|
Anecdotal, I know, but suicides at my old university have been a huge issue in 2020. Hard times imagine not due to the lockdown. I don’t believe the numbers this idiot is posting.
|
Very stupid
|
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
(Post 3215562)
Your lack of empathy for the damage lock downs have done is abhorrent. You are a disgusting, dishonest human being.
If you or Newsweek had actually read the science: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234?guestAccessKey=0b94e087-4b87-458d-b869-a1aa164eb8a6&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=033121 Increases in other leading causes, especially heart disease, Alzheimer disease, and diabetes, may also reflect disruptions in health care that hampered early detection and disease management. Increases in unintentional injury deaths in 2020 were largely driven by drug overdose deaths. Final mortality data will help determine the effect of the pandemic on concurrent trends in drug overdose deaths. |
So....is that still anywhere close to 550,000? And it’s not like any of us are discrediting mental health and the need to provide care. Man some of you are so hypocritical.
|
And what about the depression and PTSD of healthcare workers that are struggling and overworking themselves while their patients rapidly decompensate while people scream at them that they are lying about deaths to inflate the numbers or being threatened with gun violence by family of patients when they aren’t allowed to visit. Also at least one suicide was a direct result of the January 6 terrorist attack. There are more causes for suicide than just lockdowns and the effects of them. The crowd that doesn’t care at all if hundreds of thousands die from this, trying to feign sympathy is appalling.
|
One thing to put into perspective, if the Flu vaccine fails one year, it will probably be worse than Covid.
https://i.ibb.co/3v78CfH/mortality-rates.jpg |
Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires
(Post 3215700)
So....is that still anywhere close to 550,000? And it’s not like any of us are discrediting mental health and the need to provide care. Man some of you are so hypocritical.
|
Originally Posted by ACEssXfer
(Post 3215730)
The 550,000 would've happened anyway. That's the whole point. There is no science right now that shows lockdowns did anything at all.........Other than spike all the stuff this thread is talking about.
Also it studies have been done. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2842WS (unless you are one of the people who don’t trust Reuters or AP. )but by your logic there also isn’t proof that they didn’t help. We also never fully locked down. And for the people who are concerned about domestic violence and drug use, those problems aren’t limited to pandemic life and also need to be addressed by improving social services and decriminalizing users. |
Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires
(Post 3215742)
Spiked all the way....down? The original post shows thousands fewer suicides. Would there have been any less mental health impact if we were told by our neighbors and government to eat **** and let our parents die because we refuse to do anything?
Also it studies have been done. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2842WS (unless you are one of the people who don’t trust Reuters or AP. )but by your logic there also isn’t proof that they didn’t help. We also never fully locked down. And for the people who are concerned about domestic violence and drug use, those problems aren’t limited to pandemic life and also need to be addressed by improving social services and decriminalizing users. Therefore, no I would not trust Reuters, or any other journalistic source because they are usually biased and don't have the expertise to identify what science is and isn't. There have been studies done that show real world data, no computer simulations or numerical models, which show if lockdowns were actually effective. They were not. This is science. Opinion pieces from Reuters on theoretical numerical models from months ago are not science. They are unverified theory. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2019706118 It's a difficult thing to study and verify, but more and more data will come out over time and a consensus will eventually be determined, assuming the scientific method is used. |
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
(Post 3215745)
The studies referenced are based on theoretical numerical models. They are not based on real-world empirical observation, which is a critical part of the scientific method.
Therefore, no I would not trust Reuters, or any other journalistic source because they are usually biased and don't have the expertise to identify what science is and isn't. There have been studies done that show real world data, no computer simulations or numerical models, which show if lockdowns were actually effective. They were not. This is science. Opinion pieces from Reuters on theoretical numerical models from months ago are not science. They are unverified theory. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2019706118 It's a difficult thing to study and verify, but more and more data will come out over time and a consensus will eventually be determined, assuming the scientific method is used. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:22 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands