How about you consider the science instead ?
Last edited by a moderator:
And we’ve since seen care delayed, diverted and denied in places with little to no restrictions.Thanks, I wasn't aware that medical care was being restricted like that in the UK, in the US there was always an exception to lockdowns for medical care. I personally put off seeing my dentists for a cleaning because I was concerned about infection, but my dentist was open and I could have gone if I had wanted to.
When this gets looked back on they will be wrong about the lockdowns, wrong about closing the schools and wrong about masking.What does this have to do with a study out of Johns Hopkins about lockdowns?
The vets continued, albeit you handed over your pet to them and waited outside. What was hard though was having to make the decision to let the vet and the nurse on duty put our elderly cat to sleep. The option was for them to have given her the injection and then put her back in the carry basket for us to take to the car. Seemed like too much trauma for her, and us to then have to take her back.Yeah my worry here today is that we'll get more ice than snow. Yuck I hate ice. I'm not a fan of winter but we rarely get worrisome ice, but like usual we could get 0.1inch or we could get 1/2 inch or more. I wouldn't mind a 'snow' day though. Me getting a real birthday cake is on hold until after the mess is over as I don't want my spouse heading out in ice. Snow would be okay
Wow, I am so very sorry. Do know that here it was no where near as long and honestly this is really hard to read about. I am sorry for your kid going through it all too as that's no fun. Even our vets were only out a little. My one cat (orange girl) has allergy issues and while the super special testing was left aside, we've been able to treat it well. I decided not to do a skin prick test on her anyway as it's rather serious to do requiring her to be put under anesthesia, but that was literally the only thing on hold and even then just temporarily like a few months. Like I said the one shot for my kid was delayed but timing was just bad and after a while we decided to delay it to regular appointment in December of 2020.
I had 2 regular mamos both in 2020 (Oct even) and 2021 a year later. Unknowingly my one mamo might have been bad to do as it was only 2 weeks post 2nd shot but all was okay.
I am truly sorry yours was messed up for so long.
Our vets were shut down for a while. We did the same as you for a while after. Handed them outside to someone. I hated that with my orangie girl. She freaks when I am not there. Some cats bond to other cats, mine bonded to me. Part of why I chose to put things off until I had thought about it and tried other options first (still trying other options now to this day).The vets continued, albeit you handed over your pet to them and waited outside. What was hard though was having to make the decision to let the vet and the nurse on duty put our elderly cat to sleep. The option was for them to have given her the injection and then put her back in the carry basket for us to take to the car. Seemed like too much trauma for her, and us to then have to take her back.![]()
Is study just about the lockdowns that occurred vs results or does it cover how the lockdowns were done and the other actions implemented during that time?
How about you consider the science instead ?
We have seen no studies which we believe credibly separate the effect of early lockdown from the effect of early voluntary behavior changes. Instead, the estimates in these studies capture the effects of lockdowns and voluntary behavior changes. As Herby (2021) illustrates, voluntary behavior changes are essential to a society’s response to an pandemic and can account for up to 90% of societies’ total response to the pandemic. Including these studies will greatly overestimate the effect of lockdowns, and, hence, we chose not to include studies focusing on timing of lockdowns in our review.
And we’ve since seen care delayed, diverted and denied in places with little to no restrictions.
Disputing it with further evidence, further studies, expert analysis, etc. is one thing, and of course is fine. But blowing it off simply because a news agency you don't like wrote an article about it is just silly.
All of which pales into insignificance to the lockdown rules that stopped people travelling to be with a dying relative. Or where they had to have their final conversation via zoom. Or even where a child died without a parent with them, and yes I do mean an under 18yo.
And that is why people are so angry right now here. Which is all I will say.![]()
Why not? It is an important statistic.
But why can't lockdowns on their own show effectiveness, if they are supposedly effective?I'll tell you why timing studies weren't included. They would have blown out their findings. From the analysis about timing studies:
Ah, so there it is. So just because groups of people did all of the things a lockdown accomplishes on their own vs a mandated lockdown, it was excluded. But if the goal was to really see if these steps reduced mortality, then they should absolutely be included.
Someone can do a study on hospitalizations then? You need to pick something to focus on...Because mortality is the only negative outcome from infection.
Nope, no pandemic impact at all. It's just lockdowns, masks, distance, capacity, cleaning those are the ONLY thing that created any impact.Yeah, I think the pandemic itself had a much bigger impact on care then the lockdowns.
Someone can do a study on hospitalizations then? You need to pick something to focus on...
No I didn't. I said mortality is an important stat so it is worth focusing on.But you just implied that hospitalization was unimportant only mortality mattered.
There’s still something that has caused the United States to have such different outcomes and it’s not just because we’re a bunch of fatties. There’s also the issue of enforcement. A bucket full of holes won’t hold water, but that doesn’t mean buckets can’t hold water.So you are not the least bit curious as to why a paper that looks at studies to conclude that lockdowns don't work, explicitly states that it excluded a few studies that showed the opposite?
Sure I am curious. I am totally open to other studies and expert articles related to this topic.So you are not the least bit curious as to why a paper that looks at studies to conclude that lockdowns don't work, explicitly states that it excluded a few studies that showed the opposite?
There’s still something that has caused the United States to have such different outcomes and it’s not just because we’re a bunch of fatties. There’s also the issue of enforcement. A bucket full of holes won’t hold water, but that doesn’t mean buckets can’t hold water.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.