• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Other Side of the Lockdown Argument

COTO

Panthera Uncia
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
1,541
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For the digestion of those who believe the only costs to COVID lockdowns are economic in nature, I've excerpted some of the more unsettling statistics.

Via Summit News (bold by me):

In an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, [Germany’s Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd] Muller warned that the response to the global pandemic has resulted in “one of the biggest” hunger and poverty crises in history.

Muller warned that further damage will be done if draconian measures continue to be enacted by governments.

“We expect an additional 400,000 deaths from malaria and HIV this year on the African continent alone,” Muller emphasised, adding that “half a million more will die from tuberculosis.”

...

Muller’s comments come five months after a leaked study from inside the German Ministry of the Interior revealed that the impact of the country’s lockdown could end up killing more people than the coronavirus due to victims of other serious illnesses not receiving treatment. The findings dovetail with other research that has concluded lockdowns will conservatively “destroy at least seven times more years of human life” than they save.

As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.

Professor Richard Sullivan also warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths in the UK than total coronavirus deaths due to people’s access to screenings and treatment being restricted as a result of the lockdown.

His comments were echoed by Peter Nilsson, a Swedish professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at Lund University, who said, “It’s so important to understand that the deaths of COVID-19 will be far less than the deaths caused by societal lockdown when the economy is ruined.”

According to Professor Karol Sikora, an NHS consultant oncologist, there could be 50,000 excess deaths from cancer as a result of routine screenings being suspended during the lockdown in the UK.

...

As we further previously highlighted, a data analyst consortium in South Africa found that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.

The article goes on to discuss the impacts of food/supply shortages, malnutrition, etc. Even worse, the impacts of the lockdowns are just getting started. The bottom line is that the decision to lock down the world in response to COVID may prove to be not only one of the costliest but also one of the deadliest mistakes of the 21st Century.

Food for thought. 🤒
 
Great. No one has proposed an endless lockdown. If President 15 Cases Going To Zero simply did the things other big boy and big girl leaders did, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

Now tell me how bad Europe really for real is, and throw in a reference to Sweden, so we can complete the life/death cycle of the TRump voter covid argument.
 
Great. No one has proposed an endless lockdown.

Now tell me how bad Europe really for real is, ...
The article doesn't concern the effects of "endless lockdown". It concerns only the quantifiable damage (to date) from the previous lockdown.

As for "how bad Europe really for real is", the article provides the specific numbers.

Pres. Trump has nothing to do with the thread topic. One either accepts the data or doesn't accept it.
 
The article doesn't concern the effects of "endless lockdown". It concerns only the quantifiable damage (to date) from the previous lockdown.

As for "how bad Europe really for real is", the article provides the specific numbers.

Pres. Trump has nothing to do with the thread topic. One either accepts the data or doesn't accept it.

There is no quantifiable damage as a result of the current measures that is equal or even comes close to the quantifiable damage created by covid.

So: lockdown measures: sub-optimal. Dying via pandemic: worse.

Them is data apples, how you like ‘em?
 
Like, this is the front page of the OP’s ”news” source. Maybe I’m just too jaded but I dunno how much “data” is employed in their editorial decisions.

64D8A21E-DD3F-4AEC-A90B-05E50C810F17.jpeg
 
There is no quantifiable damage as a result of the current measures that is equal or even comes close to the quantifiable damage created by covid.
What are you basing this assessment on? The short article in the OP cites no fewer than four studies and six subject matter experts.

What are you offering by way of counterfactuals?

Like, this is the front page of the OP’s ”news” source. Maybe I’m just too jaded but I dunno how much “data” is employed in their editorial decisions.
Origin fallacy.

Furthermore, none of the data, studies, or expert opinions cited in the article originate at this site.
 
What are you basing this assessment on? The short article in the OP cites no fewer than four studies and six subject matter experts.

What are you offering by way of counterfactuals?


Origin fallacy.

Furthermore, none of the data, studies, or expert opinions cited in the article originate at this site.

The site curates disinfo. The article is junk. You click on right wing shithole websites looking for confirmaiton bias. You find it and then ask people at agree with your confirmation bias. What I’m saying is maybe try sites that don’t look like some right wing shut in created something that hates Black people and trolls for libtard ownage to grab links that you think might help you win an online argument.

There is no such thing as “origin fallacy”. This is a made up thing because you folks can’t find any reputable sources for your right wing shithole arguments so you insist all sources must be treated equal.
 
There is no such thing as “origin fallacy”. This is a made up thing because you folks can’t find any reputable sources for your right wing shithole arguments so you insist all sources must be treated equal.

If you want to set me straight and advance your position, I'd welcome any source you have disputing the specific numbers presented in the OP.
 

If you want to set me straight and advance your position, I'd welcome any source you have disputing the specific numbers presented in the OP.

Argumentative fallacy: the belief that anything uttered is worthy of being discussed and debated.
 

If you want to set me straight and advance your position, I'd welcome any source you have disputing the specific numbers presented in the OP.
Might have been an interesting debate/discussion but it appears she has no source other than her personal opinion. Nice try though.
 
Argumentative fallacy: the belief that anything uttered is worthy of being discussed and debated.
Well... thank you for your candid, albeit brief, contributions to the discussion. May your quest for more worthy subject matter in other threads not leave you wanting.
 
Might have been an interesting debate/discussion but it appears she has no source other than her personal opinion. Nice try though.
The reason I bring pieces like this to a debate forum is because quite often people will tear holes in some or all of the data. Nothing on the Internet is sacrosanct or above disputation.

Even if you tend to agree with the overall thesis in the OP, if you have contradictory data, by all means post it. I'm pretty sure this thread will die in obscurity otherwise.
 
For the digestion of those who believe the only costs to COVID lockdowns are economic in nature, I've excerpted some of the more unsettling statistics.

Via Summit News (bold by me):

In an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, [Germany’s Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd] Muller warned that the response to the global pandemic has resulted in “one of the biggest” hunger and poverty crises in history.​
Muller warned that further damage will be done if draconian measures continue to be enacted by governments.​
“We expect an additional 400,000 deaths from malaria and HIV this year on the African continent alone,” Muller emphasised, adding that “half a million more will die from tuberculosis.”​
...​
Muller’s comments come five months after a leaked study from inside the German Ministry of the Interior revealed that the impact of the country’s lockdown could end up killing more people than the coronavirus due to victims of other serious illnesses not receiving treatment. The findings dovetail with other research that has concluded lockdowns will conservatively “destroy at least seven times more years of human life” than they save.​
As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.​
Professor Richard Sullivan also warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths in the UK than total coronavirus deaths due to people’s access to screenings and treatment being restricted as a result of the lockdown.​
His comments were echoed by Peter Nilsson, a Swedish professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at Lund University, who said, “It’s so important to understand that the deaths of COVID-19 will be far less than the deaths caused by societal lockdown when the economy is ruined.”​
According to Professor Karol Sikora, an NHS consultant oncologist, there could be 50,000 excess deaths from cancer as a result of routine screenings being suspended during the lockdown in the UK.​
...​
As we further previously highlighted, a data analyst consortium in South Africa found that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.

The article goes on to discuss the impacts of food/supply shortages, malnutrition, etc. Even worse, the impacts of the lockdowns are just getting started. The bottom line is that the decision to lock down the world in response to COVID may prove to be not only one of the costliest but also one of the deadliest mistakes of the 21st Century.

Food for thought. 🤒
Very interesting article. Why isn't the media reporting this? I've heard so much umbrage/heated comments about what Trump supposedly lied about (from the Woodward interview) but no one seems interested in data such as this. There use to be a time when investigative reporters would be all over this and blasting it on prime time news.
 
Everyone knows that a lockdown carried too far could be more damaging than the pandemic. But to date, NO lockdowns have been carried too far to my knowledge. The damage caused by current lockdowns has been outweighed by the lives saved by containing the spread of a deadly pandemic in areas where lockdowns are or were in effect. In fact, too many lockdowns have not gone far enough and were ended too early which has caused out of control spreading of the pandemic and needless deaths.

There is a balance to be struck, and most other countries and Democrat-controlled areas in the United States are doing the best they can to strike that balance. They are sacrificing some economic competitiveness to keep their citizens safe, which is the proper trade to make. It is the conservative majority Republican run areas and authoritarian countries that put money over people that are doing net damage to their constituents by sitting on their hands while a deadly pandemic is sweeping through and killing thousands.
 
The reason I bring pieces like this to a debate forum is because quite often people will tear holes in some or all of the data. Nothing on the Internet is sacrosanct or above disputation.

Even if you tend to agree with the overall thesis in the OP, if you have contradictory data, by all means post it. I'm pretty sure this thread will die in obscurity otherwise.
Coto, you said it best when you said: "Food for thought." You put so much on the plate that deserves a closer examination. On the surface I personally see nothing to dispute. And I rarely go looking for evidence that disputes my opinion. That's what these forums should endeavor to provide. I don't mind being shown I'm wrong (according to the facts) but opinions are not something that moves the needle for me.
 
The reason I bring pieces like this to a debate forum is because quite often people will tear holes in some or all of the data. Nothing on the Internet is sacrosanct or above disputation.

Even if you tend to agree with the overall thesis in the OP, if you have contradictory data, by all means post it. I'm pretty sure this thread will die in obscurity otherwise.
It is not difficult to find "contradictory data" and it is obvious as hell that the OP had an agenda that they sought to prove which pretty well invalidates what they had to say anyway. That is not how science works.

Two new papers published in the journal Nature say that lockdowns put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus were highly effective, prevented tens of millions of infections and saved millions of lives.

"Our estimates show that lockdowns had a really dramatic effect in reducing transmission," says Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer at the Imperial College London's School of Public Health, who worked on one of the papers published in Nature.

Bhatt's team analyzed infection and death rates in 11 European nations through May 4. They estimate that an additional 3.1 million people in those countries would have died if lockdowns had not been put in place.

"Without them we believe the toll would have been huge," Bhatt says.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ckdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19
 
Great. No one has proposed an endless lockdown. If President 15 Cases Going To Zero simply did the things other big boy and big girl leaders did, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

Now tell me how bad Europe really for real is, and throw in a reference to Sweden, so we can complete the life/death cycle of the TRump voter covid argument.
I think Europe is having a second Spike and if trends continue it's going to be worse than the first one. Second spikes might only be an artifact of lockdowns and procedures
 
What are you basing this assessment on? The short article in the OP cites no fewer than four studies and six subject matter experts.

What are you offering by way of counterfactuals?


Origin fallacy.

Furthermore, none of the data, studies, or expert opinions cited in the article originate at this site.
I'm not sure I would take a poster seriously that identifies themselves as antifa but their Avatar is of an anti-semite.
 
For the digestion of those who believe the only costs to COVID lockdowns are economic in nature, I've excerpted some of the more unsettling statistics.

Via Summit News (bold by me):

In an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, [Germany’s Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd] Muller warned that the response to the global pandemic has resulted in “one of the biggest” hunger and poverty crises in history.​
Muller warned that further damage will be done if draconian measures continue to be enacted by governments.​
“We expect an additional 400,000 deaths from malaria and HIV this year on the African continent alone,” Muller emphasised, adding that “half a million more will die from tuberculosis.”​
...​
Muller’s comments come five months after a leaked study from inside the German Ministry of the Interior revealed that the impact of the country’s lockdown could end up killing more people than the coronavirus due to victims of other serious illnesses not receiving treatment. The findings dovetail with other research that has concluded lockdowns will conservatively “destroy at least seven times more years of human life” than they save.​
As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.​
Professor Richard Sullivan also warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths in the UK than total coronavirus deaths due to people’s access to screenings and treatment being restricted as a result of the lockdown.​
His comments were echoed by Peter Nilsson, a Swedish professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at Lund University, who said, “It’s so important to understand that the deaths of COVID-19 will be far less than the deaths caused by societal lockdown when the economy is ruined.”​
According to Professor Karol Sikora, an NHS consultant oncologist, there could be 50,000 excess deaths from cancer as a result of routine screenings being suspended during the lockdown in the UK.​
...​
As we further previously highlighted, a data analyst consortium in South Africa found that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.​

The article goes on to discuss the impacts of food/supply shortages, malnutrition, etc. Even worse, the impacts of the lockdowns are just getting started. The bottom line is that the decision to lock down the world in response to COVID may prove to be not only one of the costliest but also one of the deadliest mistakes of the 21st Century.

Food for thought. 🤒
The problem I see is that governments, particularly democrat like here in California, don’t want to let go. Pretty soon people get institutionalized and don’t go out, shop only on line, and withdraw from society. Companies won’t feel the need to give raise to employees they don’t see.
 
The fact that science has proved that millions of lives were saved because of the lockdowns and it blows away everything you say you mean. You lose.
No one is disputing the number of lives saved via the guidelines (suggested by the CDC) followed. This topic isn't about that. Need I really explain the difference?
 
For the digestion of those who believe the only costs to COVID lockdowns are economic in nature, I've excerpted some of the more unsettling statistics.

Via Summit News (bold by me):

In an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, [Germany’s Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd] Muller warned that the response to the global pandemic has resulted in “one of the biggest” hunger and poverty crises in history.​
Muller warned that further damage will be done if draconian measures continue to be enacted by governments.​
“We expect an additional 400,000 deaths from malaria and HIV this year on the African continent alone,” Muller emphasised, adding that “half a million more will die from tuberculosis.”​
...​
Muller’s comments come five months after a leaked study from inside the German Ministry of the Interior revealed that the impact of the country’s lockdown could end up killing more people than the coronavirus due to victims of other serious illnesses not receiving treatment. The findings dovetail with other research that has concluded lockdowns will conservatively “destroy at least seven times more years of human life” than they save.​
As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.​
Professor Richard Sullivan also warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths in the UK than total coronavirus deaths due to people’s access to screenings and treatment being restricted as a result of the lockdown.​
His comments were echoed by Peter Nilsson, a Swedish professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at Lund University, who said, “It’s so important to understand that the deaths of COVID-19 will be far less than the deaths caused by societal lockdown when the economy is ruined.”​
According to Professor Karol Sikora, an NHS consultant oncologist, there could be 50,000 excess deaths from cancer as a result of routine screenings being suspended during the lockdown in the UK.​
...​
As we further previously highlighted, a data analyst consortium in South Africa found that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.​

The article goes on to discuss the impacts of food/supply shortages, malnutrition, etc. Even worse, the impacts of the lockdowns are just getting started. The bottom line is that the decision to lock down the world in response to COVID may prove to be not only one of the costliest but also one of the deadliest mistakes of the 21st Century.

Food for thought. 🤒

Minister Gerd Muller seems to referring exclusively about the loss of European investment in Africa because of the money is now being spent in Europe to prop up their economies.

He may be right, but not sure what average US citizens are supposed to do about it? This is new for everyone and there is no road map for a global pandemic.
 
Apples to oranges.

If apples are human lives and oranges are ongoing economic stability, then you are right.

I would argue in this case that the apples are more important than the oranges.
 
Back
Top Bottom