Pandemic started in a lab:

[stevil]

How about increases in mental health issues. Suicides. Deaths from loneliness in isolation. Missed diagnoses from other diseases because people were too afraid to go to the doctor and/or hospital.

OK, so how does that bear out in the data?
Why haven't you shown the data for increases in suicides of deaths from loneliness or people not going to hospitals because of fear?

Numbers please. And then lets compare those numbers to the covid deaths.

To be clear, I don't think wearing masks is directly attributable to deaths

OK, so then this is off topic.

 

[BeyondET]

Pandemic started in china.

 

[probinson]

OK, so how does that bear out in the data?
Why haven't you shown the data for increases in suicides of deaths from loneliness or people not going to hospitals because of fear?

Surely you know much of this would be difficult to quantify, right? I mean, there is never going to be a chart showing the number of people who chose NOT to go to the hospital. How would one even begin to capture data like that?

What I have posted, you've completely ignored. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with nice tidy charts for this data. But I've posted multiple articles, talking about elderly dying in isolation from loneliness, people in third-world countries dying of hunger. Here's another article that says that the "cancer bomb" might be worse than COVID itself.

Lockdown’s cancer bomb may soon be worse than Covid itself

Over my 40 years in the NHS I can honestly say I have never seen it in this bad a state

www.telegraph.co.uk

Suicides are now the second leading cause of death for children ages 5-24. This is partcularly tragic because children were not at any considerable risk from COVID.

Youth Suicide Rates Increased During COVID-19 Pandemic, Especially Among Particular Subgroups

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) – Suicide is the second leading cause of death for individuals aged 5-24 years in the United States, and a significant public health

www.nationwidechildrens.org

These are all opportunity costs for implementing untested, unproven mitigation measures.

If you're actually looking for studies and data, then I recommend Collateral Global, which is a site dedicated to understanding the impacts of policy responses to the pandemic.

Home - Collateral Global

Cultivating a better understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 responses

collateralglobal.org

 

[stevil]

Surely you know much of this would be difficult to quantify, right? I mean, there is never going to be a chart showing the number of people who chose NOT to go to the hospital. How would one even begin to capture data like that?

So you just assume???

You see that NZ had 4,000 excess deaths in 2022, you see, but choose to ignore that NZ had 4,000 Covid deaths in 2022 and instead just assume, without any supporting data, that the excess deaths is due to consequences of lockdowns rather than the actual covid deaths.

Do you not see that this is just a very weird way of looking (or not looking) at the data and the evidence?

What I have posted, you've completely ignored. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with nice tidy charts for this data. But I've posted multiple articles, talking about elderly dying in isolation from loneliness, people in third-world countries dying of hunger.

We are currently looking at 1st world countries. NZ, Aus, Norway, Denmark, Finland. Why are you now spinning towards third world countries?

3rd world countries mostly didn't do lockdowns, didn't distribute masks, don't even have much vaccines, or hospitals or even roads for that matter.
If you believe Sweden's do nothing approach is best, then you'd think that the 3rd world countries would have faired better than the 1st world countries. But, well most of us, would think 3rd world countries will have devastatingly high covid tallies.

 

[probinson]

So you just assume???

Um, no. Have you read any of the articles I've posted? There are very real concerns about the collateral damages that have resulted from COVID measures. Just because it can't be easily quantified on a chart doesn't mean it's an "assumption".

You see that NZ had 4,000 excess deaths in 2022, you see, but choose to ignore that NZ had 4,000 Covid deaths in 2022 and instead just assume, without any supporting data, that the excess deaths is due to consequences of lockdowns rather than the actual covid deaths.

The excess deaths are a consequence of both.

We are currently looking at 1st world countries. NZ, Aus, Norway, Denmark, Finland. Why are you now spinning towards third world countries?

Sorry, I didn't realize you didn't care about third world countries. Although a humanitarian crisis where more people will die of starvation than COVID as a result of COVID mitigation measures seems like a pretty big deal.

COVID-related hunger could kill more people than the virus | UN Global Compact

unglobalcompact.org

3rd world countries mostly didn't do lockdowns,

Citation?

And even if this were true, the article above talks about the supply chain disruptions that were absolutely a result of foolish, untested, unproven, unsuccessful lockdowns. So even if a third-world country didn't do a lockdown themselves, they were most certainly impacted by the ill-advised lockdowns in other countries. And now, millions (perhaps even more than COVID killed globally) will likely die of hunger as a result.

But hey, it doesn't affect you in NZ. You managed to keep COVID deaths down on your little island. So I guess it doesn't matter to you that millions will die elsewhere.

didn't distribute masks,

Ahem...

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).​

don't even have much vaccines, or hospitals or even roads for that matter.

Right. They didn't have much vaccine because first-world countries, who ostensibly care about other people, decided that they needed multiple doses (despite almost no data showing this was necessary) before third-world countries got any doses at all. Vaccine inequity has been, and continues to be, a major problem.

Redressing COVID-19 vaccine inequity amidst booster doses: charting a bold path for global health solidarity, together - Globalization and Health

Background With large swathes of the world’s population—majority clustered in low- and middle-income countries—still yet to receive the minimum of two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine; The need to address the failures of international solidarity to equitably distribute COVID-19 vaccines is now more...

globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com

If you believe Sweden's do nothing approach is best, then you'd think that the 3rd world countries would have faired better than the 1st world countries.

You can't be this obtuse, can you? Obviously there are vast differences between a developed country like Sweden and third world countries. A comparison in mortality between two such countries might just be the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread, and that's saying something.

But, well most of us, would think 3rd world countries will have devastatingly high covid tallies.

What about the countries in Africa? Much of Africa is comprised of third-world counties, yet although Africa has over 1 BILLION people, they've only had ~260K COVID deaths over 3 years. Is that "devastatingly high"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh, the irony.

Still can't explain away the facts showing your previous post was incorrect, I see.

 

[KCfromNC]

Don't you think it's important to consider opportunity costs? If deaths occur as a result of mitigation measures (and they did)

Didn't you just post graphs showing that death rates in countries which used mitigation measures increased as those measures were phased out?

I get it - it is hard to come up with objections to the scientific consensus that also don't contradict the data. But shouldn't that tell us something about the consensus conclusions?

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm saying that in order to make many of these arguments, you have to ignore all-cause death rates.

Like trying to ignore the all-cause date rates in Sweden that spiked in 2020 as they tried to ignore mitigation efforts? Those sorts of all-cause death rates?
Or is that another case where we need to ignore anything but very specific cherry-picked data points for the objection to make sense?

It would be nice if you actually engaged in the discussion instead of constantly casting aspersions, which is seemingly the only way you know how to discuss anything.

I know it must feel bad to constantly have talking points taken apart by pointing out the simple factual issues with them, but that doesn't mean pointing out those facts is wrong. If it really is that upsetting, perhaps take more care in evaluating them before posting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here you go politicizing the discussion again.

Your babbling attempts at psychoanalyses are always pure comedy gold.

I can't help but think if there were any reasonable objections to them we'd be reading those rather than these lame attempts at personal jabs.
Luckily they fall as flat as the previous attempts to manipulate the data.

 

[KCfromNC]

I noticed how you didn't address the salient point about the problem of survivor bias in the video and how it can artificially increase the apparent efficacy of the vaccine.

And you didn't list which specific vaccine research you think these hypothetical problems apply to.
I'm guessing "all of them"? If so, my objection remains. If not, then there's still a lot of research left showing how effective the vaccines are at reducing death rates from the disease.

I guess it's just easier to make flippant, snarky comments than it is to have rational, objective discussions.

Uh huh. Still can't explain how the spike in death rates in Sweden shows that their response worked, I see.

 

[KCfromNC]

But what I struggle with is to see how common people in mass in USA go along with this.

People like to feel special. What better way to do that than think they've got some sort of special knowledge learned off of youtube videos that the world's experts have somehow missed?

 

[KCfromNC]

OK, so how does that bear out in the data?
Why haven't you shown the data for increases in suicides of deaths

There might be a reason : U.S. Suicides Declined Over All in 2020 but May Have Risen Among People of Color (Published 2021)

While nearly 350,000 Americans died from Covid-19, the number of suicides dropped by 5 percent, to 44,834 deaths in 2020 from 47,511 in 2019.​

 

[KCfromNC]

Dr. Fauci in the New York Times interview yesterday:

"From a broad public-health standpoint, at the population level, masks work at the margins — maybe 10 percent."​

​

Dr. Fauci Looks Back: ‘Something Clearly Went Wrong’

In his most extensive interview yet, Anthony Fauci wrestles with the hard lessons of the pandemic — and the decisions that will define his legacy.

www.nytimes.com

​

​

Can't help but notice how differently maybes are treated in this discussion. When it is masking, if there's any uncertainty it means the use of masks was obviously bad.
When the maybes provide cover for Sweden's COVID death rate in 2020 or a way to ignore data showing how effective vaccines are at preventing death, though, they're trotted out as certainties.

It's a peculiar approach.

 

[stevil]

People like to feel special. What better way to do that than think they've got some sort of special knowledge learned off of youtube videos that the world's experts have somehow missed?

Yes, I'm starting to see this.

These people think they are more intelligent than everyone else, including the experts, they think they are more researched. When they find official articles from experts, they disregard them, somehow thinking the experts are trying to fool them, because they somehow think the experts are trying to control the population or perhaps create chaos and destroy "America".
So instead they gravitate to articles that say masks are bad, social distancing bad.
They go to data that shows excess deaths are 4K and Covid deaths are 4K and somehow decide that the excess deaths are due to suicides or fear from going to hospitals rather than Covid.
It boggles my mind. I would have thought, of course you have some fringe people who are caught up in conspiracy thinking. But in USA it isn't just some, it seems to be around 100 million or so people. It doesn't help that people on the political right in USA think Fox News is a news or journalistic media outlet. Fox News opinions are crackpot fringe and really shouldn't have anywhere near the audience numbers they have. And it doesn't help that many Republican politicians peddle this nonsense too.

 

[stevil]

The excess deaths are a consequence of both.

When our excess deaths are 4K and our covid deaths are 4K, where do the suicides and the fear of going to hospital fit in?
There is very little scope for anything significant other than the Covid deaths.
And if something else were at play, why assume suicides? why assume fear of getting hospital treatment? Why not assume under counting of covid deaths?

Anyway, since our excess deaths are pretty much the same as our covid deaths, it seems to me that NZ is doing a pretty good job of keeping track of Covid deaths. I think third world countries will be grossly under reporting as they don't have the capability to test for covid so much.

 

[probinson]

Didn't you just post graphs showing that death rates in countries which used mitigation measures increased as those measures were phased out?

Do you think that's evidence of something? If so, you could probably go work for the crack team at MMWR, where observational studies can be made and used to justify any fool mitigation measure.

I know it must feel bad to constantly have talking points taken apart by pointing out the simple factual issues with them,

You continually amuse me with your misplaced confidence.

 

[probinson]

I can't help but think if there were any reasonable objections to them we'd be reading those rather than these lame attempts at personal jabs.

Oh please. You're the king of personal jabs. You're projecting again...

 

[probinson]

Can't help but notice how differently maybes are treated in this discussion. When it is masking, if there's any uncertainty it means the use of masks was obviously bad.

The mandating of masks was obviously bad. If you want to wear a useless mask for the rest of your life, knock yourself out. Just don't try to impose your pseudoscience on others.

 

[probinson]

These people think they are more intelligent than everyone else, including the experts, they think they are more researched.

To the contrary, I know I am a rank novice, and I sit here wondering how people fall for such obviously shoddy nonsense.

When they find official articles from experts, they disregard them,

Like the Cochrane Review?

Here it is again, in case you missed it.

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).​

That's an "official article from experts". You really should heed what it says.

somehow thinking the experts are trying to fool them, because they somehow think the experts are trying to control the population or perhaps create chaos and destroy "America".

The "experts" have flipped and flopped so many times, it's shocking that there are people that still believe a word they say.

So instead they gravitate to articles that say masks are bad, social distancing bad.

"Articles", like the Cochrane Review?

They go to data that shows excess deaths are 4K and Covid deaths are 4K and somehow decide that the excess deaths are due to suicides or fear from going to hospitals rather than Covid.

Because it's true. There are increasing rates of death in young, healthy people that ARE NOT related to COVID. The articles I've posted have shown that. This is the exact opposite of what should have happened. It should cause us to question why.

It boggles my mind. I would have thought, of course you have some fringe people who are caught up in conspiracy thinking. But in USA it isn't just some, it seems to be around 100 million or so people. It doesn't help that people on the political right in USA think Fox News is a news or journalistic media outlet. Fox News opinions are crackpot fringe and really shouldn't have anywhere near the audience numbers they have. And it doesn't help that many Republican politicians peddle this nonsense too.

And now you're back to politicizing the discussion. You will be hard pressed to find ANY of the drivel you just posted in any of my posts. But because you can't refute data, you must resort to nonsensical rantings about the "right".

I get it. It's easy to dismiss "the right". But the reason your mind is boggled isn't because of "the right". It's because there are serious concerns with repeated vaccination (with no data showing benefit), with useless mandates of all sorts imposed on people, with the forced removal of liberty under the guise of "safety".

 

[probinson]

When our excess deaths are 4K and our covid deaths are 4K, where do the suicides and the fear of going to hospital fit in?
There is very little scope for anything significant other than the Covid deaths.

If you say so. But you're ignoring the increasing mortality rate in young, healthy people all over the world.

And if something else were at play, why assume suicides? why assume fear of getting hospital treatment? Why not assume under counting of covid deaths?

Do you think COVID is the only reason people died? Do you not believe there is any collateral damage from the mitigation measures? Only positives? No negatives at all? No downsides? No actual detrimental consequences?

Anyway, since our excess deaths are pretty much the same as our covid deaths, it seems to me that NZ is doing a pretty good job of keeping track of Covid deaths. I think third world countries will be grossly under reporting as they don't have the capability to test for covid so much.

The Washington Post (which is absolutely not a "right-wing" publication) published an article that said COVID deaths were OVERCOUNTED, not under-counted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/

And another article that says that we could be "vastly overestimating" the death rate for COVID-19

We Could Be Vastly Overestimating the Death Rate for COVID-19 — Here's Why - Our World

A lack of adequate COVID-19 testing could lead to an underestimation of the true number of infected individuals and thus an overestimation of the pandemic's true death rate.

ourworld.unu.edu

LA County's public health director did an interview with a local news station suggesting that their dead count could be overcounted by 20%.

LA County COVID deaths could be overcounted by 20%, Ferrer says

LA County public health director Barbara Ferrer says the county could be overcounting deaths related to COVID by as much as 20%.

www.foxla.com

But, these are just more data points you can ignore.

 

[probinson]

Still can't explain how the spike in death rates in Sweden shows that their response worked, I see.

You do know that Sweden has had fewer cumulative excess deaths than many other places in the world, right? I mean, while you want to hyper-focus on 2020's "spike", you fail to acknowledge that in the long game, Sweden has come out ahead. I get it. If you can pretend like 2020 is the only year that mattered, then you can pretend like it was a "disaster". But when we examine the mortality rate over time, we see that Sweden has fared considerably better than other places that locked down hard.

I'm not the only one that thinks Sweden was vindicated in their approach.

Sweden's controversial Covid-19 strategy 'vindicated', say experts

Sweden was panned for its approach – but now it has fewer deaths than most other nations.

www.nzherald.co.nz

This article is particularly interesting, because it shows some "experts" saying that Sweden's approach was vindicated, while other "experts" think it was a failure. This flies in the face of your assertion that there is a "consensus". There is not now, and there never has been.

It's easy to achieve "consensus" when you censor other viewpoints.