Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Part VIII - The Long Winter is Here

[Gabriel426]

Lockdowns only work in bubbles where there is no infection and no one able to move freely.

Look at what lockdowns do. They force greater numbers of people into far fewer areas, making it far more likely to get it than to prevent it. Probably the dumbest thing anyone could advise the public to do. Now couple that with ineffective masks and no real ability to stay far enough away from each (6' had no scientific basis other than for droplets...but relatively useless against airborne particles), and we get what we are seeing today. The long term extension of a pandemic that (curiously enough) has not led to any excess mortality above any other recent years.

To me, lockdown is an easier way for contact tracing, which is non existent at this point.
Either the govt want to test less people due to fear of rising number of cases or they are using herd immunity without telling us.

 

[kb]

To me, lockdown is an easier way for contact tracing, which is non existent at this point.
Either the govt want to test less people due to fear of rising number of cases or they are using herd immunity without telling us.

The only thing we should be concerned about is hospital capacity and deaths. The rest serves no purpose other than fear mongering. If this had proven to be far more deadly, than it has, then yes....trace away.

So far overall deaths are not up in Canada this year. That is not the hallmark of a pandemic..

 

[Pink Mist]

Logic is a cool thing. I like to use it.

Lockdowns cause sick people to infect those they live with or come into close proximity to, especially if they have minimal symptoms like 99+% of cases do.

And lockdowns limit where people can go, via restrictions and closings, so everyone goes to the very same places and it spreads there.

I mean, it's not hard to grasp.

Yes, except you're not really flexing any logic here.

Lockdowns would not cause people to infect those they live in close proximity with. Don't really see how you've come to that point or conclusion.

Nor would they cause people to all go to the same places (essential businesses) anymore than they would outside of a lockdown. Hence why they're called essential businesses What it does do is prevent people from congregating in non-essential indoor settings and then spreading the virus to their household.

Not that hard to grasp, pal.

 

[kb]

Yes, except you're not really flexing any logic here.

Lockdowns would not cause people to infect those they live in close proximity with. Don't really see how you've come to that point or conclusion.

Nor would they cause people to all go to the same places (essential businesses) anymore than they would outside of a lockdown. Hence why they're called essential businesses What it does do is prevent people from congregating in non-essential indoor settings and then spreading the virus to their household.

Not that hard to grasp, pal.

So you believe that the virus knows the difference between people staying home locked down in close proximity with each other, and those who don't?

Interesting concept.

But logically wrong. That will not stop the spread, it will direct the spread, and in most cases to your loved ones. The numbers of infections won't change, just who is and will be infected will change.

But I can't force anyone to use reason or logic.

 

[Pink Mist]

So you believe that the virus knows the difference between people staying home locked down in close proximity with each other, and those who don't?

Interesting concept.

But logically wrong. That will not stop the spread, it will direct the spread, and in most cases to your loved ones. The numbers of infections won't change, just who is and will be infected will change.

But I can't force anyone to use reason or logic.

Not any different than it would outside of lockdowns. It's not like the virus has a quota of people it spreads to then it stops spreading.

The virus needs an entry point to enter your household and we know it spreads in indoor spaces where people meet, so logically it makes sense to limit these spaces to only have the essentials open to help control the spread before it reaches the household.

Don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

[Pink Mist]

Also that 0.1% of cases linked to retail stores is kind of a useless and incomplete statistic when when we don't know the source of transmission for over 60% of the cases in Ontario. The number of cases linked there is very likely much higher.

 

[kb]

Not any different than it would outside of lockdowns. It's not like the virus has a quota of people it spreads to then it stops spreading.

The virus needs an entry point to enter your household and we know it spreads in indoor spaces where people meet, so logically it makes sense to limit these spaces to only have the essentials open to help control the spread before it reaches the household.

Don't see what's so hard to understand.

I agree. With limits on where you can go, those infected people go there instead, and since you have less places to go, you have a higher chance of getting infected.

Yup, don't see what is so hard to understand about having a greater chance of being infected with less places for the infected to go.

Logic.

 

[kb]

Also that 0.1% of cases linked to retail stores is kind of a useless and incomplete statistic when when we don't know the source of transmission for over 60% of the cases in Ontario. The number of cases linked there is very likely much higher.

80% of transmission according to a BC study of tracing happened at home. The rest was from other necessities like public transit.

You are welcome

 

[gnr25]

The idea is that people stay home and rarely go out for food and medicine.
How much hanging out went on in grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations and banks?
You get groceries once a week, and medication once a month.

 

[Pink Mist]

I agree. With limits on where you can go, those infected people go there instead, and since you have less places to go, you have a higher chance of getting infected.

Yup, don't see what is so hard to understand about having a greater chance of being infected with less places for the infected to go.

Logic.

We're going in circles.

People aren't going to these essential places instead, people already go there, hence why they're essential businesses. There is no change in their use. What lockdowns do is get rid of non-essential businesses. This doesn't mean more people start using essential businesses.

 

[kb]

We're going in circles.

People aren't going to these essential places instead, people already go there, hence why they're essential businesses. There is no change in their use. What lockdowns do is get rid of non-essential businesses. This doesn't mean more people start using essential businesses.

So it is better that the transmission occurs in essential businesses? How is that better?

Good luck

 

[Pink Mist]

So it is better that the transmission occurs in essential businesses? How is that better?

Good luck

People don't socialize in essential businesses for prolonged periods of time, unlike in many non-essential businesses.

 

[Sens]

People don't socialize in essential businesses for prolonged periods of time, unlike in many non-essential businesses.

I literally see families go to Walmart as an outing

 

[Pink Mist]

I literally see families go to Walmart as an outing

Sure, doesn't mean that they should be. The idea of a lockdown is that people wouldn't be doing that.

 

[Sens]

Sure, doesn't mean that they should be. The idea of a lockdown is that people wouldn't be doing that.

the people would just get together in homes
People under 60 have tuned out to the government

lockdown will only incite anger which will lead to protests

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

I literally see families go to Walmart as an outing

Back in March I knew people who would go to the grocery store 6x a week..just to get out of the house. I think the whole idea is stupid in a sense. We are now getting people who would have been spread out over a myriad of stores to go to a few places that are open....so in effect we are herding everyone into just a few big box stores to increase the chances of getting covid...its stupid because most small retail already had a limit on customers going on before this crap.

Instead of spreading out the risk..we are increasing it. They locked down some regions of the GTA and now all those people are at malls that aren't locked down in areas like York region...how stupid is that? My wife spent 30min in line to pay for something today at winners when its usually 5min. I wonder where all those people came from?

 

[kb]

People don't socialize in essential businesses for prolonged periods of time, unlike in many non-essential businesses.

Well, if you force everyone into only the very few essential businesses, then no, this is wrong. They don't have to socialize, they simply have to be in proximity - masks or not.

 

[DueDiligence]

Logic is a cool thing. I like to use it.

Lockdowns cause sick people to infect those they live with or come into close proximity to, especially if they have minimal symptoms like 99+% of cases do.

And lockdowns limit where people can go, via restrictions and closings, so everyone goes to the very same places and it spreads there.

I mean, it's not hard to grasp.

You say that people have to go as much as they did before. They don't. Much of what we do and where we go is completely arbitrary and most people have cut down on voluntary interaction. For the most part it's the stupid or selfish who continue to out as much as before Covid hit.

 

[kb]

The idea is that people stay home and rarely go out for food and medicine.
How much hanging out went on in grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations and banks?
You get groceries once a week, and medication once a month.

Yes, so low risk places need to be shut down to force them into higher risk places.

Perfect.

But incredibly dull

If you spread people out by not forcing them to all go to the same big box stores, perhaps you can think of limiting the spread.

Logic, which I know is in very short supply with alarmists.

 

[kb]

You say that people have to go as much as they did before. They don't. Much of what we do and where we go is completely arbitrary and most people have cut down on voluntary interaction. For the most part it's the stupid or selfish who continue to out as much as before Covid hit.

Ah, so if we live our lives in fear, it will reduce the deaths.

Please look at the deaths of this year compared to any other. Just slightly above (by a couple hundred over last year, and trailing 2018 deaths.

#logic

 

[Metroid]

I literally see families go to Walmart as an outing

Even without covid a family that does this has a few lose screws lol

 

[DueDiligence]

We're going in circles.

People aren't going to these essential places instead, people already go there, hence why they're essential businesses. There is no change in their use. What lockdowns do is get rid of non-essential businesses. This doesn't mean more people start using essential businesses.

Actually less people might be using the essential businesses. Instead of the whole family going to Costco only mom or dad goes and the rest stay home. More people now are shopping for relatives to minimize their outside contact. it's a pretty simple concept.

 

[DueDiligence]

Ah, so if we live our lives in fear, it will reduce the deaths.

Please look at the deaths of this year compared to any other. Just slightly above (by a couple hundred over last year, and trailing 2018 deaths.

#logic

funny how I debunk your argument and you focus on living in fear. That's not logical.

 

[kb]

Actually less people might be using the essential businesses. Instead of the whole family going to Costco only mom or dad goes and the rest stay home. More people now are shopping for relatives to minimize their outside contact. it's a pretty simple concept.

Cool. So you have no contact with the relatives you drop off the food for?

Point out the excess deaths we saved from doing this, and I will agree with you.

 

[DueDiligence]

But if mom comes home to her family, how does that stop spread?

Hint.....it doesnt.

Duhhhhh. one person going out to one place has less risk of catching covid then 5 people going out to 5 places. Simple math and Logic#