[adam_arthur]

Covid is spreading at a similar rate today in most countries as it did when it first struck and there was no vaccine at all.

Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example.

I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate.

We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.

[tremon]

You still can't compare those trends, because many of those countries have relaxed their lockdown measures after reaching a certain level of vaccination. When looking at hospitalization rates instead of only case rates, it seems that the countries with high levels of vaccination are seeing a much lower percentage of cases ending up in hospital.

Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.

[adam_arthur]

I never disputed that vaccines mitigate effect of the virus. It's clear that they do, which will limit hospitalizations.

I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts.

New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.

[taylodl]

Lockdowns were implemented to prevent the collapse of the medical system. Lockdowns have been repealed with the advent of vaccines. Why? Because those vaccinated who get COVID get much milder cases and don't typically require hospitalization, and for the few that do, they don't require ICU. Lockdowns weren't implemented to reduce case counts per se, they were implemented to prevent medical system collapse.

The vaccines have been instrumental in getting back to normal.

[spurgu]

Hospitals have never been anywhere near collapse in most places though. Currently in Finland for example there's currently hysteria about the hospital capacity, whereas in actuality the issue is that some non-critical surgery would need to be postponed. It's far from "collapsing".

[junon]

Uh. my home state in the US had to call in the military to mediate the ER since people were starting fights because people having e.g. severe heart attacks were just turned away with a "sorry".

Italy had severe shortages of medical supplies that led to many medical workers on the frontline to die of infection.

Your personal life bubble does not reflect the rest of the world. Asserting "most places" weren't under collapse is quite strange given that it's patently false.

[spurgu]

Sigh. I've lived in three countries during this whole thing. Of course it's a problem somewhere. Not just as widespread as the media would have you believe.

I just took Finland as an example, since I have family there and happen to follow closely what's going on there (so I don't have to look things up).

And you brought up two examples. Need I remind you how many countries/regions/cities there are in the world?

[CabSauce]

You're trying to find data to fit your pre-determined conclusion. We're dealing with different variants now, which are more contagious.

[adam_arthur]

What data to fit my conclusion? I'm referencing hard data, and the dissenters here are not.

If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate.

The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.

[tremon]

You're not referencing any data at all, just handwaving at it. You're only comparing the raw infection rates without taking into account the amount of mitigating measures such as mask mandates, work-from-home orders, and closing of schools, restaurants and bars. Last year's numbers were all achieved with very stringent lockdowns and school closures; pretty much all those countries returned to classroom teaching in September of this year.

So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.

[adam_arthur]

I stated that case counts today are roughly equivalent to pre-vaccine times in most countries

This is called verifiable data.

Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures.

If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA.

This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures.

If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science".

Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.

[tremon]

You stated that "We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts". This is called making misleading claims.

There's numerous confounding factors in these numbers that you conveniently ignore, and that you keep ignoring even when they're pointed out to you. This is called doubling-down on an indefensible position.

Then, instead of defending why your use of those numbers is scientifically sound, you accuse others of having "firmly held beliefs". This is called a personal attack.

And lastly, instead of doing the hard work to show why your conclusion is scientifically sound, you expect the other party to disprove your argument for you. This is called trolling.

[adam_arthur]

I don't ask anything of anybody. If you dispute what I'm saying prove me wrong then.

All you've done is is ad hominem and provide no data. I am at least referencing factual data. Looks like I'm following the science and you're not.

Explain the confounding factors for how Texas ended up very similar to NY, despite obesity and comorbidities being much higher in the south. I can tell you from living in both places through the pandemic, that the populace of Texas doesn't care at all about covid and largely takes no precautionary measures vs New York residents who are much more diligent about masking and protocols.

You won't do it because the data doesn't exist to do it. The differences between states with vastly different policies are super marginal. If there was any strong effect, you would see an obvious disparity in outcome.

Does everybody staying inside reduce transmission? Yes, in the short term. Does it do anything in the longer term? No, absolutely not. Unless the draconian lockdown is done in perpetuity, which has devastating consequences.

[junon]

Citation please.

[adam_arthur]

Look at the covid stats for the UK. Do you see a difference?

If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away.

If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.