Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,398
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And it's already been explained in detail why this correlation is not evidence for what you think it is.



"if it was provided, then provide it"?

Are you hearing yourself?

If you stop pretending that evidence hasn't already been provided, then I'll stop reminding you that it has. Deal? Deal.
Yeah, it is evidence.

SERIOUSLY, I DIDN'T FUCKING SEE THIS "EVIDENCE". HOW HARD IS IT TO PROVIDE IF IT EXISTS? DO I FUCKING SAY I PROVIDED EVIDENCE MONTHS/YEARS AGO AND TELL YOU IT'S BEEN PROVIDED? NO, I RE-PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE IF ASKED.

I lost both of my grandfathers and an uncle in 2020. Parkinson's, heart virus, and complications after routine surgery.

Your cop friend is just as stupid as the rest of the cops who didn't want to mask up and take precautions and that's why covid was the number 1 cop killer two years running.

Your research has not shown that lockdowns killed 6.3 million people and you need to shut the hell up with that dumbass example. It's bogus guessing at ultimate life expectancy and conflating *maybe* losing some time at the end of your life with millions of real, actual fucking deaths
Lockdowns killed a ton more, that's what the research says. Even Canada says the policy was the biggest peacetime mistake in history.

Masks don't stop covid... Are you saying people aren't allowed to live their lives as they want? Don't be calling people you never meant stupid. My friend is one of the best people I've ever met.

Understanding the mortality impact of COVID-19 requires not only counting the dead, but analyzing how premature the deaths are. We calculate years of life lost (YLL) across 81 countries due to COVID-19 attributable deaths, and also conduct an analysis based on estimated excess deaths.

We find that over 20.5 million years of life have been lost to COVID-19 globally.

As of January 6, 2021, YLL in heavily affected countries are 2–9 times the average seasonal influenza; three quarters of the YLL result from deaths in ages below 75 and almost a third from deaths below 55; and men have lost 45% more life years than women. The results confirm the large mortality impact of COVID-19 among the elderly. They also call for heightened awareness in devising policies that protect vulnerable demographics losing the largest number of life-years.

And the YLL in comparison to what covid restrictions have done? That's what I'm asking for that nobody can show the restrictions are more beneficial.

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,398
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Do you know why lower educational attainment correlates with lower life expectancy? Hint: It's not just because one magically causes the other.
Money earned and health go hand-in-hand in most circumstances.

So, to be clear, the research you said wasn't done showed that lockdowns directly killed more than 6.3 million people as or right now, July 14th, 2022?

Bullshit
The evidence that you guys say exists (that lockdowns saved life) doesn't exist. Every single cost-benefit analysis says restrictions didn't save more life and it's not even fucking close either.

The Canadian cost-benefit analysis literally says that.

That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,525
4,582
118
Country
United States
The evidence that you guys say exists (that lockdowns saved life) doesn't exist. Every single cost-benefit analysis says restrictions didn't save more life and it's not even fucking close either.

The Canadian cost-benefit analysis literally says that.

That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.
Is that because it killed 50,000 people or because it was half-assed?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
Money earned and health go hand-in-hand in most circumstances.
Right, but this is still restating a correlation.

Poverty leads to lower educational attainment. That's because areas experiencing poverty don't receive the investment, or the skills, to build the necessary educational infrastructure (and also because it's more difficult to learn when you're focused on hunger and safety). Then, without the level of educational attainment, those people find it harder to find well-paying jobs; and without seed money, they find it harder to relocate.

And health is also poorer in these areas. Because they cannot afford better healthcare or insurance; they cannot afford to keep their living conditions as clean or secure as they should be; they cannot afford to eat as well as they should.

Obviously, if you just remove in-person learning for a year from someone who isn't living in poverty-- and they're also able to make most of it up later-- that's not going to have the same impact on health.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
The evidence that you guys say exists (that lockdowns saved life) doesn't exist. Every single cost-benefit analysis says restrictions didn't save more life and it's not even fucking close either.
Dude. Let me make something incredibly clear to you because I'm not sure you grasp it.

All those alleged lives lost according to those cost-benefit analyses you're posting... they haven't died. You are literally trying to claim deaths which haven't occurred as deaths. That really should give you a lot of reason for caution when you're accusing other people of arguing evidence that doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,037
1,037
118
Country
United States
Dude. Let me make something incredibly clear to you because I'm not sure you grasp it.

All those alleged lives lost according to those cost-benefit analyses you're posting... they haven't died. You are literally trying to claim deaths which haven't occurred as deaths. That really should give you a lot of reason for caution when you're accusing other people of arguing evidence that doesn't exist.
But they will die at some point, and when they do...well, they might have lived longer if X, therefore cost lives.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
But they will die at some point, and when they do...well, they might have lived longer if X, therefore cost lives.
When you read news headlines that say the national debt will be 300% GDP in 2050, do you not take it with a pinch of salt on the grounds that this depends on literally no changes in economic growth, taxation and public spending in the next 28 years?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,427
2,225
118
Dude. Let me make something incredibly clear to you because I'm not sure you grasp it.

All those alleged lives lost according to those cost-benefit analyses you're posting... they haven't died. You are literally trying to claim deaths which haven't occurred as deaths. That really should give you a lot of reason for caution when you're accusing other people of arguing evidence that doesn't exist.
But worse than lives have been lost, what was truly lost was hours of productivity! 😱😱😱😱😱
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,037
1,037
118
Country
United States
When you read news headlines that say the national debt will be 300% GDP in 2050, do you not take it with a pinch of salt on the grounds that this depends on literally no changes in economic growth, taxation and public spending in the next 28 years?
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,398
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Is that because it killed 50,000 people or because it was half-assed?
It just doesn't agree with your narrative, that's why you don't believe it. It also says the same thing every single other cost-benefit analysis that you also don't wanna believe. Surely if I'm wrong, there's actual evidence out there to dispute it.

Right, but this is still restating a correlation.

Poverty leads to lower educational attainment. That's because areas experiencing poverty don't receive the investment, or the skills, to build the necessary educational infrastructure (and also because it's more difficult to learn when you're focused on hunger and safety). Then, without the level of educational attainment, those people find it harder to find well-paying jobs; and without seed money, they find it harder to relocate.

And health is also poorer in these areas. Because they cannot afford better healthcare or insurance; they cannot afford to keep their living conditions as clean or secure as they should be; they cannot afford to eat as well as they should.

Obviously, if you just remove in-person learning for a year from someone who isn't living in poverty-- and they're also able to make most of it up later-- that's not going to have the same impact on health.
You still haven't read what I said. I said the kids that never came back not all the kids that missed a year. The kids that dropped out of school in the same neighborhoods do worse, we know this. Also, eating healthy isn't nearly that expensive, it's almost always a choice to eat unhealthy. I can spend about ~$4 a day on food and eat healthy, I don't even make my lunch, I buy it at work, and I only spend $2 for it.

Dude. Let me make something incredibly clear to you because I'm not sure you grasp it.

All those alleged lives lost according to those cost-benefit analyses you're posting... they haven't died. You are literally trying to claim deaths which haven't occurred as deaths. That really should give you a lot of reason for caution when you're accusing other people of arguing evidence that doesn't exist.
That's fucking asinine logic. All the covid restrictions were based on models that all turned out to be wrong. The UK implemented a lockdown after they fucking knew the model was wrong. Why even have any traffic safety measures in place because nobody has died yet? Why tell people not to drink pop, they haven't died yet? Why implement any covid restrictions, they haven't died yet? You can literally say the same thing for any policy put in place that tries to save lives. We do all these things because we know X amount of people die a year from Y because history tells us that. That's why we make policy to limit deaths from Y because we know they will happen. To act like it's OK to change policy for covid because of predicted future deaths and not for anything else is the dumbest fucking logic I ever heard.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
You still haven't read what I said. I said the kids that never came back not all the kids that missed a year. The kids that dropped out of school in the same neighborhoods do worse, we know this.
"Do worse"? You're talking about life expectancy. How exactly do you "know" their life expectancy is worse when not enough time has elapsed to possibly judge that?

Your argument thus far has relied on looking at kids with poor educational attainment in the wider population, who're generally subject to greater rates of poverty and all its related issues.

Also, eating healthy isn't nearly that expensive, it's almost always a choice to eat unhealthy. I can spend about ~$4 a day on food and eat healthy, I don't even make my lunch, I buy it at work, and I only spend $2 for it.
Either you're making it up/ enormously exaggerating, or your situation is so unrepresentative as to be borderline unique.

Its generally cheaper to eat lower quality, less nutritional or mass-produced, non-fresh food. Fresh fruit and vegetables, good cuts, and a varied diet cost money. And no, pretty much nobody can eat well for very long on $4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,525
4,582
118
Country
United States
It just doesn't agree with your narrative, that's why you don't believe it. It also says the same thing every single other cost-benefit analysis that you also don't wanna believe. Surely if I'm wrong, there's actual evidence out there to dispute it.
...so was the lockdown a mistake because it was half-assed or because it directly killed 50,000 people in Canada in 2 years?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,398
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
"Do worse"? You're talking about life expectancy. How exactly do you "know" their life expectancy is worse when not enough time has elapsed to possibly judge that?

Your argument thus far has relied on looking at kids with poor educational attainment in the wider population, who're generally subject to greater rates of poverty and all its related issues.

Either you're making it up/ enormously exaggerating, or your situation is so unrepresentative as to be borderline unique.

Its generally cheaper to eat lower quality, less nutritional or mass-produced, non-fresh food. Fresh fruit and vegetables, good cuts, and a varied diet cost money. And no, pretty much nobody can eat well for very long on $4.
Same way we know a certain range of people will die from car accidents in a year. History tells us things.

I eat a large soup for lunch from the hospital which is $1.99 (or $2.13 with tax).

Here's my Jewel receipt (next post down because it wouldn't post here) from the other day (for making like a Chipotle chicken bowl basically). I already had some shredded cheese and already had a couple bags of the southwestern blend of corn/beans/peppers so you can probably add like $4 to the total, making it $12. And that $12 makes at least 3 meals, the chicken lasts for 3 dinners, the cheese and rice last longer. At worst that's $4 for dinner a day + $2 for lunch + maybe another $2 for banana and pistachio snacking along with the costs of stuff like butter/extra virgin olive oil = $8 a day at most for healthy food for every meal. If I replace that dinner with breakfast food and make a breakfast bowl, which I do quite often, it's cheaper than the $4 easily as eggs are really cheap and really healthy. $4 a day was a bit of an underestimate but I eat food for a whole day what someone pays at Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts for a morning pick-me-up.

...so was the lockdown a mistake because it was half-assed or because it directly killed 50,000 people in Canada in 2 years?
Because it cost more life than it saved, that's literally the post of a cost-benefit analysis.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,085
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
Same way we know a certain range of people will die from car accidents in a year. History tells us things.
Car accidents have been a thing since cars were invented, many decades ago. Covid-19 has been around for 2 years, during only a fraction of which education was lost. You literally cannot apply the same approach.

I eat a large soup for lunch from the hospital which is $1.99 (or $2.13 with tax).

Here's my Jewel receipt (next post down because it wouldn't post here) from the other day (for making like a Chipotle chicken bowl basically). I already had some shredded cheese and already had a couple bags of the southwestern blend of corn/beans/peppers so you can probably add like $4 to the total, making it $12. And that $12 makes at least 3 meals, the chicken lasts for 3 dinners, the cheese and rice last longer. At worst that's $4 for dinner a day + $2 for lunch + maybe another $2 for banana and pistachio snacking along with the costs of stuff like butter/extra virgin olive oil = $8 a day at most for healthy food for every meal. If I replace that dinner with breakfast food and make a breakfast bowl, which I do quite often, it's cheaper than the $4 easily as eggs are really cheap and really healthy. $4 a day was a bit of an underestimate but I eat food for a whole day what someone pays at Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts for a morning pick-me-up.
Cool? Eat that exclusively every day for a month and you'll be missing vital nutrition.

Also, I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you're getting enough chicken to last 3 meals for 5 dollars, it's probably not going to be very good.