Pandemic started in a lab:

[stevil]

Yes it was. At no point did New Zealand "eliminate" the disease. Don't make me post the graph again...

It is unfortunate that you don't listen.
I've told you what happened over here, but you don't listen and don't believe me.
I've tried to explain it as it is more nuanced that that graph. But anyway. We can't really converse in a productive way if you refuse to listen.

Ballyhoo for you. Perhaps if every country were a geographically isolated island, they too could have controlled the virus better.

This isn't even the topic of conversation. This is just a distraction.
We are talking about the effectiveness of lockdowns and masks in buying time to get the population vaccinated and hence more protected from death from the disease.
NZ and Aus is one thing, but also a comparison of Norway, Finland and Denmark is a much better comparison vs Sweden.

Psst. Sweden didn't have horrendous death rates. Look at the charts I posted earlier. Overall mortality was largely unchanged in Sweden during the pandemic in almost every age group. In fact, in many age groups, mortality was LOWER in 2020 than in the historical data.

As we know Corona virus was much more deadly to the elderly and vulnerable. There is very little value in comparing deathrates of 5 year olds when we are talking about the total population and the failure of the Swedish government to protect their population.
The death rates were absolutely horrendous. In 2020 they had 9,706 people die of Covid where as NZ had only 30 people die of Covid. And for a more direct comparison Norway had only 433 die, Denmark 1,312 and Finland 587. Sweden's approach was catastrophic.

Looking at your charts you can clearly see how horrendous 2020 was for Sweden especially for people over 35.
When comparing Sweden's 2020 overall deaths against the over all deaths for them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 we can see that clearly 2020 is a massive outlier, they went from (90,907, 90,982, 91,972, 92,185, 88,766 to all of a sudden 98,124. A jump of 6-8k more deaths and we see from their Covid deaths that year they had 9.7k Covid deaths which more than accounts for that jump in deaths.

NZ, Au, Norway, Denmark and Finland did not have that jump.
We all had a jump in 2022, because that is when we all opened back up, once our people were vaccinated and we incurred a jump in deaths. Albeit at a much lower rate than what Sweden experienced when the let the disease flow through their unvacinated population.
For some reason you are getting excited about Sweden's statistics in 2022 but in 2022 Sweden had 7,028 people die from Covid, additional to those that already died in 2020 and 2021.

The jumps in 2022 in overall deaths for NZ, Au, Fin, Den, Nor are all very much aligned with the Covid deaths experienced in those countries in that year, and are not attributed to lockdown related issues.

Anyway, I'm just repeating here what I've already said.

Why do you continually say things that are demonstrably false? Where do you see anything remotely resembling exponential growth at the beginning of the pandemic on this chart?

View attachment 329563

See that little blip around Feb/March? Zoom into that. That is when we had 30 people die. It looks small in the graph above because that shows what happened when Omicron came in and when we opened up in 2022.
But if you zoom into Feb/March 2020 you will see exponential growth. Luckily NZ was very quick to implement lock downs and we stamped this out and eliminated the disease entirely from society (except for quarantines at our border)

 

[probinson]

As we know Corona virus was much more deadly to the elderly and vulnerable.

Most definitely. The elderly are at a risk many orders of magnitude over everyone else.

There is very little value in comparing deathrates of 5 year olds when we are talking about the total population and the failure of the Swedish government to protect their population.

Actually, that's very important to the discussion. The mortality of children was unaffected by the pandemic in Sweden, despite not closing down schools. In the US, we were told that it was absolutely critical to sacrifice our children's education so that we could avoid severe illness and deaths. But like so many other things, that was a lie.

The death rates were absolutely horrendous.

They were not. Aside from the very elderly, Sweden's all-cause mortality rates were not anywhere near "horrendous". In fact, most age groups saw REDUCED morality in 2020.

In 2020 they had 9,706 people die of Covid where as NZ had only 30 people die of Covid. And for a more direct comparison Norway had only 433 die, Denmark 1,312 and Finland 587. Sweden's approach was catastrophic.

Are you aware that people die from things other than COVID? Any pandemic response must be measured in overall mortality gains and losses.

Looking at your charts you can clearly see how horrendous 2020 was for Sweden especially for people over 35.
When comparing Sweden's 2020 overall deaths against the over all deaths for them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 we can see that clearly 2020 is a massive outlier, they went from (90,907, 90,982, 91,972, 92,185, 88,766 to all of a sudden 98,124.

That's not a "massive outlier". 2019 was a lower than usual year for mortality in Sweden, which explains in part why the mortality was higher in 2020. Also, your numbers are inaccurate.

The mortality rates in Sweden for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are (per 1,000 residents) 9.28, 9.17, 9.14, 9.06 and 8.64 respectively. That's an average mortality rate of 9.06 per 1,000 for the prior 5 years. The mortality rate in 2020 was 9.48, which is just 4.6% higher than the previous 5-year average and lower than every mortality rate from 2001 - 2012. You're trying to make it seem like this year was an outlier for overall mortality, but it is not.

A jump of 6-8k more deaths and we see from their Covid deaths that year they had 9.7k Covid deaths which more than accounts for that jump in deaths.

Um, no.

Here is the mortality rate for 35-39.

There is no "jump of deaths" evident here. In fact. 2020 is lower than 2019.

Likewise for 40-44 year olds.

I'll spare you re-posting all of the other charts, but suffice to say for the majority of age groups in Sweden and 2020, there was a DECREASED mortality rate.

NZ, Au, Norway, Denmark and Finland did not have that jump.

There is no "jump". I'm not sure what you don't quite understand about ALL-CAUSE mortality, and the fact that Sweden ranks LOWEST in Europe for cumulative excess deaths in all of Europe from 2020-2022.

See that little blip around Feb/March? Zoom into that. That is when we had 30 people die. It looks small in the graph above because that shows what happened when Omicron came in and when we opened up in 2022.
But if you zoom into Feb/March 2020 you will see exponential growth. Luckily NZ was very quick to implement lock downs and we stamped this out and eliminated the disease entirely from society (except for quarantines at our border)

Again, New Zealand is a literal island. What works on a geographically isolated island is simply not going to work anywhere else. That is a FAR greater factor than any masking or lockdowns.

 

[probinson]

Here's the problem with believing that lockdowns and masking "works", and was the compassionate thing to do to "save lives".

If you believe that, then why did you stop doing it? People are still dying from COVID. So why are you no longer masking and staying home? Don't you care about the vulnerable people any more? Have you reached a threshold where the wellbeing of the vulnerable population is no longer important to you?

See, I know that lockdowns and masking accomplished next to nothing, so I have no moral dilemma in walking around bare-faced and enjoying life as I always have. But I don't know how, for those people that all of a sudden started believing that masking "saved lives" in 2020, you could stop doing it. I mean, if you really and truly believe that masking saves lives, why wouldn't you do it forever? There are countless respiratory viruses that could be stopped in their tracks if you just continue your selfless masking, so why would you stop?

 

[stevil]

Actually, that's very important to the discussion. The mortality of children was unaffected by the pandemic in Sweden, despite not closing down schools.

This is totally irrelevant

In the US, we were told that it was absolutely critical to sacrifice our children's education so that we could avoid severe illness and deaths. But like so many other things, that was a lie.

It is a contagious disease, do you understand that?
Children don't live alone, they catch the disease and spread it amongst other children, then they go home to mum and dad and potentially the grandparents too.

It's very weird that you can't think through this.

They were not. Aside from the very elderly, Sweden's all-cause mortality rates were not anywhere near "horrendous". In fact, most age groups saw REDUCED morality in 2020.

From the chart you were showing a year on year trend. The 2020 from 35 years and above did not follow that trend the deaths were much higher.

Are you aware that people die from things other than COVID? Any pandemic response must be measured in overall mortality gains and losses.

Yip and thats why I've shown you the direct correlation between total Covid deaths and the uptick in total overall deaths. But, you keep ignoring that I've shown you this.

That's not a "massive outlier". 2019 was a lower than usual year for mortality in Sweden, which explains in part why the mortality was higher in 2020. Also, your numbers are inaccurate.

It does not explain 2020. The massive amounts of Covid deaths do. They highly correlate to the uptick in total deaths for Sweden, funny that.

The mortality rates in Sweden for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are (per 1,000 residents) 9.28, 9.17, 9.14, 9.06 and 8.64 respectively. That's an average mortality rate of 9.06 per 1,000 for the prior 5 years. The mortality rate in 2020 was 9.48, which is just 4.6% higher than the previous 5-year average and lower than every mortality rate from 2001 - 2012.

Let's just ignore 2001 through to 2012 as we are not trying to track other health measure that Sweden is doing, we are trying to assess the Covid measures.

• There was a massive uptick in overall deaths in 2020 in Sweden, of about 6-8K on the previous few years.
• There was also a deadly contagious global pandemic in 2020 which hit Sweden
• And noone in Sweden was vacinated from Covid in 2020
• And Sweden didn't bother with lockdowns or social distancing or masks
• In 2020 Sweden had 9.7k people die of Covid, which explains the increase in overall deaths.

View attachment 329568

There is no "jump of deaths" evident here. In fact. 2020 is lower than 2019.

2021 and 2022 are well above the line.
Looking at these graphs is just ridiculous, especially looking at the younger age groups when we know Covid hits the older groups much more. What point are you trying to make?

Again, New Zealand is a literal island. What works on a geographically isolated island is simply not going to work anywhere else. That is a FAR greater factor than any masking or lockdowns.

Nope. If we hadn't done lockdowns, social distancing and masks then we would have had the horrendous death that Sweden had. Thankfully we aren't stupid and we value our elderly and vulnerable.

 

[KCfromNC]

It means that the mortality was so much lower in 2019 that even with a larger number in 2020, it averaged out in the long-run.

If that were actually the intended argument, not sure why there was an attempt to hide the fact that there was a pretty significant jump in 2020. Nor does that jump actually happening somehow back up the idea that Sweden got it right in their pandemic response.

Maybe you could go get the data and analyze it yourself.

Post 211 already handled that. I was more interested in the hows and whys for the misleading chart in the post I was responding to.

Oh, wait, is this an attempt to turn the discussion to something I did or didn't do rather than address the facts about the chart in question?

 

[KCfromNC]

As you can clearly see from this data, those over the age of 90 were hardest hit by COVID in Sweden. Starting at age 70, you see an increase in the mortality rate in 2020 for those age groups. But below that, there isn't any indication that the overall mortality was affected AT ALL.

Looks like now we're quibbling about exactly how many extra people Sweden's response killed rather than previous attempts to say that they got it right. I guess that's progress.
Or maybe the argument is that senior citizens don't actually matter - kinda like GOP claims that some people are just going to have to die for the economy to keep going?
Hard to tell, the "arguments" are all over the place. Doesn't matter, I guess, just as long as they end up at the desired conclusions.

 

[probinson]

This is totally irrelevant

It is not. Education losses in the pandemic were catastrophic, and unnecessary.

“Children still have not recovered the learning that they lost out on at the start of the pandemic,” he said. Also, “education inequality between children from different socioeconomic backgrounds increased during the pandemic. So the learning crisis is an equality crisis. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately affected by school closures.”​

​

Children lost about 35% of a normal school year's worth of learning during the pandemic, study suggests | CNN

A new paper adds to the mounting evidence that school-age children across the globe experienced significant setbacks in their learning progress during the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.cnn.com

​

It is a contagious disease, do you understand that?

Yes, yes I do.

Children don't live alone, they catch the disease and spread it amongst other children, then they go home to mum and dad and potentially the grandparents too.

Ah. I see we're back to children are just dirty vectors of disease. One problem with that.

These data all suggest that children are not significant drivers of the COVID-19 pandemic.​

​

COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents arguably the greatest public health crisis in living memory. One surprising aspect of this pandemic is that children appear to be infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, far less frequently...

publications.aap.org

​

​

This was known way back in August 2020.

It's very weird that you can't think through this.

I can. It's very weird that you're ignoring data that shows your hypotheses are incorrect.

From the chart you were showing a year on year trend. The 2020 from 35 years and above did not follow that trend the deaths were much higher.

False. If you keep making false statements, I'll keep re-posting the data showing just how false it is.

\

As anyone tha knows how to read a chart can see, all-cause mortality in Sweden in ages 35-39 was LOWER in 2020 than 2019, 2021, and 2022. Your statement that deaths were "much higher" in this age group in 2020 is demonstrably false.

Let's just ignore 2001 through to 2012 as we are not trying to track other health measure that Sweden is doing, we are trying to assess the Covid measures.

• There was a massive uptick in overall deaths in 2020 in Sweden, of about 6-8K on the previous few years.

You keep saying this, but you're using raw numbers, which is remarkably dishonest.

Here are the mortality rates (again) from Sweden from 2015-2020 (per 1,000 residents); 9.28, 9.17, 9.14, 9.06, 8.64 and 9.48. The prior 5-year average mortality rate then is 9.06. Compared to 9.48 in 2020, this represents only a 4% increase over the prior 5-year average. I know you're trying desperately to make it sound like this was "catastrophic", but it is not. The all-cause mortality rate in Sweden in 2020 was slightly higher, but was nowhere near the massacre you are implying.

• There was also a deadly contagious global pandemic in 2020 which hit Sweden

True.

• And noone in Sweden was vacinated from Covid in 2020

Also true, because no vaccines were available.

• And Sweden didn't bother with lockdowns or social distancing or masks

It would be more accurate to say that Sweden implemented their pandemic preparedness plan that was developed following decades of sound science instead of implementing unproven, untested measures that everyone knew would carry massive collateral damage.

• In 2020 Sweden had 9.7k people die of Covid, which explains the increase in overall deaths.

Almost all of whom were over the age of 90, as the charts I've posted have shown.

2021 and 2022 are well above the line.
Looking at these graphs is just ridiculous, especially looking at the younger age groups when we know Covid hits the older groups much more. What point are you trying to make?

You keep trying to say that Sweden just left people to die. The data shows this is a demonstrably false accusation.

Nope. If we hadn't done lockdowns, social distancing and masks then we would have had the horrendous death that Sweden had.

If you say so. Your counterfactual can never actually be proven though, so you can think whatever you like.

Thankfully we aren't stupid and we value our elderly and vulnerable.

Then why have you stopped lockdowns and masking? Did you stop valuing them?

 

[probinson]

If that were actually the intended argument, not sure why there was an attempt to hide the fact that there was a pretty significant jump in 2020.

I'm not sure a 4.6% increase from the prior five-year average is "significant".

Nor does that jump actually happening somehow back up the idea that Sweden got it right in their pandemic response.

Sweden absolutely got it right.

Looking at crude death rates, we see that Sweden's death rate was very much in line with norms and comparable to their neighbors. We also see that Italy and Germany (which imposed early lockdowns and masking) have a much HIGHER crude death rate than Sweden, and experienced steeper increases in their crude death rate despite lockdowns and masking.

Post 211 already handled that. I was more interested in the hows and whys for the misleading chart in the post I was responding to.

The chart is not misleading. There was lower mortality in Sweden in 2019, which accounts for at least some portion of the increase in 2020. Indeed, an NIH study acknowledges this fact.

The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.​

​

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic - PMC

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

 

[probinson]

Looks like now we're quibbling about exactly how many extra people Sweden's response killed rather than previous attempts to say that they got it right. I guess that's progress.

No we're not.

I reject outright the premise that the government is responsible for "killing" or "saving" people in the pandemic. This is the foundational error upon which all of these idiotic, horrendous policies are built, that we need the government to "save" us from the pandemic.

Or maybe the argument is that senior citizens don't actually matter - kinda like GOP claims that some people are just going to have to die for the economy to keep going?

If you had actually read my posts, you'd see that I believe more could have been done to protect the elderly without imposing untested, unproven lockdowns that carried immense collateral damage. Focused protection on those most vulnerable was always the most logical response.

Besides that, I'm not sure that locking senior citizens away in long-term care facilities for months and years on end to literally die from loneliness can be classified as caring for the elderly (emphasis added).

Senior citizens - people over 65 - account for 16% of the U.S. population but 75% of deaths from COVID-19, according to the CDC. Doctors say there are even more deaths that are harder to figure among seniors who've been isolated but die from causes that may be related to extended loneliness and isolation.​

​

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/19/1081948849/elderly-people-make-up-75-of-covid-19-deaths-partially-due-to-loneliness

​

But hey, at least they didn't die of COVID, so they don't even factor into your calculations of COVID deaths.

 

[stevil]

It is not. Education losses in the pandemic were catastrophic, and unnecessary.

“Children still have not recovered the learning that they lost out on at the start of the pandemic,” he said. Also, “education inequality between children from different socioeconomic backgrounds increased during the pandemic. So the learning crisis is an equality crisis. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately affected by school closures.”​

​

Children lost about 35% of a normal school year's worth of learning during the pandemic, study suggests | CNN

A new paper adds to the mounting evidence that school-age children across the globe experienced significant setbacks in their learning progress during the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.cnn.com

​

This conversation is about deaths. Not about lost education.

Ah. I see we're back to children are just dirty vectors of disease. One problem with that.

These data all suggest that children are not significant drivers of the COVID-19 pandemic.​

​

COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents arguably the greatest public health crisis in living memory. One surprising aspect of this pandemic is that children appear to be infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, far less frequently...

publications.aap.org

​

​

This was known way back in August 2020.

My family got Covid because my youngest brought it home from school and then spread it to me and the rest of the family.

False. If you keep making false statements, I'll keep re-posting the data showing just how false it is.

Your chart is just so weird. Why on earth are you going back all the way to 2000.
At best it shows a decades long trend and it shows in the Age 35-39 that deaths in 2021 and 2022 are well above the trend

You keep saying this, but you're using raw numbers, which is remarkably dishonest.

The raw numbers show a massively high correlation between the extra deaths and the covid deaths.

Also true, because no vaccines were available.

The point is that Sweden's "do nothing" policy allowed the disease to freely flow through the population when that had not been vaccinated.
Other countries "do what they can to save lives" policy bought time to get the population vacinated first before allowing the disease to take hold.

Almost all of whom were over the age of 90, as the charts I've posted have shown.

The age doesn't matter. Unless you think it is fine to just let the elderly die, they are old anyway, so who cares?

If you say so. Your counterfactual can never actually be proven though, so you can think whatever you like.

Yes it can. All we need to do is look to Sweden as well as UK and USA for failed responses and see the massive rates that their people died at.
Large amounts of their people caught the disease before the population was vaccinated. NZ, Au and many other countries, especially countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland took measures and saved lives.

Then why have you stopped lockdowns and masking? Did you stop valuing them?

Are you being intentionally obtuse or can you really not think this through for yourself?
It seems you can't think through the correllation between Covid deaths and excess deaths, can't think through the ability for children to catch and spread disease, can't think through the tragedy of old people dying, can't think through the concept of buying time to get the population vaccinated.

The intent was never to lock down society forever.

 

[probinson]

This conversation is about deaths. Not about lost education.

This conversation is about lockdowns. Believe it or not, there are opportunity costs to lockdowns.

My family got Covid because my youngest brought it home from school and then spread it to me and the rest of the family.

How could that be? I thought New Zealand "eliminated" COVID from society?

Your chart is just so weird. Why on earth are you going back all the way to 2000.

Historical data is important.

At best it shows a decades long trend and it shows in the Age 35-39 that deaths in 2021 and 2022 are well above the trend

You have an odd definition of "well above".

The raw numbers show a massively high correlation between the extra deaths and the covid deaths.

The raw numbers don't take into account population, which is I suspect why you keep referring to them. When you look at the average crude mortality rate of 9.06 per 1,000 for the 5-years prior to COVID compared to 9.48 per 1,000 in 2020, it's not nearly the "catastrophic failure" you're trying to portray it as.

The point is that Sweden's "do nothing" policy allowed the disease to freely flow through the population when that had not been vaccinated.
Other countries "do what they can to save lives" policy bought time to get the population vacinated first before allowing the disease to take hold.

Sure they did. I'm sure that's why they're now experiencing such high excess deaths.

The age doesn't matter. Unless you think it is fine to just let the elderly die, they are old anyway, so who cares?

Of course I've never said anything of the sort, and your classification as such is intentionally dishonest.

Yes it can. All we need to do is look to Sweden as well as UK and USA for failed responses and see the massive rates that their people died at.
Large amounts of their people caught the disease before the population was vaccinated. NZ, Au and many other countries, especially countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland took measures and saved lives.

And now they're experiencing alarmingly high excess mortality. Not sure that classifies as "lives saved".

Are you being intentionally obtuse or can you really not think this through for yourself?
It seems you can't think through the correllation between Covid deaths and excess deaths, can't think through the ability for children to catch and spread disease, can't think through the tragedy of old people dying, can't think through the concept of buying time to get the population vaccinated.

The intent was never to lock down society forever.

You have some serious historical revisionism issues, or really bad short-term memory. You seem to forget that when lockdowns were enacted, there was no guarantee that vaccines would be available in the short term. In fact, Fauci said it could take "years" to develop a vaccine. It was never sustainable to lockdown society for "years", yet lockdowns were enacted the world over with NO PROMISE of an impending vaccine.

Now with the benefit of hindsight, you can change the script and pretend like they were just locking down to protect people until the vaccines were available. But that was never a sure thing, and was in fact deemed a long shot back in 2020. So your assertion that this was just to buy time to get people vaccinated doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The lockdowns were a foolish, untested mitigation measure that widened the gap in socioeconomic classes. They were advised against in EVERY pandemic preparedness plan the world over. If you didn't have a job that let you be "safer at home", you still had to go out and face the pandemic to make and deliver pizza to the laptop class that was hiding away trying to save (their own) lives while not caring one whit about the working class that was bearing the brunt of the pandemic. The lockdowns isolated the elderly away from their friends and families, and literally resulted in them dying from loneliness. The opportunity costs for lockdowns were immense.

The lockdowns were an unmitigated disaster that did not save lives. They traded them to other causes.

Here's what the Australian pandemic preparedness plan said. It's odd that it was tossed in the garbage and they chose not even to heed their own warnings about the opportunity costs and risks of the lockdowns they ultimately implemented.

 

[stevil]

How could that be? I thought New Zealand "eliminated" COVID from society?

I'm not interested in having a conversation with idiots.
If you want to have a good faith conversation, then I am interested,
As you know I clarified that we had eliminated the disease for large periods while people weren't vaccinated and that once people got vaccinated we reopened our country.

I've explained all this to you, but you insist on being an idiot.

 

[probinson]

I'm not interested in having a conversation with idiots.

No need to get rude.

If you want to have a good faith conversation, then I am interested,

No, I really don't think you are.

As you know I clarified that we had eliminated the disease for large periods while people weren't vaccinated and that once people got vaccinated we reopened our country.

So how did your whole family get infected with COVID from a school child? Was this before vaccination, or after? If after, it doesn't sound like the vaccine did a very good job of protecting your family from infection.

I've explained all this to you, but you insist on being an idiot.

You're lucky I don't report people, because this is very obviously flaming. Although I suppose resorting to name-calling is the inevitable endpoint when the arguments fall apart.

 

[probinson]

Let's take a look at the age-standardized mortality rates of Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

Source: https://mortality.watch

Interestingly, New Zealand and Sweden had almost the EXACT same age-adjusted mortality rate in 2020, but Sweden has done considerably better than New Zealand since then.

When you look at all-cause mortality instead of myopically focusing on COVID, you can see how much better Sweden has done than their neighbors, and even those countries that locked down hard to ostensibly "save lives".

 

[stevil]

So how did your whole family get infected with COVID from a school child? Was this before vaccination, or after? If after, it doesn't sound like the vaccine did a very good job of protecting your family from infection.

Perhaps your understanding of the vaccine is lacking.
The vaccine reduces the chances of infection but does not guarantee against infection
The vaccine drastically reduces the chances of hospitalisation and/or death.

We caught the disease after being vaccinated, after the country opened up.

Although I suppose resorting to name-calling is the inevitable endpoint when the arguments fall apart.

I'm calling you out, not to bait you or inflame you, but hopefully to get you to stop doing this, because I am frustrated that you are not discussing in good faith.
You accused me of lying when I said NZ eliminated the disease from our shores (which we did)
I then further clarified that we eliminated if for a substantial period of time. But that it came back as Omicron and was hard to then eliminate plus we had all got vaccinated and we then opened up completely.

But then you still go on about this elimination thing, suggesting that I had said that we eliminated it forever, which is not something I ever said, and you know especially after my clarification that this is not something I said or implied. And yet, you did this again, for no reason other than idiocy.

I'm only interested in good faith discussions, not this nonsense of misconstruing what I say and continuing to do so once I have provided clarification.

 

[probinson]

Perhaps your understanding of the vaccine is lacking.

No, I don't think so.

The vaccine reduces the chances of infection but does not guarantee against infection

Clearly, as evidenced by your whole family being infected despite being vaccinated.

The vaccine drastically reduces the chances of hospitalisation and/or death.

For people at high-risk, yes that seems to be true. For people who are young and healthy, not so much.

We caught the disease after being vaccinated, after the country opened up.

I guess that even though your chances of infection was "reduced", it didn't really matter much.

I'm calling you out, not to bait you or inflame you,

Baloney. The only reason you call someone an "idiot" is to be inflammatory. If you're going to be rude and inflammatory, own it.

but hopefully to get you to stop doing this, because I am frustrated that you are not discussing in good faith.
You accused me of lying when I said NZ eliminated the disease from our shores (which we did)

That's not what you said. Why do you keep adding to what you said? What you actually said was that NZ "eliminated the disease". Period. No qualifiers. Apparently you misspoke. The honest, "good faith" thing to do, would be to acknowledge that you misspoke instead of trying to pretend like you're "clarifying" something you never said.

I then further clarified that we eliminated if for a substantial period of time. But that it came back as Omicron and was hard to then eliminate plus we had all got vaccinated and we then opened up completely.

And then you got infected anyway.

But then you still go on about this elimination thing, suggesting that I had said that we eliminated it forever, which is not something I ever said, and you know especially after my clarification that this is not something I said or implied. And yet, you did this again, for no reason other than idiocy.

Tsk tsk. You really should stop this flaming.

I'm only interested in good faith discussions,

As am I. But I do appreciate when people show their true colors.

not this nonsense of misconstruing what I say and continuing to do so once I have provided clarification.

Great. Then let's talk about the last graph I posted. Age-standardized mortality. When you look at that chart and see that Sweden had the EXACT SAME age-standardized mortality as NZ in 2020 and has been lower ever since, does that cause you to reconsider your false assertion that Sweden's response was "disastrous"?

 

[stevil]

Clearly, as evidenced by your whole family being infected despite being vaccinated.

We all live in close proximity to each other, indoors too.
And this is a highly contagious disease.

For people at high-risk, yes that seems to be true. For people who are young and healthy, not so much.

Its the same across the board regardless of age.
Death rates are around 10 times lower in comparison to unvaccinated people in the same age group.

I guess that even though your chances of infection was "reduced", it didn't really matter much.

It mattered a lot. Even though the disease has come in and spread we haven't had the death rates that we would have had if we let it in before people were vaccinated. Why on earth do I need to spell this out to you?

That's not what you said. Why do you keep adding to what you said? What you actually said was that NZ "eliminated the disease". Period. No qualifiers. Apparently you misspoke. The honest, "good faith" thing to do, would be to acknowledge that you misspoke instead of trying to pretend like you're "clarifying" something you never said.

Dude, listen and engage your brain please.

I never said we eliminated it forever, that is just idiocy.
I also then clarified when you rushed back with the idiot comment that you provided.
But now we have you ignoring my clarification and going off like a fool with this idiot's narrative.
Please accept the clarification and move on. Don't take the fools approach to conversations on the internet.

 

[probinson]

We all live in close proximity to each other, indoors too.
And this is a highly contagious disease.

Sure. But when I had COVID pre-vax, my 14-year daughter, who was also unavaxxed, did not get COVID despite being in extremely close proximity to me in the same house indoors. Weird, eh? Anecdotes. We all got 'em.

Its the same across the board regardless of age.

It is not. And it never has been. Did you know that the WHO isn't even recommending vaccinations for children now? They just updated their guidance this past week. That's because the risk/benefit calculus is NOT the same regardless of age, and it never has been.

Death rates are around 10 times lower in comparison to unvaccinated people in the same age group.

This is just absolute nonsense not supported by any actual data.

It mattered a lot. Even though the disease has come in and spread we haven't had the death rates that we would have had if we let it in before people were vaccinated.

Nope. As we can see from Sweden's age-standardized mortality, the same rate of people died in Sweden in 2020 as did in NZ. It's absolutely true. Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time.

Why on earth do I need to spell this out to you?

You just keep saying things that are untrue. When you attempt to explain untrue things, I will call you out on it.

Dude, listen and engage your brain please.

The inflammatory language just keeps growing.

I never said we eliminated it forever, that is just idiocy.

In post #238 of this thread, this is what you said.

In NZ, we eliminated the disease entirely. It landed on our shores, some people got infected, some even died, but then, with all our efforts of lockdowns, social distancing and masks, we were able to eliminate it. Then we removed lock downs, we didn't need to wear masks, we even had many sporting events with thousands of people in attendance at the stadiums.​

Twice in this paragraph, you claimed that NZ eliminated the disease. There were no qualifiers at all. No mention of Omicron. No mention of "for long periods of time", no mention of your "shores". No, just an unqualified, chest-pounding statement, "We eliminated the disease entirely". Now it's abundantly obvious that you misspoke, and in an honest, good-faith discussion you would own up to that rather than blaming and flaming me for your failure to communicate what you meant to say effectively.

I also then clarified when you rushed back with the idiot comment that you provided.
But now we have you ignoring my clarification and going off like a fool with this idiot's narrative.

Not at all. I realize you misspoke. I just don't understand why you're so reticent to admit it.

Please accept the clarification and move on. Don't take the fools approach to conversations on the internet.

When you're done ranting and flaming, would you like to talk about age-standardized mortality? I'm anxiously awaiting your "good-faith" discussion on this topic.

 

[Merrill]

Perhaps your understanding of the vaccine is lacking.
The vaccine reduces the chances of infection but does not guarantee against infection
The vaccine drastically reduces the chances of hospitalisation and/or death.

We caught the disease after being vaccinated, after the country opened up.


I'm calling you out, not to bait you or inflame you, but hopefully to get you to stop doing this, because I am frustrated that you are not discussing in good faith.
You accused me of lying when I said NZ eliminated the disease from our shores (which we did)
I then further clarified that we eliminated if for a substantial period of time. But that it came back as Omicron and was hard to then eliminate plus we had all got vaccinated and we then opened up completely.

But then you still go on about this elimination thing, suggesting that I had said that we eliminated it forever, which is not something I ever said, and you know especially after my clarification that this is not something I said or implied. And yet, you did this again, for no reason other than idiocy.

I'm only interested in good faith discussions, not this nonsense of misconstruing what I say and continuing to do so once I have provided clarification.

New Zealand did not eliminate COVID-19 from its shores. It locked down the entire island and sent the economy into recession while unemployment jumped 30%. Draconian measures had to be abandoned, or the island would have faced economic collapse.

NZ now has had over 2.2 million COVID-19 cases since opening back up, with over 4000 deaths. As with other countries, when things opened up, there was a surge in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Then, after the virus worked its way through the population, cases went down dramatically:

New Zealand COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

New Zealand Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

The reason lockdowns initially "worked" in NZ was

1. It is an island with a small population--hard to get to
2. SARS-like illnesses from China and elsewhere had already hit the population in previous years, and the native population had some degree of resistance to COVID-19

but lockdowns didn't work in virtually any other country that tried them. They were haphazardly implemented, impossible to control, and flawed. The idea that Sweden suffered terrible results for not locking down is complete nonsense, and is this lie that keeps getting repeated.

The COVID-19 deaths per 100k population in Sweden was better than virtually ever other European nation, including France, Austria, the UK, and Italy (all places that locked down).

Coronavirus death rate in Europe, by country 2023| Statista

As of January 13, 2023, Bulgaria had the highest rate of COVID-19 deaths among its population in Europe at 548.6 deaths per 100,000 population.

www.statista.com

Denmark, which had strict lockdowns and high mask compliance, had 450,000 more cases of COVID-19 than Sweden, and it has a population half the size. Here in the US, places like Illinois, which has a similar population size to Sweden, and who locked down, suffered far more COVID deaths, hospitalizations, and cases.

The Swedish economy recovered faster than almost any European nation

UPDATE 2-Swedish economy surpasses pre-pandemic size, economists say

* Sweden imposed few restrictions during pandemic (Recasts on size of economy, add fresh economist comment)

www.reuters.com

You cannot take a small island country, look at temporary results, and then claim it shows lockdowns work, when in virtually every other country on Earth, the policy failed miserably. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown that these lockdown policies didn't work, and they caused economic, social, and health misery worldwide. Tens of thousands of people died in Africa because they couldn't get mosquito nets and medicines. Millions of people couldn't get preventative treatments and testing. It was a disaster.

 

[stevil]

New Zealand did not eliminate COVID-19 from its shores.

Yes it did. We removed it entirely and we opened up internally, no masks, no lockdowns and even had sporting events with full attendance for great periods of time.

It locked down the entire island and sent the economy into recession while unemployment jumped 30%. Draconian measures had to be abandoned, or the island would have faced economic collapse.

Pragmatic measures which ensured we saved lives

NZ now has had over 2.2 million COVID-19 cases since opening back up, with over 4000 deaths. As with other countries, when things opened up, there was a surge in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Then, after the virus worked its way through the population, cases went down dramatically:

Yip, but if we opened up before everyone was vaccinated then the deaths would have been far greater.

but lockdowns didn't work in virtually any other country that tried them.

They worked in many countries. Just look at Norway, Denmark and Finland as a comparison to the carnage that happened in Sweden.