NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[infinite11285]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

[jg77]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

I didn't need any social media platforms to have questions. I just put two and two together from using my own common sense. But I digress.

[Mavrelous]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

[FNQ]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Science is what’s proven, not what’s “common sense” for a side that’s been continually wrong through this process.

[FNQ]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

[FNQ]

[

Or more succinctly: the motivations don’t really matter.

His motivations definitely matter. But we should not just make up stuff to demonize "the other side".

But its pretty clearly a calculated political move rather than a what's actually best for the citizens of my state move. And that's really frustrating as a resident of Texas.

Well it depends on what problem you're trying to fix. His motivations matter at election time, but in the scope of trying to keep everyone healthy, I dont care if you've got good or bad intentions, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

I understand the positions are tied at the hip but focusing on it allows the pro-virus crowd a chance to elongate or pivot the argument to something unrelated. The social liberal / Republican guy went on a rant about immigration because his BS claims kept getting exposed.. he was wrong on that point too, but if we let them direct the conversation to politics, a more subjective topic, it weakens the medical/scientific argument to the audience.

I think Trump absolutely sucks but if he followed the science and was saying things in-line with the scientific community, would have to agree with him. On that. Only. And then take a shower.

[FNQ]

The flu disappeared in every place that tests for it, not only the flu, but HCOV and thankfully RSV (which made a vicious comeback this spring), the reason is not the masks, it disappeared also in places with no masking like Sweden, the most acceptable explanation is viral interference theory.

Absolutely plausible. Might be studies going on right now about it, but I've heard none. Frankly its a blessing during a purely **** time so finding out the root cause hasn't been a point of emphasis

[Pointgod]

[

Or more succinctly: the motivations don’t really matter.

His motivations definitely matter. But we should not just make up stuff to demonize "the other side".

But its pretty clearly a calculated political move rather than a what's actually best for the citizens of my state move. And that's really frustrating as a resident of Texas.

Well it depends on what problem you're trying to fix. His motivations matter at election time, but in the scope of trying to keep everyone healthy, I dont care if you've got good or bad intentions, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

I understand the positions are tied at the hip but focusing on it allows the pro-virus crowd a chance to elongate or pivot the argument to something unrelated. The social liberal / Republican guy went on a rant about immigration because his BS claims kept getting exposed.. he was wrong on that point too, but if we let them direct the conversation to politics, a more subjective topic, it weakens the medical/scientific argument to the audience.

I think Trump absolutely sucks but if he followed the science and was saying things in-line with the scientific community, would have to agree with him. On that. Only. And then take a shower.

If Trump followed the science and was doing things in line with the scientific community he would still likely be President and committing whatever crimes and untold horrors on the country

[Mavrelous]

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

We have a control case for the lockdowns, it's called Sweden, and I have no idea how you can argue that Sweden faired worse than any of the other western countries that went full fascist mode, Sweden is in deficient mortality this spring and summer, while locked down countries are still deep into excess, when Denmark lifted their COVID restirctions, they praised Tegnell and the Swedish respone.
I get there can be difference of opinion, what I don't get this certainty you and the rest of lockdown/vaccine pushers have in face of very grim macro data.

[infinite11285]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

True, Twitter can be a great medium to exchange ideas and converse about various informative topics; however, when it comes to discussions about COVID, a jarring amount of false information circulates from illegitimate sources and even bots. In a recent study, Carnegie Mellon examined 200 million tweets discussing the virus since January and found that nearly 45% originated from bot accounts, often from adverse nations. In my previous career, I supported cyber intelligence and cyber threat initiatives and understand how social media manipulates to sow discord and socially destabilize populations. There is a lot of propaganda on social media that the average person does not know how to separate from legitimate information. My current career is heavily rooted in research, so it somewhat bothers me when the extent of one's research involves Google or a tweet.

I agree that my comments were offputting, but it comes from exhaustion from disproving crackpot theories about the virus in this thread, often picked up from social media. So, I apologize if I came off like a douche.

[zimpy27]

Do we really need studies and theories to explain common sense?

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

You need research experience to properly digest research papers. It's a method that researchers use to communicate information that has been obscured a bit by granting bodies using papers as a form of value, but as researchers we are aware of this. The average person will read answers, the average researcher will read limitations. What was found is always dependent on what was done to find it. The only way to assess the quality of what was done (assuming it's truthful) is to understand the techniques. The information is always in context of what was done but if you don't understand what was done then you won't get the context of the information. This is the basis of comparing research papers and developing an understanding of a topic.

Problem with twitter is that ego, delusions of grandeur and Dunning-Kruger is apparently rife in the community and twitter has offered these people a louder platform than they otherwise should rightly have. You don't have to be right, you just have to sound right to the masses.

[FNQ]

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

We have a control case for the lockdowns, it's called Sweden, and I have no idea how you can argue that Sweden faired worse than any of the other western countries that went full fascist mode, Sweden is in deficient mortality this spring and summer, while locked down countries are still deep into excess, when Denmark lifted their COVID restirctions, they praised Tegnell and the Swedish respone.
I get there can be difference of opinion, what I don't get this certainty you and the rest of lockdown/vaccine pushers have in face of very grim macro data.

A control case.. that's not how control cases work though.

There is not going to be a direct comparison that works. Sweden's people did well with the government recommendations. Their economies, though not mandated closed, were hit in the near same way. How do you put a value on that? How do you put a value on the people of Sweden trusting their govt more than the US, or the UK? What about start time of the epidemic in each country?

Places like UK and US were way, way further along when they had lockdowns than Sweden was when they merely encouraged it.

The reason there is certainty is because the UK and US both had opportunities to be like Sweden. We had February and March of 2020 to, without the government enforcing it, to socially distance, wear a mask, and be overly cautious with transmission? Howd that go? Hell, even with mandates, people still went above and beyond to violate them.

So no, that's not a control group. Studies (below) have shown the different intervals of transmission between UK/Denmark/Sweden and why the raw numbers needed context. There was no reason to believe that the US would have had anywhere near the success of Sweden. It's not of those black/white answers, but if you do take the other side, you have an extremely uphill battle in arguing that the American population would be anywhere near as receptive to government recommendations as Sweden was. And you'd have to start that uphill battle by arguing that the American population would have done better with precautions without a mandate, than with one. It's starting in a very deep hole.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9

[NyKnicks1714]

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

We have a control case for the lockdowns, it's called Sweden, and I have no idea how you can argue that Sweden faired worse than any of the other western countries that went full fascist mode, Sweden is in deficient mortality this spring and summer, while locked down countries are still deep into excess, when Denmark lifted their COVID restirctions, they praised Tegnell and the Swedish respone.
I get there can be difference of opinion, what I don't get this certainty you and the rest of lockdown/vaccine pushers have in face of very grim macro data.

Of course you're not comparing Sweden to the countries it makes the most sense to compare it to, Norway and Finland. As for Denmark, Sweden has had more than 3x the number of deaths per million.

[zimpy27]

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

We have a control case for the lockdowns, it's called Sweden, and I have no idea how you can argue that Sweden faired worse than any of the other western countries that went full fascist mode, Sweden is in deficient mortality this spring and summer, while locked down countries are still deep into excess, when Denmark lifted their COVID restirctions, they praised Tegnell and the Swedish respone.
I get there can be difference of opinion, what I don't get this certainty you and the rest of lockdown/vaccine pushers have in face of very grim macro data.

If you want a good control and case comparison then the best you are going to get is comparing and contrasting inland cities of similar population density and consistent methods of reproting. A few cities with lockdowns and a few without. In the same country with a similar climate would be ideal. This at least cuts out a lot of unnecessary error.

[Mavrelous]

If you want a good control and case comparison then the best you are going to get is comparing and contrasting inland cities of similar population density and consistent methods of reproting. A few cities with lockdowns and a few without. In the same country with a similar climate would be ideal. This at least cuts out a lot of unnecessary error.

Forget unnecessary errors, the claim was that COVID will collapse medical institution and results in mass deaths, Sweden dealt with the pandemic like you were supposed to pre-COVID science, they:
- Recommended staying at hom if you're unwell
- limiting indoor gatherings to 50-500 depending on the severity of the wave
- Recommended working from home for those capable of
- highschool and taught studied online, the rest of schools contonued as regular.

No contact trace and isolate, no maksing, no hysteria, according to what we were lead to believe they were looking at a catastrophe, they did have a horrible wave in spring 2020, bad wave in winter 2021, and they rank now ~50th is death per capita in the world.
Please go back to what the media and "the science" told you in early 2020 about this virus, and ask yourself, is a country that behaved like supposed to have this reaction to the virus?
Sweden is a western country with mountatins of data available, look at Egypt, one of the most densely populated countries in the world (in Cairo and Alexandria, the rest of the country is unpopulated desert), they couldn't afford lockdowns, they also didn't have bodies in the streets.
This isn't a case of let's nitpick data and analyze studies, this is a case of we were given BS prediction of what would happen if we didn't mask up and didn't lockdown.

You are free to believe that the people giving these advises on lockdowns and vaccines are well meaning people, who are driven only by hard science and data, I don't, what I'm asking of you and the rest of this thread, is to please see the failure in these claims and give other people, who no longer accept this narrative the benifit of the doubt, and stop demanding from them unresonable demand like masking their children and don't want to inject foreign sunstance from corrupt and shady company to their bodies, stop the divisive speech of "our patience is wearing thin" and the unscientific claim of "you're putting everyone at risk", live and let live.

[art_tatum]

If you want a good control and case comparison then the best you are going to get is comparing and contrasting inland cities of similar population density and consistent methods of reproting. A few cities with lockdowns and a few without. In the same country with a similar climate would be ideal. This at least cuts out a lot of unnecessary error.

Forget unnecessary errors, the claim was that COVID will collapse medical institution and results in mass deaths, Sweden dealt with the pandemic like you were supposed to pre-COVID science, they:
- Recommended staying at hom if you're unwell
- limiting indoor gatherings to 50-500 depending on the severity of the wave
- Recommended working from home for those capable of
- highschool and taught studied online, the rest of schools contonued as regular.

No contact trace and isolate, no maksing, no hysteria, according to what we were lead to believe they were looking at a catastrophe, they did have a horrible wave in spring 2020, bad wave in winter 2021, and they rank now ~50th is death per capita in the world.
Please go back to what the media and "the science" told you in early 2020 about this virus, and ask yourself, is a country that behaved like supposed to have this reaction to the virus?
Sweden is a western country with mountatins of data available, look at Egypt, one of the most densely populated countries in the world (in Cairo and Alexandria, the rest of the country is unpopulated desert), they couldn't afford lockdowns, they also didn't have bodies in the streets.
This isn't a case of let's nitpick data and analyze studies, this is a case of we were given BS prediction of what would happen if we didn't mask up and didn't lockdown.

You are free to believe that the people giving these advises on lockdowns and vaccines are well meaning people, who are driven only by hard science and data, I don't, what I'm asking of you and the rest of this thread, is to please see the failure in these claims and give other people, who no longer accept this narrative the benifit of the doubt, and stop demanding from them unresonable demand like masking their children and don't want to inject foreign sunstance from corrupt and shady company to their bodies, stop the divisive speech of "our patience is wearing thin" and the unscientific claim of "you're putting everyone at risk", live and let live.

I mean you dont see how having a physical barrier between your face and someones droplets doesnt help? Or contact tracing?

Ofc the problem is people wearing the wrong masks / not sealing their nose and mouth making them almost useless (98% of people)

Or that bc there were so many cases (due to people not staying at home, or taking the right precautions, or wearing masks correctly) contract tracing became almost usesless.

Its all connected. But its common sense that these precautions are supposed to help. Its not a narrative, a well worn mask is just physics.

Ofc both "sides" failed in the execution, but how can you argue against the concept of these precautions lol. Again its common sense.
Bringing up other countries, such as sweden, doesnt mean the concepts are the fault, but the execution. If sweden got everyone masked correctly, they wouldve done even better. Why not bring up asian countries who did even better such as china or s.korea? They had more restrictions and mask mandates than sweden and did better. Why are we worse than korea? Cause our execution sucked.

[Neutral 123]

Yes, studies are necessary when large swaths of the population adopt "common sense" concepts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Twitter is a great medium for exchanges scientific ideas, most experts from my field are there, and research is always discussed there, regardless, your approach to other people's finding reeks of arrogance and belittling of other people's capacity to research and consult experts on their own.
Studies can be biased, they can be bought and paid for, and many many many time they contradict each other.

John Ioannidis (widely considered one of the best epidemiologists in the field until February 2020 when he disagreed with government policy to counter COVID-19) have published a famous essay on this very subject, it can be found here.

I feel like you just discovered what peer reviews are.

Research is discussed everywhere. [b]Productive discussion comes from the most educated minds having differing beliefs based on repeatable data. [/b]The majority of twitter bickering is people with limited understanding, often recently acquired, trying to apply that information based on their limited purview. Worse, if these typically uneducated and incorrect views gain steam, experts then have to try and find a way to dumb down their life's study into a way that the general public can understand.

BTW he was dismissed in early 2020 for lamenting how there was no reliable data to use, and then used unreliable data to make his argument. He was ignored because his arguments did not stand up to any form of.. wait for it.. data-driven criticism!

He argued against lockdowns because he said we didn't know the true effect of the virus. This is true, in March 2020 we didn't know what we had. We didnt know if the lockdowns and safety precautions would work. They did. He compared COVID to seasonal influenza repeatedly. He was wrong.

He can still have a great history - I'm not really sure, I dont know or care - but he didnt get this right. Its not arrogant to point out that his takes were in the vast minority then, and turned out to be wrong.

That couldn't be any more wrong. That is what a certain group of people is pushing for, but the most prosperous countries in the world, the most advanced countries in the world became that way through EVERYONE having a shot to create or do whatever they choose to do and others chose through their dollars or perceived benefits which ideas would succeed and which ones would fail.

It has been the countries where people generally flee from where the most 'educated' minds are the anointed leaders who are the only ones free to speak and force their ideas on others.

[Mavrelous]

I mean you dont see how having a physical barrier between your face and someones droplets doesnt help? Or contact tracing?

Ofc the problem is people wearing the wrong masks / not sealing their nose and mouth making them almost useless (98% of people)

Or that bc there were so many cases (due to people not staying at home, or taking the right precautions, or wearing masks correctly) contract tracing became almost usesless.

Its all connected. But its common sense that these precautions are supposed to help. Its not a narrative, a well worn mask is just physics.

There is no common sense in these claims and the results speak for themselves, masks haven't stopped widespread COVID anywhere, comparison between state (dakota for example) and counties yield very low correlation, while you may stop droplets, you're not stopping aerosels, this is without getting into sutpidities like masking between bites in restaurant, but hey, you do what you want, and let others do what they want.
Contact and trace is same story, in fact vaccine mandates are the exact opposite of this policy, you delude the vaccinated that they aren't spreaders and let them roam freely, while focusing on the unvaccinated minority.

Ofc both "sides" failed in the execution, but how can you argue against the concept of these precautions lol. Again its common sense.
Bringing up other countries, such as sweden, doesnt mean the concepts are the fault, but the execution. If sweden got everyone masked correctly, they wouldve done even better. Why not bring up asian counrries who did even better such as china or s.korea? They had more restrictions and mask mandates than sweden and did better. Why are we worse than korea? Cause our execution sucked.

This is not about calculating the numbers of affected in each country, this wasn't the claim with which we entered lockdown, the claim was the hospitals will collapse and we have to lockdown otherwise it will be catastrophe, there wasn't one, how do you reconcile no locking down with being far better than locked down countries?

[zimpy27]

If you want a good control and case comparison then the best you are going to get is comparing and contrasting inland cities of similar population density and consistent methods of reproting. A few cities with lockdowns and a few without. In the same country with a similar climate would be ideal. This at least cuts out a lot of unnecessary error.

Forget unnecessary errors, the claim was that COVID will collapse medical institution and results in mass deaths, Sweden dealt with the pandemic like you were supposed to pre-COVID science, they:
- Recommended staying at hom if you're unwell
- limiting indoor gatherings to 50-500 depending on the severity of the wave
- Recommended working from home for those capable of
- highschool and taught studied online, the rest of schools contonued as regular.

No contact trace and isolate, no maksing, no hysteria, according to what we were lead to believe they were looking at a catastrophe, they did have a horrible wave in spring 2020, bad wave in winter 2021, and they rank now ~50th is death per capita in the world.
Please go back to what the media and "the science" told you in early 2020 about this virus, and ask yourself, is a country that behaved like supposed to have this reaction to the virus?
Sweden is a western country with mountatins of data available, look at Egypt, one of the most densely populated countries in the world (in Cairo and Alexandria, the rest of the country is unpopulated desert), they couldn't afford lockdowns, they also didn't have bodies in the streets.
This isn't a case of let's nitpick data and analyze studies, this is a case of we were given BS prediction of what would happen if we didn't mask up and didn't lockdown.

You are free to believe that the people giving these advises on lockdowns and vaccines are well meaning people, who are driven only by hard science and data, I don't, what I'm asking of you and the rest of this thread, is to please see the failure in these claims and give other people, who no longer accept this narrative the benifit of the doubt, and stop demanding from them unresonable demand like masking their children and don't want to inject foreign sunstance from corrupt and shady company to their bodies, stop the divisive speech of "our patience is wearing thin" and the unscientific claim of "you're putting everyone at risk", live and let live.

Have you been to Sweden or worked in Sweden? They are an extreme outlier of people to handle virus spread and even they were close to being overwhelmed.

[Mavrelous]

Nope, I've been to Egypt and lived there, there is nothing outlier about Egyptians.