OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting

'Five Alarm Crisis': Teachers Union Warns Pandemic Burnout Destroying Schools

"If we're serious about getting every child the support they need to thrive," says the president of the NEA, "our elected leaders across the nation need to address this crisis now."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ion-warns-pandemic-burnout-destroying-schools

 

With amazing immune systems.

Yes they gave it to me!

 

#savage

 

#BAM

 

Are you calling his kids dirty little beasts? You're the only guy who could pull that off, Master.

 

Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockdown...inds-lockdowns-should-be-rejected-out-of-hand

 

Sorry... As interesting as it is, I simply can't accept that site as reliable enough to read.

If you link to the study I'd be interested in reading it

 

Would you rather read one of the below?

https://nbc25news.com/news/nation-w...-europe-had-little-to-no-public-health-impact

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/healt...ed-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/johns-hopkins-researchers-lockdowns-did-little-help-pandemic

 

Who are those sources other than a mid Michigan NBC affiliate?

 

WUSF is the flagship National Public Radio member station in the Tampa Bay area. It is licensed to Tampa and owned by the University of South Florida.

Not sure what theedgemarkets.com is. They are all referring to a study by Johns Hopkins.

 

They might all be referring to a John's Hopkins study but are they accurate? Also, do you have any national credible sources. Seems like this would be something The Newshour or All In with Chris Hayes or The Global Public Square with Fareed Zacharia or Meet the Press with Chuck Todd would be interested in that story. How about the NY Times or the Washington Post? Then there's the New Yorker magazine. There's a whole host of wonderful credible sources that should have printed that story yet they haven't. Do you wonder why?

 

There is literally a link to the actual study by Johns Hopkins in the WUSF link. You can even download it to a PDF file, print it out, and read it. I am definitely a conservative although I'm fully vaxxed and boosted. WUSF is a edu site so I wouldn't expect them to be biased towards conservatives.

 

It's not the job of all your interested readers to duplicate the research. This is your job. Can you see why?

 

Here is a science based subreddit discussing the John's Hopkins study. Anything not backed by sources is deleted from that subreddit, so it's a decent read.



Looks like a fairly flawed study. New Zealand has like 53 total deaths from covid, largely thanks to locking down.

 

No I cannot. It is not my job to duplicate research either. I am merely citing a study that seems incongruent with the direction that some leadership figures are espousing.

 

These are not epidemiologists or researchers in natural sciences. The study is conducted by three economists (and I've already mentioned how this damages the economy), one of which is a proponent for less government regulation (e.g. a government lockdown). Another was a senior economist to a former Republican president. So there may be a natural bias to this study.

If my understanding is correct, they choose to compare the effects of a stringent lockdown vs. a lesser lockdown, not a lockdown vs. no lockdown. This on top of trying to distinguish the effect of a lockdown while other non-pharmaceutical interventions had already begun makes this even more subjective when trying to quantify the effects. The results also don't seem to take into account the fact that, at least in the US, there were rapid declines in public activity (such as self-isolation, social distancing, greater hygiene) well before legal restrictions were imposed, which has an obvious effect on the results.

Despite choosing only 34 studies (out of more than a thousand), 12 were not peer-reviewed, and I found that some of the ways they chose to exclude other studies were extremely subjective. Of the studies they did use, one of the ways they distinguish them is by admitting if they were conducted by those in the social sciences vs. "other sciences" (such as epidemiologists), and from what I can tell they seem to use more studies from social sciences. The difference in results between the two groups looks to be pretty significant, with the "other sciences" showing that lockdowns have a larger effect on COVID mortality). They end up admitting that based on their findings the closures of non-essential businesses, and separately wearing masks, did have a significant effect on reducing COVID-19 mortality.

Near the end they talk about possible factors in their findings which I did find interesting. One is that voluntary behavioral changes are more effective than mandates. I would agree with this unless half the population is basing their behavior on misinformation.

 

Filling skateboard parks with sand and taking off basketball hoop rims reduced COVID-19 by 20%

 

US Covid Death Rate Marks 'Dark Side of American Exceptionalism'

"You know what every country on this graph except for the USA has?" asked one observer, pointing to a new analysis of U.S. coronavirus deaths. "Universal healthcare."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...-rate-marks-dark-side-american-exceptionalism