the last great pandemic. Here's how it worked.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1