Lockdowns are claimed to be “effective” against a modelled counter-factual of mass deaths if they aren’t done. If the counter-factual is wrong then lockdowns by definition cannot be “effective”. And we know the counter-factuals are very wrong because model predictions keep being falsified, over and over, most recently with UK freedom day. Note that all the models for COVID at the start were predicting a single giant wave. They couldn’t predict anything else because they assumed only lockdowns can stop epidemics and that otherwise a virus will simply keep spreading exponentially until 100% of the population has been infected. With no understanding of natural immunity, nor for how long SARS-CoV-2 had really been spreading in the population before mass testing started, they had to make this assumption in order to make predictions, but it renders their model useless. They ended up confidently asserting nonsensical scenarios on the back of very incomplete scientific understanding, something which our broken and brainwashed society was totally unable to push back against.
So: lockdowns probably don’t work because the alternative scenario they supposedly protect against isn’t real, because they’re based on bad understandings of probability and biology, and because the germ theory on which lockdown theory rests appears to be incomplete. And underneath it all, because the “experts” who push this theory know no more about viruses or disease than you or I do.
– Norman Powers, in a comment under an article with a somewhat different article rather different topic Will Trump bring down DeSantis?
I like the comment far more than I like the article to which it is attached. The article reminds me of the guy in the bar who sidles up to someone and says “did you hear what that other guy is saying about you?”
As to the comment:
“I believe in the Science!”
“No, you believe in the Model. Even the scientists don’t believe in the Model.”
It’s global warming Part II. Given how well it has seemed to work in the face of actual temperature evidence, it’s not a stupid approach.
Even if we take opposition (not government) estimates for the number of dead in nations that have not had a lockdown, such as Belarus and Nicaragua, the death rate from Covid is massively LOWER than that of the United Kingdom. So one does not have to talk about Sweden (which also has a LOWER Covid death rate than the United Kingdom, United States, France, Italy and so on) as ALL the non lockdown countries have a LOWER Covid death rate than the United Kingdom.
“Ah that is because the United Kingdom did not lockdown fast enough!” – Italy had a lockdown before the United Kingdom and Italy has a HIGHER Covid death rate. “Masks! We should have had a mask mandate from the start!” that would be the Czech Republic which also has a HIGHER Covid death rate than the United Kingdom.
“No you do not understand – there should have been a lockdown and a mask mandate from the very first sign of Covid!” that would be Peru – which has the HIGHEST Covid death rate in the world. Indeed the people of Peru, perhaps understandably, appear to have had a collective nervous breakdown – and have elected a person in a giant hat (who waves a giant pencil about) to be their new President. Well if the “sane” people have ruined your country with their lockdown and mask mandate – why not vote for someone who is openly insane?
The World Health Organisation did NOT use to support lockdowns – their recommendations only started to change in 2019. In 2020 we were all told “China had one and it worked!” so most Western countries decided to have one to.
If one listens to People’s Republic of China propaganda (yes I have) it is a bit different from Putin’s Russia style propaganda. “RT” has no problem with lying – but its lies are mixed with a lot of truth (in order to make the lies seem plausible). PRC propaganda is quite different – it is (on just about every matter) utterly wild and shameless lies, surely no one could take it seriously?
No one apart from the “experts” who “advice” most Western governments – who seem to have taken everything that the PRC said, no matter how obviously false, as the literal truth – and acted on PRC “advice” at all times.
This leaves two possibilities – either Western officials really did believe what the PRC said (in which case the officials must be the most stupid people on the planet), or they had some other reason for PRETENDING that they believed what the PRC said.
I would remind readers that the British establishment (“Ofcom”) banned Chinese English language news some time ago – because its lies were so obvious and blatant that even when the British establishment agreed with the PRC political agenda, it regarded the obvious lies of these stations as counter productive for the collectivist cause.
So the lies of the PRC are so blatant that you will not even allow their television stations to broadcast to the United Kingdom – but you slavishly do whatever the PRC government tells you to do.
Would anyone like to explain that?
I do not think I will bother clicking on an article whose title is “Will Trump bring down DeSantis”.
It sounds like an article that would appear in the “Atlantic” magazine – that vanity project of the widow of Steve Jobs, who inherited billions of Dollars from her late husband (lots of shares in Apple and in Woke Disney Corporation – the Frankfurt School Corporation that would “cancel” the late Walt Disney if he were still alive, but which lives off copyrights from his time).
Money talks – wave enough money in front of a person who made her name writing AGAINST Communism, Anne Applebaum, and they will write articles saying that “D.C. Statehood is a right” i.e. two Senators for the parasite population of Washington D.C. so that the extreme left can control the United States Senate for ever.
The widow of the late Steve Jobs has lots and lots of money – and so was able to set up the “Emerson Collective” (yes that is a real name) to control things such as the Atlantic magazine – and make up stories that the evil Orange Man insulted dead World War II soldiers.
Just lie – wildly lie, that is the de facto mission statement of the “Atlantic” magazine (under its current owner), and anyone who works there has sold their soul. But I am sure that all the money is very comforting for the supporters of “Social Justice”.
One day “the masses” (like all those BLM Marxist “protesters” that the media love – as the Marxists burn down areas of cities and murder anyone who defies them) will come for the money (and everything else) of the “Social Justice” supporters.
Mrs Jobs, Anne Applebaum, and the rest of them will get to experience “Social Justice” up close and personal – after all it is what they say they want.
As for Covid 19 – most of the people who died could have been saved by Early Treatment with a combination of long standing (and off patent) medications.
But Early Treatment was systematically smeared (“Trump wants you to drink fish bowl cleaner – he wants to POISON you”) and hundreds of thousands of people were allowed to die, who could have been saved.
The international establishment have not behaved well – they have behaved badly, very badly indeed.
Likewise. I was deeply unimpressed by the article but found the thoughtful comment very interesting.
In Marseille, they monitored covid infection via the sewer system. The reasoning is that testing is not representative of the real infection rates, whereas everybody uses a toilet regularly. One of the result is that lockdowns made no difference.
Perhaps if the real plan was not to flatten the curve but to destroy the NHS, then the plan worked. Unfortunately, no alternatives seem to have been thought through.
Not just “no understanding”, but an actual denial of the existence of natural immunity. From the inception of footshoe epidemiology more than a century ago when they started with a blank map of the infected area and went door-to-door questioning who’s got / had the latest lurgy, they’ve understood that viral diseases tend to burn out when enough people have had the lurgy and survived, because they act as a natural firebreak to the contagion and if you’ve got enough survivors (somewhere between 40% and 80% of the population) then the uninfected are protected by this concept of herd immunity.
They’ve now effectively rewritten the rules to say that herd immunity can ONLY come from vaccination, but since whatever is being pumped into people’s arms neither prevents the disease, nor prevents it’s communication (only lessening the symptoms in the “injected”), it all smells a bit iffy to say the least.
Fortunately, the disease continues to spread so we’ll get herd immunity the normal way soon enough, regardless of what the nonsense the NHS dictatorship comes up with. Hopefully, it will burn itself out before the worst excesses of state tyranny can be dragged out of Pandora’s Box.
Lockdown Day 514 or so.
I was out-and-about earlier today and even here in the National Socialist Republic of Scotland the numbers ignoring the face nappy mandates and signage in stores has increased from even just a few weeks ago. The elderly seem a bit more fearful (which is perfectly reasonable given COVID-19 is more likely to kill the old and infirm), but most of the youngsters and the males are wandering around face nappy free.
My understanding is that masks and lockdowns were known to be ineffective at controlling a respiratory virus before anyone had heard of covid, but maybe I’m wrong.
You do have to define what you mean by lockdown. If we take full lockdown to mean Wuhan style, then what we are talking about in the west is really a partial lockdown. I suspect that once you have a list of essential people as long as your arm, and the inessential are still allowed out to go shopping, the effect is negligible.
PS
One of the many things that annoy me about lockdowns is the way politicians talk about them as if they were free. There is no attempt at cost/benefit.
Just this morning I ran across this article about this topic in Sciencemag and thought it was interesting:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/coronavirus-found-paris-sewage-points-early-warning-system
That’s an idea I would get behind of true, because I’d like to see the NHS destroyed & replaced with a system more like the better European ones that generally outperform the NHS in most ways. Sadly, the NHS Cult still seems unassailable.
I think bobby b. hits the nail on the head. And it’s actually a good thing. The longer and harder the PTB and the control-freaks cling to ‘the model’, the more examples that appear that completely-contradict ‘the model’, and the more people come to realize that ‘the model’ just isn’t tracking reality. President Obama’s birthday party this weekend vs the Jackpine Derby in Sturgis, S.D., is a perfect example. The enlightened at the NYT are busy telling us all that the former is just fine, because it was a ‘sophisticated crowd’. But 800,000 people are partying their asses off in Sturgis this week, and when there is no ghastly outbreak of death and suffering, as there will not be – then 800,000 more people are going to be saying ‘hmmm – it looks like the model is Wrong’.
Here in MI, our execrable Governor has now acquired a meaningful opponent in next year’s election – former DPD chief Craig, for whom I will be voting – and, all of a sudden, no more restrictions, no more hectoring lectures from the governor, not a peep out of her – once her re-election is on the line, all of a sudden, COVID restrictions are not required anymore. No clearer proof could be given that almost-everything that was done to us in the name of COVID was pure party-political theatre.
I ran myself through the Johns Hopkins COVID risk calculator today, as I have done every week for a year or more. My risk of dying from COVID has now fallen to 0.8 in 1 million, from an all-time high of about 4.0 in 1 million. I don’t cross the street to avoid risks that trivial.
llater,
llamas
Roue le Jour – you are correct.
Yes they did know that a lockdown and a mask mandate would be ineffective – that is why neither the World Health Organisation or anyone else supported such policies, as late as 2019.
Then things were changed – the question is WHY?
Even the definitions of scientific terms have been CHANGED.
For example, “herd immunity” – up to 2020 that meant a population gaining natural immunity, now it means vaccines. A scientific term has had its meaning changed – again WHY?
“Politicians talk about lockdowns as if they were costless – there is no cost/benefit”.
I can tell you that politicians do know that the lockdowns have terrible costs (may well smash the West) and, essentially, no benefits – they know that the lockdowns have not saved lives, and have horribly undermined the Western world.
“So why did it happen?”
That is the great question.
PS – I texted with my buddy who is a LEO in another state, but who works 2 weeks a year at Sturgis. He tells me it is busy as it has ever been, and nobody – perhaps 1 person in 100 – is wearing masks. Social distancing? It is to laugh. He says – I have no independent evidence – that one young lady in town is wearing COVID masks in the form of – ahem – intimate apparel, to the general delight and approval of the crowd. I bet that image doesn’t make it into the NYT.
llater,
llamas
I think there are intersections in the UK – probably more than usual in London today, as London Bridge is currently jammed open – where crossing the street would be the less trivial risk.😊
I hope you mean Tower Bridge 😆.
llater,
llamas
I think there was a time when severe covid infections might have used up all available hospital capacity in the UK (not any more). During that time it was probably wise to reduce one’s exposure to it in case you needed the no-longer-available hospital treatment. I don’t think it should have been mandated, though.
There’s a certain inevitability, though: healthcare is politicised; no politician would want to oversee the hospitals turning people away. I can believe that counterfactual might have come about.
“For example, “herd immunity” – up to 2020 that meant a population gaining natural immunity, now it means vaccines.”
I think it has always meant: enough people are immune that each person with the virus passes it on to less than on average one other person. I don’t think it says anything about how immunity is acquired.
Rob F
I know what you mean, but the NHS has turned people away for 17 months now, and there are now reportedly looming 14,000,000 on waiting lists in England alone, and a cancer time bomb.
I think it was fear of TV pictures of the dying being turned away and Labour bleating on about the NHS that truly terrifies the politicians, because they think it will cost them office. But people being left to die at home without any treatment, covid or non-covid, is fine.
Really? I’ve had my knee operation postposed five times in last year and a half. My wife has skin cancer, her check up was postposed twice. What was that you say about hospitals turning people away?
llamas – I will never see Sturgis, but I am very glad that people are having fun there. In a State that said NO to being destroyed by the “Woke” establishment of this world.
Rob Fisher – I am going to stick my neck out and say you have never held elective office (now you are going to disclose you are a Cabinet Minister, and I will feel very foolish), but government health care does NOT mean elected politicians have any say.
Many people have lost their lives over the last year – cancer, heart disease, so many people turned away (whilst the hospitals were NOT overwhelmed).
Politicians may be bad – but we (yes I am one) are not THAT bad. Politicians do not control these things. The growth of the power of the administrative structure is a long and complex story – and very depressing. It is NOT quote Zaphod Beeblebrox “President of the Galaxy” whose true function is to distract attention – but it is not totally unlike this situation.
David Campbell.
I am very sorry that your knee operation was postponed five times. And I am very sorry that your wife has skin cancer – I hope that twice postponing her check up will not cost her life, by allowing her cancer to develop.
There is nothing more I can say.
Abortions carried on in 2020 – eliminating babies was a priority for “medical treatment”. On the other hand Early Treatment for Covid 19 was not a priority – indeed it was held not-to-exist.
Lockdowns don’t work because however well and long you hide, the virus is carried by the animal kingdom too and will still be there when you come out.
The ‘Lockdown’ Models are pure BS. In order to test whether a lockdown works or not, one must have data on past lockdowns. There is none. So, the models they created had to make assumptions of what would happen if we locked down. Of course the model assumption was that lockdowns did something good pandemic-wise. Then, incredibly, the models showed that lockdowns helped. Knock me over with a feather.
Had the model assumption been that lockdowns do nothing, then the models would have also. It was built in BS.
Greetings from deep in the woods on the mountain behind Custer! Sturgis has expanded to fill the entire Black Hills area – can’t fit 800k people in tiny little towns.
There is one group of people here wearing masks and acting fearful. The people who live here, and who do not work in the tourist trades (yeah, all 28 of them, I know) are looking a bit queasy. But then, they look that way every year at this time. It’s a deplorable-looking crowd. Unsophisticated. Maybe even unvaccinated.
For the non-Americans – imagine a yearly gathering of 800,000 Travelers in a national park/Mount Rushmore/small touristy towns area. Scary. (Until you realize that 600,000 of them are really dentists and fund managers dressed down riding their $30,000 Luxe Harleys. 😉 )
Very true (plus some turning away – waiting lists – has been a feature of the NHS since it started). Why is it only ‘turning away’ when done for reasons the left disapproves?
IIRC, I first met this figure in a fear-porn Grauniad article, complete with some Labourite quoted at the end. For sure, the true hidden/deferred costs will far outweigh the alleged savings of lockdown – but IIUC this figure comes from the same sources that estimated the figures used to justify lockdown, so should probably be used with caution.
Hmm…
Not knowing anything else about Norman Powers, this sentence alone makes him a bullshitter in my book.
Exponential spreading was not a theory, it was a fact, as i noted on Samizdata (before Boris noticed). You can easily find out (if you are patient about the slow loading time) here that there was a very-close-to-exponential increase in deaths in the UK up to early April 2020. That is, it remained exponential after Boris made up his mind about lockdowns.
Which are not in any way prescribed by the theory of exponential spread, anyway: otherwise, we would have had lockdowns in every flu season for decades.
The theory of exponential spread long predates “Lockdown” Ferguson’s turn from physicist to epidemiologist; and why has it not been falsified in so many years, if it is wrong?
Does Norman Powers even know what ‘exponential’ means?