We're winning against the virus, amazing stats from USA

[KatyNonRoyal]

CDC reports lockdowns and masks in the USA resulted in an awesome 1.8% decrease in covid cases (not deaths) after 100 days! And even though:

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.
(CDC Weekly / March 12, 2021 / 70(10);350–354)

...I think it's too early to be careless.

Wahoooo! TRIUMPH!

Bet the virus doesn't know what's hit it, can't wait for my September booster, and we might avoid any mutations if we stay in lockdown just to be safe. I'm celebrating hard after seeing that!

Who's with me? :)

CDC reports lockdowns and masks in the USA resulted in an awesome 1.8% decrease in covid cases (not deaths) after 100 days!

That’s actually not what it says. It says there was a 1.8 percentage point decrease in the daily growth of covid cases after 100 days. Which is a completely different thing. Same for the deaths. It’s a 1.9 percentage point decrease in the daily growth of deaths.

@Meredithgrey1 the data anti-maskers & lockdown deniers use is also calculated on the same basis, though: thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Sorry I don't know how to post images so have to post that bilge instead. But the point is the data shows a clear difference.

[quote KatyNonRoyal]@Meredithgrey1 the data anti-maskers & lockdown deniers use is also calculated on the same basis, though: thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Sorry I don't know how to post images so have to post that bilge instead. But the point is the data shows a clear difference.[/quote]
What's a lockdown denier?

Lockdown denier = someone who thinks locking down non-essential things like shops, pubs, cafes and gyms etc isn't a fair price to pay to reduce the 4476 deaths in England & Wales with no pre-existing conditions, and that it should be 1.9% higher!
www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsbyageanddeathsfromcovid19only

It's like those people never heard of AliExpress.

@KatyNonRoyal

Lockdown denier = someone who thinks locking down non-essential things like shops, pubs, cafes and gyms etc isn't a fair price to pay to reduce the 4476 deaths in England & Wales with no pre-existing conditions, and that it should be 1.9% higher! www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsbyageanddeathsfromcovid19only

It's like those people never heard of AliExpress.

I've recently been introduced to AliExpress. I hear their Chanel reps are pretty decent but the 6 week delivery time is a bummer. Totally think it's right to trash small businesses and the economy so we can buy more from China and giants like Amazon. That's why I am happy the death figures have been distorted to make it seem worse than it is. Otherwise we'd have to open all those useless small businesses back up and we'd be back at square one.

This thread - utterly mind boggling

🦔

[quote KatyNonRoyal]@Meredithgrey1 the data anti-maskers & lockdown deniers use is also calculated on the same basis, though: thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

Sorry I don't know how to post images so have to post that bilge instead. But the point is the data shows a clear difference.[/quote]
I wasn’t criticising the data, just saying that your interpretation is not correct. It is not saying that without masks deaths would have been 1.9% higher. That’s not what it means. It’s saying that the rate in daily growth of deaths was reduced by 1.9 percentage points after 100 days.
To be clear, the data does show an effect from masks, I’m not saying it doesn’t. Just that it’s important to be clear on what the effect is.

It’s saying that the rate in daily growth of deaths

Sorry, that sentence of mine has all the right words, just not necessarily in the right order! I’ll try again.

It’s saying that the daily growth rate of deaths would have been 1.9 percentage points higher, 100 days after masks were introduced.

Wondering if the OP is hungover this morning.

@Florelei

I’m confused. Is this genuine or is it sarcasm?

The OP is trolling all over the Coronovirus board.

@KatyNonRoyal it seems like you think we should stop life to preserve every life.

People die of car crashes every year, should we ban cars?
People die of alcohol and smoking, should we take them off the shelves?

Let's have every continue wearing masks to preserve 86 people. Let's have continous lockdowns that are crashing the economy, livelihoods, children's education and mental health.

We have vaccines with high efficiency rates. The deaths and hospital admissions are on the decline despite variants.
We allow nearly 30,000 deaths a year for flu. It's a harsh truth there has to be an 'acceptable' number of deaths then we must live life normally as vest we can.

To live this like is unnatural and not sustainable. Millions of people die every year through preventable diseases but to cut off the lives off the majority to save a small number is nonsensical.

I’m flabbergasted that people cannot see the blatant agenda and sarcasm of the OP. She is clearly a “lockdown denier” using her own words. Whether you agree with her actual stance or her pretended stance, it is pointless engaging.

"Clinically negligible" is the phrase I think that original research article needed.

I might have Aspergers but I also have no idea WTF is going on here