CDC states only 10,000 patients died DIRECTLY from Covid

[guest416560]

http://www.drugawareness.org/breaking-news-from-CDC-on-real-covid-death-figures/

Only 10,000 patient have died directly from contracting COVID19. The rest had  underlying medical conditions.

Have we been wrong in they way we shut down America?  Was this all political BS?

https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/new-CDC-report-shows-94-of-covid-19-deaths-in-us-had-underlying-medical-conditions/

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

Allnurses promotes lively debate; however, please remember to debate the topic and not other posters, as well as refrain from name calling.

[guest416560]

 

 

From the Wall Street Journal

Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections.

Considering that lockdowns are economically costly and create well-documented long-term public-health consequences beyond Covid, imposing them appears to have been a large policy error. At the beginning, when little was known, officials acted in ways they thought prudent. But now evidence proves that lockdowns were an expensive treatment with serious side effects and no benefit to society.

TrendMacro, my analytics firm, tallied the cumulative number of reported cases of Covid-19 in each state and the District of Columbia as a percentage of population, based on data from state and local health departments aggregated by the Covid Tracking Project. We then compared that with the timing and intensity of the lockdown in each jurisdiction. That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.”

Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.

It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use.

We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big Summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding.

The lesson is not that lockdowns made the spread of Covid-19 worse—although the raw evidence might suggest that—but that lockdowns probably didn’t help, and opening up didn’t hurt. This defies common sense. In theory, the spread of an infectious disease ought to be controllable by quarantine. Evidently not in practice, though we are aware of no researcher who understands why not.

We’re not the only researchers to have discovered this statistical relationship. We first published a version of these findings in April, around the same time similar findings appeared in these pages. In July, a publication of the Lancet published research that found similar results looking across countries rather than U.S. states. “A longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases,” the study concludes. Those findings have now been enhanced by sophisticated measures of actual social distancing, and data from the reopening phase.

There are experimental controls that all this research lacks. There are no observable instances in which there were either total lockdowns or no lockdowns at all. But there’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little. So where’s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding?

With the evidence we now possess, even the most risk-averse and single-minded public-health officials should hesitate before demanding the next lockdown and causing the next economic recession.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

Again, this is labeled as an opinion piece @ WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890

[HiddencatBSN, BSN]

9 hours ago, Bumex said:

Why on earth is this necessary to say? This sounds incredibly smug for someone who seems keen on misinformation. 

It’s also bad teaching strategy on multiple levels. Poor scholarship and poor sense of inquiry. A professor who teaches from a perspective of knowing everything rather than being a subject matter expert which includes constantly increasing one’s knowledge is not a strong professor.

1 hour ago, Rose_Queen said:

Allnurses promotes lively debate; however, please remember to debate the topic and not other posters, as well as refrain from name calling.

I’m really disappointed that spreading false information isn’t a violation of TOS in a group for healthcare professionals.

[Bumex, DNP, NP]

6 minutes ago, HiddencatBSN said:

I’m really disappointed that spreading false information isn’t a violation of TOS in a group for healthcare professionals.

I agree. SDN moderators would immediately remove stuff like this person is posting/misleading analysis. 

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

10 minutes ago, HiddencatBSN said:

I’m really disappointed that spreading false information isn’t a violation of TOS in a group for healthcare professionals. 

That is already part of Allnurses Terms of Service --link bottom every page.

Quote

The Basic Terms of Service

You agree NOT to post anything you wish to remain private on ALLNURSES.COM, INC as privacy is not possible on the internet.

You agree NOT to post false, defamatory, name-calling, obscene, or threatening messages.

Anyone concerned  that false information being posted should alert the Moderating team by clicking on triangle, left corner every post to report concern and post will be reviewed.

[londonflo]

40 minutes ago, guest416560 said:

That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.”

The similarity of words and the fact that Google is the author leads me to believe this is where they got their data:

https://www.Google.com/covid19/mobility/

Quote

As global communities respond to COVID-19, we've heard from public health officials that the same type of aggregated, anonymized insights we use in products such as Google Maps could be helpful as they make critical decisions to combat COVID-19.

Cellphone tracking data? Here is the source and what the source says it should be used for:

https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-08-30_US_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

Quote

This dataset is intended to help remediate the impact of COVID-19. It shouldn’t be used for medical diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment purposes. It also isn’t intended to be used for guidance on personal travel plans. The data shows how visits to places, such as grocery stores and parks, are changing...

How do they know someone is going to a park because they work there? What about the people who don't carry a phone everywhere? (me) Where is the control group?

Here is my conclusion:

Quote

But now(the crappy) evidence  (in now way) proves that lockdowns were an expensive treatment with serious side effects and no benefit to society.

I have already posted the author's website in previous posts. His business seems to be promoting himself.

Here's the bottom line

56 minutes ago, guest416560 said:

There are experimental controls that all this research lacks

 

[toomuchbaloney]

So FNP is now posting as a guest? 

[londonflo]

3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So FNP is now posting as a guest? 

You're right!

[MunoRN, RN]

4 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So FNP is now posting as a guest? 

I think that means they deleted their account as all of their previous posts now say "guest416560".

[Bumex, DNP, NP]

1 minute ago, MunoRN said:

I think that means they deleted their account as all of their previous posts now say "guest416560".

Yup, looks like they are gone. We have a duty to stop people like this sharing junk science. 'Alternative opinions' on facts like this have no place in areas of science. Make the rest of us look incompetent to the world and to our fellow healthcare professionals. 

[HiddencatBSN, BSN]

36 minutes ago, NRSKarenRN said:

That is already part of Allnurses Terms of Service --link bottom every page.

Anyone concerned  that false information being posted should alert the Moderating team by clicking on triangle, left corner every post to report concern and post will be reviewed.

I did report this thread.