Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Finds Links to Health Conditions

Your proof that lockdowns did anything?

 

Well I think lockdowns did have a disastrous effect on the quality of education that took place during it.

 

Do you have any verifiable evidence that they saved lives? Or is what you have only what you read somewhere?

 

I had kids in school during the lockdown which is what my comment addressed.

 

Because the case fatality rate for COVID wasn't 100%, even in those particularly vulnerable. Most evidence suggested that people who were vaccinated were less likely to be infected, less likely to experience severe symptoms and less likely to die compared to comparable un-vaccinated ones though.

This is really basic stuff that has been covered multiple times since the pandemic. If you still don't understand it now, there's probably little hope of you ever getting it.

 

We're seeing some stunningly daft questions here.

What proof do you have that they did nothing? Keeping people apart will naturally limit the spread, ease the medical burden and allow the virus to diminish in numbers of infected.

Did the COVID lockdowns work? Here’s what we know two years on (theconversation.com)
"Despite these difficulties, a lot of researchers have worked to try to analyse the impact of lockdowns. While accepting that no method of assessment is perfect, most published studies have found evidence to support lockdown measures being effective. They also point out that different actions achieved different things in different countries.


Estimates of the effects of different control measures on the number of new COVID infections during the first epidemic wave. The different dots represent different ways of modelling the effects of control measures – showing that how you choose to measure impact does make a difference. Banholzer N et al. 2021. PLOS ONE 16, e0252827, CC BY
Limiting gatherings, closing businesses with high exposure rates, and closing schools and universities effectively reduced the spread and limited deaths. These places are associated with increased transmission rates and superspreader events.

But perhaps surprisingly, stay-at-home orders appear to have had only a modest effect in slowing transmission. This may, though, be down to people already limiting their activities voluntarily before being told to do so. Closing airports somewhat limits the disease impact, but land borders much less."

 

I deal in evidence. Not claims. The evidence cannot be from entities like Politifact, MSDDNC, CNN, etc.

 

There is no way I am spending an hour trying to decipher that chart. I asked for PROOF. Not a chart. IO could make a chart like that myself.

 

If you're not willing to accept reported evidence in trusted news sources but are also not willing (or able) to spend time assessing the source scientific evidence they reference, how exactly could anyone provide evidence you'd be willing to accept?

 

Sorry but that chart is complete gobblygook and I'll be damed if I am spending a couple of hours in it. Besides, there is no source data.

 

Too confusing for you, no worries.

Sorry again? Nobody is asking you to spend hours on something that's too confusing for you. And no "source data" you say? Did you not see the blindingly obvious reference for the chart?
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new infections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave | PLOS ONE


What proof do you have that they did nothing?

 

This is a debate room. Not a class where you get to give me homework. If you cannot show proof in a post and need to post charts that look like a picture of the Milky Way galaxy and tell someone to find Uranus, I am not interested.

 

Uhuh.

One of the daftest things I've ever read. You ask a vague question that you fail to provide any supplementary evidence for. Then you don't like the reply.

If you don't understand things, it's not the problem of the person supplying the evidence. I suggest you get educated on understanding dead easy charts and cited research data!

More stunning irony. Is what YOU have, what you read somewhere?

You are avoiding this!

What proof do you have that they did nothing?

 

That crap don't work with me where someone posts a chart that is like an image of the genes inside a giraffe and alleges it shows a giraffe has a long neck because of this one gene and find it.

 

It seems I need to repeat myself. The source of the data was the blindingly obvious link to a report. It's nobody's problem but your own if you can't understand things.

Did the COVID lockdowns work? Here’s what we know two years on (theconversation.com)
"Despite these difficulties, a lot of researchers have worked to try to analyse the impact of lockdowns. While accepting that no method of assessment is perfect, most published studies have found evidence to support lockdown measures being effective. They also point out that different actions achieved different things in different countries. Estimates of the effects of different control measures on the number of new COVID infections during the first epidemic wave. The different dots represent different ways of modelling the effects of control measures – showing that how you choose to measure impact does make a difference. Banholzer N et al. 2021. PLOS ONE 16, e0252827 BY Limiting gatherings, closing businesses with high exposure rates, and closing schools and universities effectively reduced the spread and limited deaths. These places are associated with increased transmission rates and superspreader events. But perhaps surprisingly, stay-at-home orders appear to have had only a modest effect in slowing transmission. This may, though, be down to people already limiting their activities voluntarily before being told to do so. Closing airports somewhat limits the disease impact, but land borders much less."[/QUOTE]
The 3 links colored blue to help you.

Fourth time:

 

The 3 links colored blue to help you.

Fourth time:[/QUOTE]
There is NO source material or reasoning. Just statements that we are supposed top accept.

 

The blue links show the source material. You appear to be having a problem understanding simple reports. I suggest you find something else to post about that you can understand properly.
From the link, conveniently marked in blue with the very informative "published studies" label:

There are 79 research articles

• 64 papers find NPIs are generally effective heavy_check_mark
• 9 papers find NPIs are inconclusive question
• 6 papers find NPIs are generally ineffective no_entry_sign

Sorted by chronological order of publication:

1. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abb6105 (Mar 2020)
   An investigation of transmission control measures during the first 50 days of the COVID-19 epidemic in China
   ✔️ "measures such as closing citywide public transport and entertainment venues and banning public gatherings combined to avert hundreds of thousands of cases of infection"
2. https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/27/3/taaa037/5808003 (Mar 2020)
   The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China
   ✔️ "A significantly decreased growth rate and increased doubling time of cases was observed, which is most likely due to Chinese lockdown measures"
3. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/14/science.abb9789 (May 2020)
   Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions
   ✔️ "we detected change points in the effective growth rate that correlate well with the times of publicly announced interventions"
4. https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(20)30314-X/fulltext (May 2020)
   The effect of state-level stay-at-home orders on COVID-19 infection rates
   ✔️ "The results were remarkably consistent across states and support the usefulness of stay-at-home orders in reducing COVID-19 infection rates"
5. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/19/10484 (May 2020)
   Spread and dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy: Effects of emergency containment measures
   ✔️ "Results suggest that the sequence of restrictions posed to mobility and human-to-human interactions have reduced transmission by 45% (42 to 49%)"
6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-020-00778-2 (May 2020)
   Impacts of social and economic factors on the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China
   ✔️ "Over 1.4 million infections and 56,000 deaths may have been avoided as a result of the national and provincial public health measures imposed in late January in China"
7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2293-x (May 2020)
   Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China
   ✔️ "Without non-pharmaceutical interventions, we predict that the number of cases would have been 67-fold higher"
8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7 (Jun 2020)
   Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe
   ✔️ "Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission"
9. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31357-X/fulltext (Jun 2020)
   Have deaths from COVID-19 in Europe plateaued due to herd immunity?
   ✔️ "A strong linear trend suggests that countries that went into lockdown earlier experienced fewer deaths"
10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-020-00596-3 (Jun 2020)
    The Efficacy of Lockdown Against COVID-19: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis
    ✔️ "Our results show that lockdown is effective in reducing the number of new cases in the countries that implement it, compared with those countries that do not"
11. https://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/34/3_suppl/1695 (Jun 2020)
    Lockdown During COVID-19: The Greek Success
    ✔️ "Early lockdown was proven to be the appropriate policy to limit the spread of COVID-19. Greece was a success story in preventing spread despite limited resources"
12. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30553-3/fulltext (Jul 2020)
    Association between mobility patterns and COVID-19 transmission in the USA: a mathematical modelling study
    ✔️ "mobility patterns are strongly correlated with decreased COVID-19 case"
13. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769034 (Jul 2020)
    Association Between Statewide School Closure and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality in the US
    ✔️ "school closure was associated with a significant decline in both incidence of COVID-19 [...] and mortality"

If you look closely and read the dialog next to the green ticks - ✔️ - it gives a brief summary for you. If you feel brave, open them up and read the damn things!

What proof do you have that they did nothing? I just gave you a cited report and a link with 64 of 79 reports showing lockdowns were beneficial - all I'm seeing from you is noise.

 

The chart is unconventional but perfectly clear for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics and data visualisation. And as Betamax101 has pointed out, the source material is referenced in the article they posted.

I don't expect you to spend hours digging in to that source data though. Few people have the time, inclination or knowledge to do that on most technical topics like this. That is exactly why there are so many news sources that will (try to) present the results of such studies in a way lay people can understand. The problem is that in your reply to me, you dismissed any such sources out of hand. So again, if you're unwilling (or unable) to read and assess the source data but also dismiss any mainstream sources reporting on them, how can anyone present evidence you'll accept for anything?

For example, do you accept the statements made in the opening post in this thread in the first place? You don't seem to be demanding (more) evidence for them.

 

Just to show the board how crazy this is, meaning you plastering the wall with lingo known only to scientists that a lay person could never decipher, I looked at one of the links at random, number 5 above, and here is the conclusion:

As noted in Materials and Methods, a spatially explicit generation matrix �� describes the contributions of presymptom infectious, infectious people with severe symptoms, and infectious people with no/mild symptoms to the production of new infections close to the disease-free equilibrium. A graph representation of the spatial NGM (Materials and Methods) is shown later (see Fig. 5C). Crucially, the dominant eigenvalue (�0=0.24 d−1 [95% CI: 0.22 to 0.26]) of the system’s Jacobian matrix, evaluated at the disease-free equilibrium, provides an estimate of the initial exponential rate of case increase. The eigenvector corresponding to the leading eigenvalue, which represents the expected spatial distribution of cases in the asymptotic phase of exponential epidemic growth (35, 36), is shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S13. The main result emerging therein is that a completely uncontrolled epidemic would have eventually hit mostly the main metropolitan areas.


BUT........... like most all of the studies you linked, this one was done very early and ends on March 25, which is barely a month or so after the onset of Covid. My online checking shows the lockdown ended on May18. Be that as it may, take a look at the actual chart right here:


Lockdown on March 9, amirite. The graph was going up like a winning stock. Did it go down? Nope. It kept going UP! Lockdowns "worked"? This is like saying prayer works.

Now maybe you know what I refuse to do someone else's homework and read chrats and reams of material. If the poster can't make his case without resorting to posting language unique to nerdy science wonks that he knows no one (including the poster) understands then I won't waste my time. This is/was a test and example for you and anyone else who plasters the board with gibberish links

 

Please see above. The study REFUTES any no=tion that lockdowns worked.

 

Oh my god! That is one of THE most simple reports possible. It has very little "nerdy" language or stuff "known only to scientists"! If you can't understand the subject matter, you must rely on people who do. I'm betting that the ones you rely on are from batshit sources - "amirite"?

Well that's bullshit! May/June/July predominantly for the ones I just quoted!

Luckily most of the studies fully covered that!

What country?

I detest the conspiracy "art" of cherry-picking!
ibid.
"Despite substantial variability across countries, there’s little doubt that lockdowns successfully slowed COVID’s spread in spring 2020, reducing cases in the first wave. There’s enough evidence to show that countries and regions that quickly introduced substantial and multiple restrictions also had fewer cases and deaths. Compare New Zealand’s and the UK’s responses.

New Zealand locked down quicker and more forcefully in the spring of 2020 – resulting in fewer cases and deaths. The strength of lockdown restrictions is measured using the COVID response stringency index developed by the University of Oxford; people’s mobility is measured via anonymously collected data from mobile devices. Adam Kleczkowski
In both cases the introduction of lockdown regulations (first graph above) resulted in a rapid drop in mobility (second graph above). Reported cases peak soon after. Deaths in turn took another week or two to respond.

But New Zealand responded very quickly to its first reported case, with its lockdown introduced well before the first death in the country. Its resulting case numbers and deaths were low. In contrast, the UK delayed its lockdown response until almost two weeks after its first death.

Although British people reduced their mobility before lockdown was officially introduced, the virus had ample time to spread. The fact that delaying lockdown had such a large impact is further proof of its power to control the spread of the virus."

Your failure to understand simple English is not my problem.

 

No, that actual study you referenced says the exact opposite (in the context of Italy at least). Your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of a single graph doesn't change that conclusion. Note that "success" in infection control measures doesn't necessarily mean rates go down, it could be that rates don't go up as much as they otherwise would have done. Yet again though, I'm not expecting you to read or understand any of these studies if you don't want (or are unable) to do so. What I am saying is that if you're demanding evidence for something, you have to accept either that kind of raw data or the mainstream reports (or indeed, posters here) explaining them in simpler terms.

So I ask again; If you dismiss both options out of hand, how do you expect anyone to provide evidence you would accept?

You also failed to answer my simple question on whether you accept the information presented in the OP. Would you require evidence to support that too?

 

You are citing Italy in your graph!

I detest the conspiracy "art" of cherry-picking! You picked one from Italy and failed to link to it!

Are you new to this stuff? Surely you read the damn report the graph came from!?

HERE it is! And let's look at what that report says!
Spread and dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy: Effects of emergency containment measures | PNAS
"We draw scenarios of different containment measures and their impact. Results suggest that the sequence of restrictions posed to mobility and human-to-human interactions have reduced transmission by 45% (42 to 49%). The first set of measures resulted in a reduction of the transmission parameter, in Table 2, by 18%, while the second set of measures further reduces it by an additional 34%."

Even your own failed cherry-picked source shoots you down!

You are failing miserably here, perhaps you should consider reading stuff presented to you!

 

My post was picking just one study at random. You know this. From Italy where the alleged science wonk said studies showed lockdowns worked. AFTER the lockdown, the chart continues UP for everything, including infections and deaths. Did you not like the study that proved they didn't know what the eff they were talking about? I'm very sorry about that.

As for the other ones, the differences are very minor, and who the hell knows where these infections came from? They also looked at this very early in the spread and not every country was equally affected. Not only that, some countries have more elderly and sickly than others. In sort, the studies are garbage.

 

This is why people believe GW is a real threat. They read science journals they don't comprehend but pretend they do and since the individual is "in authority" they drink it like the best koolaid ever. I am not about to try to decipher the science lingo of those nerds. The chart I posted shows an upward trajectory AFTER the lockdowns and you and some science report can blather all they want. IF lockdowns "worked" that line should have flattened and it didn't. It kept going up up and away in the beautiful sky.

People contend masks "work" and when you get right down to it, they "work" only against coughs and sneezes but the government didn't want anyone to know that's what they meant. When you look at the data of states that mandated masks and those that didn't, in lots of cases there were MORE infections in the mask mandated states.