[dfbsdfbwe2ef2e]

> Really glad I moved out of my “pro lockdown” state.

I haven't.

This issue affected 1000 thousand people in 35 countries. Did anyone die from this?

Covid on the other hand has killed 6 MILLION. Covid could've been solved in 1 month if everyone would just stay home for 1 month. Unfortunately, because of people like you spread noise, we're still stuck with this for the foreseeable future.

In addition, let me just comment how mathematically stupid it is to take the 1st order effects just because you're worried about the 2nd order effects.

[shannongreen]

> Covid could've been solved in 1 month if everyone would just stay home for 1 month.

No, it couldn't. And even if it could've, that would be impossible.

Believe it or not, places outside the US did do a 'real lockdown' for a lot longer than a month, and it didn't 'solve' covid.

[pflanze]

> Believe it or not, places outside the US did do a 'real lockdown' for a lot longer than a month, and it didn't 'solve' covid.

If other countries harbour the virus then that won't eradicate it (and the countries with lockdowns will re-import it at some point).

As I indicated to dfbsdfbwe2ef2e, I think at this point in history it's really more interesting to get precise data, modelling. Not just to understand what could or could not have been done in the case of COVID-19, but also for the future, the next pandemic (or OK, even still COVID-19, if you're worried about the renewed rise), so that people will have a better foundation to discuss what the best path forward is.

Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point.

[EricE]

This virus can also live in and be transmitted by animals.

You going to lock down all the wild animals in the environment too?

Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China - voluntarily kneecapped our economies after falling for the political theater they put on for us welding apartments shut and all that. I find it fascinating that so few still seem to ignore that they shut down internal travel but still allowed travel outside their country. Nothing suspicious in that at all.

[pflanze]

> Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China

"Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point."

I mean, maybe there was an effect as you say, and then just maybe that was done by them on purpose, but then the interesting bit would be to prove the hypothesis as well as you can. It would be better if even you at least said "I find this suspicious", over leaving it to the reader to feel like he has to agree or something. This kind of talking is heating up a discussion, for what benefit?

[dfbsdfbwe2ef2e]

It's not a real lockdown if I see people on the street.

[hammock]

Even Deborah Birx admits in her book that two weeks to slow the spread was a ruse:

>Birx writes “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.”

https://www.gulf-insider.com/top-us-health-official-admits-t...

[pflanze]

I do agree with you that the 1000 people are a drop compared to the millions (although those were young children, thus making for a longer duration of life potentially destroyed or disrupted individually).

> Covid could've been solved in 1 month if everyone would just stay home for 1 month.

Citation needed.

It will be interesting to see some proper knowledge (including numbers and mathematical modelling) around this. But this virus was very contagious, even at the beginning, and as soon as

> In addition, let me just comment how mathematically stupid it is

HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

(Also, your argument looks bogus since if there are multiple second-order effects with as much or higher (total) destruction then it would in fact be better to accept the first-order effects, no? Yes, that's probably not the case here, but your argument is that it's "mathematically" stupid, which does not appear to be the case.)

I would prefer if people stayed a little calmer and more rational on HN (not just you).

[EricE]

Did COVID really kill 6 million? At least in the US hospitals got extra funding for any patient identified with COVID so you routinely saw deaths (like gunshot wounds!) attributed to COVID when COVID clearly wasn't the primary cause.

Because of the ridiculous politicization of COVID and the response to it I take NOTHING at face value since every time the "experts" make an assertion, those assertions change months (if not weeks) later. Just look at the ridiculous evolution of masking guidance. How the vaccine story evolved from you won't get it it to you won't spread it to well, maybe your symptoms won't be quite as severe to the real truth after the FDA and Pfizer were forced to provide the background documentation after getting sued that the vaccines are less than 20% effective. What a shock - big phrama that has already had to pay out billions in the past for lying was lying again?

[trention]

Excess deaths worldwide are more than 20 million and most of them are COVID deaths since excess deaths track covid cases well pretty much everywhere.

So, yes, covid did indeed kill way more than 6 million.

[VancouverMan]

There has been very questionable counting of the deaths in Canada, as well.

For example, according to the public health unit of Canada's most populous city:

"Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."

https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/127588839006028596...