Coronavirus

Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost?

The evidence suggests Americans are right to wonder.

|

"More than four months into fighting the coronavirus in the United States," The New York Times says, "the shared sacrifice of millions of Americans suspending their lives—with jobs lost, businesses shuttered, daily routines upended—has not been enough to beat back a virus whose staying power around the world is only still being grasped." Most Americans, regardless of their views about the lockdowns that the vast majority of states imposed in response to the epidemic, probably would concur with that conclusion. But did the lockdowns fail because they were imposed too late and lifted too soon, or did they fail because they were fundamentally misconceived? On that question there is much disagreement.

Prior to last spring, the idea that the mass quarantine of overwhelmingly healthy, noninfectious people was an appropriate response to a viral epidemic would have struck most of us as highly implausible. During the "Spanish flu" epidemic of 1918, which was far more deadly than COVID-19 has proven to be, many American cities banned large public gatherings, closed schools, and shut down businesses, such as movie theaters and pool halls, where people gathered indoors in close proximity to each other. But the restrictions of that era were not nearly as pervasive or as broad as the measures implemented in response to COVID-19, which closed all but a select few businesses and confined hundreds of millions of people to their homes except for government-approved purposes.

Those orders, which entailed enormous economic and social costs, were clearly unsustainable over the long term. And once they were lifted, we were bound to face the challenge that confronts us now: how to deal with a virus that poses a negligible risk to most of the population but a serious risk to many people with preexisting medical conditions, a virus that people often carry without realizing it because it can be transmitted before symptoms appear, when symptoms are so mild that they cause little concern, or when symptoms never show up at all.

Lockdown advocates understood that the virus would still be with us after the sweeping restrictions on movement and economic activity were removed. But they argued that lockdowns would prevent local health systems from being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, which would endanger not only their lives but the lives of people with other illnesses. That was a scary prospect, although it was probably exaggerated even in places that were hit especially hard by the epidemic. New York City, for example, ended up with more ventilators and hospital capacity than it actually needed.

Even if lockdowns merely delayed COVID-19 cases rather than actually preventing them, supporters of the policy also said, the restrictions would buy time for treatments that could make the disease less deadly. If you knew that you were going to catch the virus at some point, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary asked during a recent Soho Forum debate, wouldn't you rather get it later in the epidemic, after doctors had a chance to figure out which treatments worked best? That strikes me as a pretty good argument, although the benefit Makary imagines has to be balanced against the medical cost of restrictions that delayed potentially lifesaving diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.

Lockdown supporters also emphasized that slowing transmission of the virus would buy time to develop the testing capacity required to identify carriers, trace their contacts, and quarantine them. We missed that opportunity early in the epidemic, thanks largely to a government-engineered testing fiasco. Having learned from that mistake, it was thought, states could use the breathing space provided by lockdowns to expand their testing and tracing capabilities. But as the Times notes, even states that were relatively well-prepared on that score are doing a pretty pitiful job of testing and tracing, a mission that seems daunting given the enormous gap between total infections and confirmed cases.

All of these arguments assumed that lockdowns would have enough of an impact on virus transmission to justify the huge burdens they imposed. But it is by no means clear that they did.

Cellphone data show that Americans were already moving around less before they were legally required to do so. Nationwide, driving, walking, and use of mass transit fell precipitously in early March, before any of the lockdowns. That downward trend continued until late March, when Americans started moving around more, even as they were still subject to lockdowns. The same basic pattern was apparent even in states, such as Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, that never issued stay-at-home orders. Foot traffic data show similar trends: a sharp decline beginning in early March, followed by an increase beginning in late March and early April.

It is possible that lockdowns accelerated the downward trends in mobility and delayed or attenuated the upward trends. But the data suggest that the trends were driven mostly by voluntary changes in behavior. It is also possible that foreclosing certain options when people ventured outside their homes reduced virus transmission even when they started doing that more. In states with broad business closure orders, many people were not going to work, and no one was allowed to go inside bars or restaurants for drinks or food. It seems reasonable to expect that such restrictions would reduce virus transmission to at least some extent.

Yet in Texas, where a statewide lockdown was imposed on April 1, that order had no obvious impact on the number of new COVID-19 cases reported each day, which continued to trend upward through April. And after the stay-at-home order expired on April 30 and businesses began to reopen, more than a month went by before there was an explosion in cases, even though the median incubation period for COVID-19 is four or five days.

Houston writer Mimi Swartz, in a New York Times op-ed piece published yesterday, blames Phase 3 of Gov. Greg Abbott's reopening plan, which "allowed many businesses to reopen at 75 percent capacity on June 12." The timing seems right, since daily new cases began to rise precipitously four or five days later. The number jumped more than threefold between June 16 and June 25, from 2,622 to nearly 6,000, before falling slightly to 5,357 yesterday.

A longer view shows that newly identified cases had already risen dramatically since late May, from 589 on May 26 to more than 2,500 on June 10—a fourfold increase. That increase may have had something to do with gatherings on Memorial Day weekend and the mass protests against police brutality that followed soon after.

But let's say Swartz is right that increasing the number of people businesses are allowed to serve—a decision that Abbott reversed for restaurants on Friday, when he also ordered bars closed—transformed what might have been a one-time jump into a persistent upward trend. Doesn't that imply that letting restaurants operate at 50 percent of capacity (the limit to which Abbott reverted) rather than 75 percent is consistent with keeping the epidemic under control? And doesn't that imply that the original order, which prohibited all restaurant dining, went farther than necessary?

I honestly don't know the answer. But this is the sort of question that politicians conspicuously failed to ask when they shut down the economy in the name of flattening the curve.

Texas, according to lockdown supporters, did pretty much everything wrong: It closed businesses too late, allowed them to reopen too soon, and failed to develop testing and tracing capacity enough to make a real difference. But what about California, which led the nation in ordering businesses to close and telling people to stay home and has been only gradually lifting those restrictions? Newly confirmed cases are also rising dramatically there, from 2,108 on June 15 to 7,149 on June 23—a more-than-threefold increase similar to what Texas saw during the same period, although that number had dropped to 4,810 as of June 27.

California began allowing dine-in restaurants to reopen on May 8. The state has not imposed a hard cap on occupancy, focusing instead on physical distancing requirements. Some local governments are being more cautious. In San Francisco, for example, restaurants were allowed to reopen on June 15, but only for outdoor dining. The state allowed bars, wineries, breweries, hotels, bowling alleys, and miniature golf courses to start reopening on June 12 in counties that met specified epidemiological targets.

Can that last decision be blamed for the recent surge in cases? It seems unlikely, given how gradually these businesses are actually reopening. In any case, it is hard to put much stock in the argument that Texas has been exceptionally reckless when even a super-cautious state like California is seeing similar increases in newly identified infections.

As in Texas, the number of new daily cases in California rose steadily during the lockdown, although supporters of that policy presumably would argue that the number would have risen more otherwise. According to Youyang Gu's estimates, California's reproduction number—the number of people infected by the average carrier—was 1.71 in early February. It began falling significantly before the statewide lockdown was imposed on March 18 and continued falling until mid-April, when it settled around one—the threshold for a growing epidemic. The number started rising in mid-May, about a week after California began to reopen, and now stands at 1.09. Those estimates are consistent with the idea that the lockdown helped reduce virus transmission, if only by reinforcing a preexisting trend.

In Texas, by contrast, the decline in the reproduction number happened almost entirely before the statewide lockdown, and the number began rising before the lockdown was lifted. Gu's estimate puts it at 1.08 today, slightly lower than California's number. If California was more successful at reducing virus transmission because it imposed a lockdown earlier and began to lift it later and more carefully, that success is not reflected in these estimates.

It is certainly plausible that lockdowns helped slow the spread of COVID-19 by limiting the choices of people who were not inclined to follow social distancing guidelines. But the size of the policy's marginal contribution is uncertain, and it is clear that government action is only part of this story, which is largely about how people voluntarily responded to the threat posed by the epidemic.

The evidence suggests that Americans initially changed their behavior in striking ways, then recalibrated their reaction as it became clear that we would be living with this virus for a long time. Many people—especially those whose own risk of dying from COVID-19 is very low—probably would have become increasingly impatient with pandemic-inspired limits on their lives even if politicians had never deprived them of their livelihoods and ordered them to stay home. But the bitter experience with sweeping and frequently arbitrary government-imposed restrictions seems to have left many Americans less willing to take even relatively modest precautions.

"There was 'real hubris' on the part of public health officials at the very start," the Times says, quoting Vanderbilt University infectious disease specialist William Schaffner. Those officials, according to the Times, believed "the United States could lock down and contain the virus as China had," and "that futile hope helped create an unrealistic expectation that the shutdown, while intense, would not be for long, and that when it was lifted life would return to normal."

Now that we have emerged from lockdowns with no real confidence that they actually reduced the ultimate death toll, many people are understandably asking what the point was. "Many Americans started in the pandemic with a strong feeling of solidarity, not unlike the days after Sept. 11, 2001," the Times observes. "They closed their businesses, stayed inside, made masks and wiped down their groceries. In a country often riven by politics, polls showed broad agreement that shutting down was the right thing to do. But months of mixed messages have left many exhausted and wondering how much of what they did was worth it."

They are right to wonder.

Advertisement

NEXT: A SWAT Team Blew Up This Family's House While Chasing a Shoplifter. The Supreme Court Won't Hear the Case.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, go to the residence tab of this web website online for additional diffused factors … Click For Full Details.

  2. Madison Avenue exacerbated the pandemic with a strong forcing of solidarity, not unlike the days after Sept. 11, 2001

    1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

      This is what do,……. Home Profit System

    2. Exacerbated the pandemic? How many deaths did Madison Ave. cause?

  3. Biggest violation of civil rights in American history. And Sullumn now says that well maybe it is okay to wonder if it was worth it. Notice, Sullumn won’t come out and say that it wasn’t worth it. But, perhaps it is okay that some of deplorables who have lost their jobs and way of life and virtually all of their freedoms that matter, to wonder if it was.

    That is damn nice of you. It is good to know that “Libertarian” magazine and writer doesn’t give a flying fuck about anyone’s freedom but they at least think it is okay for those who have lost there freedom to question it.

    Go die in a fire you arrogant worthless piece of shit. Really go to hell Sullumn,.

    1. Yes, this was totally a bigger violation of civil rights than the whole slavery thing, or the various massacres of native Americans, or the concentration camps for Japanese American during WW2.

        1. Wow , straight to calling, presumably Chipper, a Karen…

      1. Yes when you consider that slavery only violated the rights of about 10% of the population. This beats slavery in quantity though not quality.

        And native Americans were not citizens and thus had no rights. The Japanese were but only a few hundred thousand were interned.

        This took away the right to free assembly to the entire nation of 300 million people for going on four months now with absolutely no end in sight.

        Yeah, it is a big fucking deal Karen. And by several reasonable measures the biggest civil rights violation in history.

        1. I am saving this comment. This is a new low, even for you.

          1. You wanna talk to his manager?

            1. fuck that. google review!

          2. Save away. And it is right. You just don’t like it. Sorry Karen but the rest of us are not down with turning the country into a police state for your feelings.

            1. totally correct. this affected all.

        2. And native Americans were not citizens and thus had no rights.

          Aight.

          1. Slaves weren’t considered citizens either.

          2. They didn’t. They were considered foreign persons. If you are going to start counting foreigner citizens in this, I think the Japanese and Germans have the number one claim to their rights being violated by a mile.

            And slaves were not citizens but they were not foreign citizens either. They were their own class. And I said above that that was a bigger qualitative violation of rights but this is quantitatively much bigger because it affects everyone in the country.

            Did you just not understand that?

        3. I bet you’re real embarrassed that you had to employ the single most psychopathic argument I’ve ever seen on this site because you forgot the constitution contains the word “peaceably.”

          You can assemble on the internet now for all your political activism needs. Not only are you not less free than slaves, you aren’t even that more unfree than you were before.

          My God John.

          1. Tony that statement is so stupid it is hard to know where to begin. You can’t assemble at all. It doesn’t matter if it is peacable. Do you think the Kung flu makes assembling no longer peacable when it otherwise would be? Even you can’t be that stupid.

            And assembly means just that, not talking on the internet you fucking half wit. And I am not talking about activism. I am talking about churches and ball games and theaters and every other thing a civilized society does. Only someone as stupid and depraved as you could think free assembly only means political activism.

            You are just a hideously stupid and immoral person Tony.

            1. You said wearing a mask is worse than slavery.

              1. No he was talking about the lockdowns, try to keep up.

            2. $100 bucks says that John is an Overweight, Fugly, Dumb Racist MAGAt that hates black/brown people, and will be on a ventilator within 2-4 weeks because he thinks he’s ‘healthy’ and won’t get it. Go F yourself John, you stupid POS!

              1. MAGA people are not the ones obsessing about race and which tribal group someone belongs in all the time.

                As for being on a ventilator… well, so might you be. Everyone’s going to get COVID unless herd immunity comes first. You can delay it, but not forever.

                1. MAGAts absolutely are the ones obsessing about race. It’s silly to pretend that Trump’s white supremacist followers don’t care about race.

          2. “peaceably.”

            Ah yes, the weak lame baseless attempt to slander swathes of people, it wouldn’t be StupidTony if it didn’t have that.

            You can assemble on the internet

            Which is the same as being required to in Tonyland lololol

            God you’re fucking stupid Tony no wonder you have to pretend you can read minds lololol

            1. I mean “You can assemble on the internet” could be the dumbest most idiotic assertion in the form of a sentence ever constructed, but he fired it off without a second thought.

              1. But you can. Assembly in this context was about the right to exchange political ideas. It wasn’t about the fundamental right to a theatre-going experience. You understand that right?

                1. “But you can. Assembly in this context was about the right to exchange political ideas”

                  So you can’t and you admit as much, until you get to define the context of “assembly” by ignoring the actual context and crafting a new defintion out of whole cloth.

                  No idiot. Going to Church isn’t about the exchange of political ideas.

                  Evety single time you post you make yourself look like a historically ignorant jackass.

                  1. You can go to church online too. The freedom to assemble isn’t even being meaningfully harmed. You’re just taking the FOX News maximum hysteria angle and running with it without thinking.

                    But even if this was before the internet, everybody would understand that basic safety measures trump the liberty to congregate. You’re arguing that quarantine is essentially out of bounds for a government. Think about your arguments before you regurgitate them.

                    1. You can go to church online too.

                      No actually you can worship but you aren’t actually going anywhere and you certainly aren’t assembling.

                      Is everything you do just lying about reality? Changing what words actually mean then lying about it?

                    2. “…The freedom to assemble isn’t even being meaningfully harmed…”

                      Absolute, bald-faced, lie.
                      But it’s the shitstain Tony who finds it impossible to post without lying.

                    3. everybody would understand that basic safety measures trump the liberty to congregate.

                      Ah the same Nazi “everybody” that ended in train cars for Jews.

                    4. So now the pandemic response is as bad as the Holocaust.

                      You guys are truly just days away from being taken seriously.

                    5. You Nazis hate when people stand up to you.

                    6. Tony the bigot proves he doesnt understand religion, namely sacraments and their blessings by the priests. Fuck off bigot.

                    7. Tony, there are rituals that require in-person participation. The government suppressing the free exercise of religion is wrong.

                    8. Just wait a few months and Biden will be president and then suddenly the virus will be a real threat.

                    9. “But even if this was before the internet, everybody would understand that basic safety measures trump the liberty to congregate.”

                      [Citation needed]

                2. Assembly in this context was about the right to exchange political ideas.

                  No, it was about doing whatever you damned well pleased.

                  Orgies, for example, are part of our right to assemble.

                  You are practicing your right to dissemble.

                  1. “Orgies, for example, are part of our right to assemble.

                    You are practicing your right to dissemble.”

                    Nice. Point to BigT.

                3. So why were protests were so essential to be performed in the street?

                4. I believe there’s also a right to exchange political ideas in private, without being listened in on or having your discussion documented. In a small town, at least, a lot goes on in the hallway at intermission from the theater and in the parking lot after church or after a group of people talking around the coffee table.

          3. “…Not only are you not less free than slaves, you aren’t even that more unfree than you were before.”

            Absolute, bald-faced, lie.
            But it’s the shitstain Tony who finds it impossible to post without lying.

          4. Now, see, people like that — and they’re a lot more numerous than just Tony — think so highly of equality that to them it’s worse if only some people’s liberties are taken away than if everybody’s are. Because it’s all about comparisons between groups of people, you see.

        4. native Americans were not citizens and thus had no rights.

          Not even HUMAN rights?

          John, this comment was uncharacteristically stupid for you. Please re-think what you have written.

          1. I’d say it’s very characteristically stupid of him.

        5. Wow. You are a fucking idiot!

        6. Just to point out a couple of things.
          Its never the majority whose rights get violated, its always a minority.
          Rights are given by god, and only enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Doesn’t require citizenship.
          Rights are often curtailed for national security or local security reasons. Curfews, suspension of Habeas etc. (think Lincoln and Maryland)
          Your the fuckin Karen. You probably don’t wear a mask in public – thus a potential infection vector. Probably stand in your grocery store crying about how your rights are being violated when they kick your sorry ass out.
          You wearing a mask doesn’t protect you, it protects everyone else from your hot air.

          1. No, there is no evidence that masks protect anyone, other than criminals who want to avoid having their identity known. N95 masks without an exhalation valve, sure. A piece of a T-shirt, no way. It’s not about infection control so much as making petty tyrants happy with how easily they can force an entire populace into face diapers based on “science,” not science.

            1. You’re unhinged. Any mask will give SOME reduction in the chances of transmission. And it’s sheer lunacy to think your rights are being infringed by needing to wear a mask in public.

    2. I don’t have anywhere near that clout as these ppl but I’m even getting flack from Google games for spreading Infowars links on their stupid games world chat lines… Read More.

    3. They don’t care. Libertarians (I am one) should be the FIRST to cry fowl. Reason is full of posing leftist apologists.

      1. Foul sorry. Edit before send, edit before send. ????

  4. We locked down old people in nursing homes so we killed off a lot of those old farts. Does that count as a plus or a minus?

    1. We had a virus that killed the old and the sick. So, clearly the thing to do was lock healthy people in their homes and make sure nursing homes accepted people who had the virus.

      But hey, Sullumn thinks it is okay for you to wonder if that was a mistake. You can’t say it was and Sullumn would never support saying it was or god for forbid holding anyone accountable. But, it is okay for Rubes like you to wonder. Just let it out. Sullumn says it is okay for you to have that opinion.

      Yes, he is that fucking loathsome.

      1. I know lots of young and healthy people who were sickened by the virus, some very severely, some who now have permanent lung scarring, some with permanent headaches.

        1. I had it also and so did many, many of my contacts. I’m 46. Each person negatively affected by this has some type of genetic predisposition or underlying condition. I’m a nurse. Don’t misrepresent this please.

  5. Dickless headline. At least it was posed as a question, that usually implies a well-written article.

    1. Not this time.

      1. lol I was being sarcastic, the question-headline drives me nuts. Apparently paramount to Reason’s 2020 style guide.

        1. I don’t mind that so much as when the article doesn’t answer the question. Well it is okay to wonder that is all Sullumn can say. What a fucking a waste of space that guy is.

        2. KMW at work??

        3. To be sure…

    2. And it is a total dickless article. God forbid Sullumn say the obvious. No he can’t do that. So instead he will write this passive aggressive pile of garbage saying that it is okay to maybe think it wasn’t. Reasonable men might be able to differ on this one unlike every other stinking opinion that bastard inflicts on the world.

      1. God forbid Sullumn say the obvious

        Saying the obvious would ruin the narrative.

    3. I want to say that this is a Sullum tic. I scanned though some of the other contributors:

      Gillespie has just a couple. Bailey has a few questions, but they’re usually more open-ended (and occasionally unanswerable) like, “COVID-19 modeling: How many deaths by the end of summer?” and “How many COVID infections and deaths did the lockdowns avert?”

      Binion doesn’t have as many, but many of his headlines are answer to unasked questions: “No, Trump Does Not Have the Power to Declare a National Stay-at-Home Order.”

      But here’s some of Sullum’s biggest hits:

      “Was the Search Warrant for the Drug Raid That Killed Breonna Taylor Illegal?”

      “Was the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks ‘Lawful but Awful’?”

      “Will the Cops Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain After Illegally Breaking Into His Apartment Ever Be Held Accountable?”

      “Did Prosecutors Undercharge the Cop Who Killed George Floyd?”

      “As Lockdowns Are Lifted, Is the COVID-19 Reproductive Number Rising or Falling?”

      “Do the Divergent Results of COVID-19 Antibody Studies Reflect Real Differences?”

  6. No.

  7. Seems like a useless question since the cost isn’t even close to tallied yet.

    However, if you’re saying “maybe it was” NOW, then I wonder what you’ll be saying when the true cost is finally known and is much higher.

    1. The cost was/is our few remaining freedoms.
      It was/is too high.
      Welcome to the revolution; you lost.

  8. “Prior to last spring, the idea that the mass quarantine of overwhelmingly healthy, noninfectious people was an appropriate response to a viral epidemic would have struck most of us as highly implausible.”
    Today the idea that the mass quarantine of overwhelmingly healthy, noninfectious people as an appropriate response to a viral epidemic strikes us as an obscene violation of our natural rights.

    1. “has not been enough to beat back a virus whose staying power around the world is only still being grasped.”

      Only a retard could write that line. Who has ever thought the virus would disappear in 4 months by slowing down the rate at which it burns through the population?

      1. Who has ever thought the virus would disappear in 4 months by slowing down the rate at which it burns through the population?

        Talk to some Progs and you will find out who denies the science of viral transmission.

    2. Your “right” to infect other people because you don’t want to be inconvenienced?

      Care to explain how that comports with the non-aggression principle?

      1. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read More

  9. No. Next question.

  10. Okay, so what’s the answer then?

    When the next disease comes here, what is the libertarian answer? Let the disease just run its course? Very few people are willing to tolerate that as a viable answer.

    My proposed solution was to voluntarily persuade people to engage in measures that would promote public health, like wearing masks, but even that is considered unacceptable in the current climate.

    So what’s the answer?

    1. The answer is you quarantine the sick the way you always have. You don’t lock the healthy in their homes. And you also understand that when a virus gets loose in a society, there is no stopping it. You are only delaying it. So stop pretending destroying the economy and everyone’s civil rights is going to save any lives. It won’t. It will just cause the inevitable to happen more slowly.

      1. Letting the Darwinian chips fall where they may is the “solution” that civilization exists precisely to avoid. You can argue all you want that the only possible approach is to let millions die, but usually we try to figure out how to mitigate problems that cause millions of deaths. You’ll not be surprised when people have other ideas.

        There are normal people who don’t believe things like being asked to practice basic hygiene is the same as slavery. These normal people consider the existence of a mitigation effort to be nonnegotiable, and then blame the economic consequences on the virus, not attempts to mitigate the virus.

        Your civil rights hysteria is too dumb to even address.

        1. Letting the Darwinian chips fall where they may is the “solution” that civilization exists precisely to avoid

          No it isn’t.

          1. I assume you don’t think your property rights are subject to natural selection. You want government bureaucrats to interfere with my freedom to protect that completely artificial entitlement, right?

            But throw granny off a cliff, I have a right to a healthy economy! Said no one until this.

            1. I assume

              Yeah it’s one of the reasons you look like a stupid asshole all the time.

            2. Granny has no right to be protected from nature. We dont provide her free health screen, free medicine, etc. There is no right to live life risk free you ignorant fuck.

              1. It’s bizarre how you guys will argue against the very concept of civilization in order to maintain an untenable and wacky position brought to you by partisan media that serves only to repeat an insane orange man’s brain farts. Do you want to think about what you say before you say it next time?

                Nobody is guaranteed a life free of risks! Okay, nobody said they were. If you want to let people die in large numbers because you think wearing a mask is tyranny, just say so. And then I’ll ignore you and suggest government should do the same or maybe lock you up because life isn’t fucking fair, right?

                1. The question is not whether they die, but when.

              2. She has a right to be protected from aggression by brats like you though.

          2. “No it isn’t.”

            Oh, yes it is!

        2. basic hygiene

          You mean like not carrying around a cloth covered in your infection?

          These normal people consider the existence of a mitigation effort to be nonnegotiable,

          I dont care.

          1. If your solution is maximum death in hopes of herd immunity, then why are you birching about anything at all? What’s the worst that could happen, something less than maximum death? There’s not going to be a healthy economy until the pandemic is contained. That’s part of (part of) why pandemics are bad.

            1. I realize youre stupid but with no vaccine the death toll is essentially going to be the same regardless of your “mitigation” efforts.

              You don’t understand this. You keep proving it.

              1. You can say that but without a link to legitimate medical evidence you’re just saying what you want to believe so you’re absolved of all responsibility and can go on repeating horseshit FOX News hot takes.

                Polling consistently shows a community unwilling to open the economy back up as long as there is a threat. So to achieve returning the economy back to normal would require forcing people to take risks they don’t want to take. That would be real risks to their health and life, not the small amount of chafing you may get from wearing a mask.

                1. You can say that but without a link to legitimate medical evidence

                  Ok this is parody right? You’re fucking with me.

                  Or are you really saying that you don’t understand why, without a vaccine, the death toll would be essentially unchanged?

                  Are you really saying you don’t understand that?

                  Are you actually admitting that you don’t understand WHY we were flattening the curve?

                  Jesus Christ how do you think you can discuss this when you’re demanding evidence for sething that was explained for MONTHS!!!

                  1. Why don’t you explain it then. Post a link to your sources.

                    1. Ok this is parody right? You’re fucking with me.

                      Or are you also really saying that you don’t understand why, without a vaccine, the death toll would be essentially unchanged?

                      Are you really saying you don’t understand that?

                      Are you actually admitting that you don’t understand WHY we were flattening the curve?

                      Jesus Christ how do you think you can discuss this when you’re demanding evidence for sething that was explained for MONTHS!!!

                      Why don’t you explain it then

                      If you don’t have anything useful to contribute you can fuck off.

                    2. So you don’t have an explanation. Got it.

                    3. By all means please go on proving that you’re utterly ignorant of a discussion you pretend to have knowledge of.

                    4. I don’t pretend to know why you think mitigation efforts won’t change the death rate. That’s why I asked.

                      Are you going to offer an explanation, or not?

                    5. I’m glad you finally admit you manged to avoid learning a basic fact that has been the subject of widespread coverage, now go away and educate yourself.

                    6. So you don’t have an explanation and you are just using this issue as one more example to insult people. Got it.

                    7. We can all see you’re still here pathetically trying for gotchas instead of educating yourself even after you admitted you were ignorant.

                      Speaks to your priorities doesn’t it?

                    8. Here you go:

                      A flatter curve, on the other hand, assumes the same number of people ultimately get infected, but over a longer period of time. A slower infection rate means a less stressed health care system, fewer hospital visits on any given day and fewer sick people being turned away.

                      https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html

                    9. Thank you BigT.

                2. “In contrast to a steep rise of coronavirus infections, a more gradual uptick of cases will see the same number of people get infected, but without overburdening the health-care system at any one time.”

                  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-and-why-it-matters.html

                  If you want it from a medical expert, you can go listen to what Fauci was saying in March, because he was saying the same thing.

                  1. Okay, thanks for the response and the link.
                    I get the idea, but it seems to me that it doesn’t take into account changes in individual behavior.

                    For example, suppose a person would go to restaurants several times per week, and in the absence of any rules shuttering businesses in case of a pandemic, would have been at a higher risk of contracting the virus due to going to public places frequently. But, if this person permanently alters his/her behavior as a result of ‘lockdown’ and decides even after the ‘lockdown’ is over to go to restaurants less frequently, then that person’s risk of getting the virus is now permanently lower. So this person may have gotten coronavirus in the former case, but may not have gotten it in the latter case. So ‘flattening the curve’ didn’t just postpone the infection of this person, it may have completely avoided it.

                    Personally I have definitely changed my routine behaviors as a result of all the ‘lockdown’ stuff. I don’t go to the store or to restaurants nearly as frequently, and I suspect that is true of a lot of people as well. So I’m wondering if that is a more durable benefit of ‘flattening the curve’.

                    1. What you’re missing is that growth in number of infections, absent any response from the population, depends on the number of previous infections. That’s why there’s a peak. The peak occurs because of a lack of vulnerable hosts to spread to.

                      Slowing infection rate pushes back that peak, so it takes longer to reach the same point where the virus is starved of new hosts.

                      That you’ve changed your behavior makes you less at risk per unit time, but there’s a longer timespan over which there are enough vulnerable people. Less risk per time X more time at risk. These two things cancel each other out because the amount of more time at risk varies with total infections. (Now, maybe it results in different people getting infected, since people will alter their behavior in non-similar ways, but approximately the same number of total infections will occur).

                      The only real exit is reducing the number of vulnerable people. Absent a vaccine, that means people getting infected.

            2. You know how to avoid maximum death? Dont do what Cuomo did.

      2. The answer is you quarantine the sick the way you always have.

        Just so we’re clear, “quarantining the sick” is still a violation of civil rights, at least if it is done by government force.

        But that aside, how do you know if someone is sick? Will there be tests? Will the tests be freely available (i.e. paid by taxpayers)? Will they be mandatory (more violation of civil liberties)? What if there is no reliable test? How do you know then who to quarantine? When the symptoms first arrive? What if there is a delay between infection and the display of symptoms, and the sick person, non-quarantined, spread it to many other people in the meantime? Is this a problem to be addressed? If so, how?

        1. The same way it’s been done before. This is centuries-old tech. You’re looking for something perfect.

      3. Also, what if a symptomatic person refuses to quarantine him/herself, or refuses to get tested? Because FYTW. How do you deal with such a person?

        1. You hide. Stop making it their responsiblity to keep you safe Karen.

          1. John’s solution is to “quarantine the sick”. So ask John what should happen to people who refuse to be quarantined.

            1. You’re the one demanding something has to “happen to them” dumbass.

            2. “…So ask John what should happen to people who refuse to be quarantined.”

              John doesn’t speak for me.

    2. “Okay, so what’s the answer then?”

      Have you tried cyanide?

      1. If you can’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation then just fuck off.

        1. Because you rending your garments like a fucking bitch is “meaningful” Karen.

          1. Emblematic of the maturity I’ve come to expect from discussions around here lately.

            1. “Emblematic of the maturity I’ve come to expect from discussions around here lately.”

              Yeah, the whining from the cowardly pieces of lefty shit seem to come from 2-year olds.

            2. then just fuck off.

              Emblematic of the maturity

              Emblematic of the hypocrisy and demands you make of other people that you always fail to adhere to jeffy

              1. I know, right? I’m the one having a productive conversation while most everyone else is providing non-answers and insults.

                Now get medical help for your obvious mental illness, and until that time, fuck off. Because you truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation.

                1. I know, right? I’m the one having a productive conversation

                  Nah we know you were just setting up your lame straw man make shit up garbage that you always do.

                  Please, though make more excuses for whining about behavior you engage in yourself.

                  We totally won’t see that you’re a hypocritical Karen.

                  1. Mission accomplished, you’ve completely derailed the discussion. Which was your goal all along.

                    Go take your meds.

                    1. Tulpa-Karen is here to be the enforcer of who is allowed to have conversations here.

                      I mean, Shithead can come here and threaten to literally murder progressives, and that’s totes okay.

                      But heaven forfend I try to get an answer from John on how he might actually arrange a public health system within a libertarian framework. Can’t have that kind of discussion. Not enough paranoia about “masks are symbols of oppression” and “the left wants a cultural revolution”.

                    2. Jeff I distinctly remember when you attacked Tulpa for telling SQRLSY to seek mental help.

                      Of course, you’re a hypocrite. You do things like that.

                    3. Yeah he will of course excuse himself for that, or it’ll be different. And the fact that he himself derailed the discussion by whining like a fucking bitch will of course be my fault because I own him.

                    4. And now you chime in to continue to derail the conversation and make it all about me instead of a discussion of public health.

                      I frankly don’t care if you think I’m a hypocrite. You want me to kill myself after all. Why do you think I care? You are going to call me a hypocrite whether I am or not.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:38 pm
                      Tulpa-Karen is here to be the enforcer of who is allowed to have conversations here

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 5:50 pm
                      If you can’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation then just fuck off

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:30 pm
                      I know, right? I’m the one having a productive conversation while most everyone else is providing non-answers and insults.

                      Now get medical help for your obvious mental illness, and until that time, fuck off. Because you truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:43 pm
                      And now you chime in to continue to derail the conversation and make it all about me

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:38 pm
                      Tulpa-Karen is here to be the enforcer of who is allowed to have conversations here.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:38 pm
                      Tulpa-Karen is here to be the enforcer of who is allowed to have conversations here.

                      I mean, Shithead can come here and threaten to literally murder progressives

                      WTF are you screeching about Karen, no one threatened to murder you. At least you inadvertently admit you’re a progressive finally.

                    8. I *was* having a productive conversation, *until you came in and ruined it*. As usual.

                    9. Lol we can read the thread idiot the “productive conversation” is entirely you getting told to shut the fuck up because everyone knows you and your games.

                      One of which is to pretend to take the high road while being a whiny passive aggresive little bitch.

                    10. You know, for a bunch of people who continually whine about being “silenced by the left”, you sure do enjoy attempting to silence people you don’t like, don’t you.

                    11. chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 7:08 pm
                      you sure do enjoy attempting to silence people you don’t like, don’t you.

                      No u

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 5:50 pm
                      If you can’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation then just fuck off

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      June.29.2020 at 6:30 pm
                      I know, right? I’m the one having a productive conversation while most everyone else is providing non-answers and insults.

                      Now get medical help for your obvious mental illness, and until that time, fuck off. Because you truly have nothing of value to offer any conversation

                2. “I know, right? I’m the one having a productive conversation while most everyone else is providing non-answers and insults.”

                  “NO” is not a non-answer, but cowardly pieces of lefty shit seem to have a hard time understanding that.

                  1. “NO” is the answer that a 4-year-old gives when he’s throwing a tantrum.

                    “NO” is not a serious answer to complex questions of how to design a public health system within a libertarian framework.

                    1. It’s the right answer to goverment intervention that tramples individual autonomy.

                      But you’re not a libertarian so you don’t care about that.

                      You care about pretending to want a conversation while calling your opponents 4 year olds.

                    2. It is a facile, unserious answer. Believe it or not, pandemics exist and very few people will accept the completely anarchic “do absolutely nothing” approach. I doubt even most libertarians would.

                    3. It is a facile, unserious answer

                      Yeah yeah you already called your opponents 4 year olds youre just repeating yourself.

                      “do absolutely nothing”

                      Good thing not a single person suggested that even though you try to pretend they did by using a fake quote. It’s how you do.

            3. You prefer the adult socks you create? Or the sophistry?

    3. “Okay, so what’s the answer then?”

      The answer is “no”, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.

      1. That’s nice.

        1. Glad to answer it for you, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.

          1. What you answered is that you have no answer at all.
            Do you think there ought to be quarantines if there is a pandemic? If so, how would they be enforced?

            1. Hey look jeff is lonely and pretending he isn’t a know piece of trash who attempts to lull people into good faith discussions until he is losing when he than starts straw manning and lying about what they say.

              1. Oh man. That has got to be the biggest example of the pot calling the kettle black I have seen in a long time.

                1. Racist.

            2. “What you answered is that you have no answer at all.”

              Cowardly pieces of lefty shit have a really hard time understanding that others may well object to their authoritarianism.
              Try again, cowardly piece of lefty shit:
              The answer is NO.

              1. Sevo, in the presence of a pandemic, do you think there ought to be any quarantines of any type? Either mandatory or voluntary?

                If your answer to that is still “no”, not even a voluntary quarantine, then what do you support at all in the presence of a quarantine?

                1. “Sevo, in the presence of a pandemic, do you think there ought to be any quarantines of any type? Either mandatory or voluntary?”

                  You realize that “pandemic” means the flu is wide-spread, and says nothing regarding the harm it causes, right?
                  In this case, given that the symptoms are generally mild, I would leave any ‘quarantine’ strictly voluntary.

                  1. Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

                    What is your proposed solution, if any, if a symptomatic person refuses a voluntary quarantine? Would you then make it mandatory? If not, then this symptomatic person will likely go out and infect many other people. Is this a problem? If so, how do you deal with it?

                    1. Did you read the word “voluntary”?
                      Just checking; you don’t seem to understand that YOU do not dictate my actions or thoughts.

                    2. I never claimed to “dictate your actions or thoughts”.

                      If you would only have voluntary quarantines, even for symptomatic sick people who refused to quarantine voluntarily, then this means that the disease will spread more rapidly. You realize that, right?

                    3. “If you would only have voluntary quarantines, even for symptomatic sick people who refused to quarantine voluntarily, then this means that the disease will spread more rapidly. You realize that, right?”

                      You realize we could have less crime if we threw everybody in jail, right?
                      Hint:
                      Your health is YOUR responsibility, not mine. You (and other lefty shits) do not have the right to imprison ME on the chance you might get sick.
                      Scared? Crawl in a hole and stay there.

                    4. No Sevo you don’t get it, Jeff the Libertarian is only a Libertarian until Top Men! say a magic word like “pandemic” at which point we have to shut the world down because he is scaredy.

                    5. You realize we could have less crime if we threw everybody in jail, right?

                      Good thing I’m not suggesting throwing everyone in jail or imprisoning everyone.

                      Your health is YOUR responsibility, not mine.

                      Okay then! We agree!

                      Do you think there ought to be an expectation – not a mandate, not a rule, but an expectation – that if a person is sick, that that person ought to do what he/she can to limit trying to infect other people?

                    6. “Do you think there ought to be an expectation – not a mandate, not a rule, but an expectation – that if a person is sick, that that person ought to do what he/she can to limit trying to infect other people?”

                      I’m dealing with realities and you have my answer.
                      Obviously, you still cannot comprehend that “voluntary” means “voluntary”
                      Sorry, go find someone else word games.

                    7. If we say “No” will you call us 4 year olds?

                    8. In this case, no I wouldn’t call anyone a 4-year-old, because I actually asked a yes/no question.

                      The problem was with the original response of NO to a much more complicated question that was not a yes/no question.

                      It was an unserious non-answer.

                      I still don’t think Sevo has thought very seriously about this issue, but whatever.

                    9. “…It was an unserious non-answer…”
                      It was an answer entirely appropriate to your continued fishing in the hopes of catching someone in a mistake. Like Tony, you never seem to engage anyone honestly; it’s always innuendo, piled on strawman, loaded with your assumptions.
                      Further, I don’t think you’ve given the matter what I would consider serious thought; your thinking seems to be simplistic in the extreme:
                      How many cases do we have, and how do we reduce that?
                      Strictly one-dimensional, and typical of those calling for locksdowns.

                    10. It was an answer entirely appropriate to your continued fishing in the hopes of catching someone in a mistake.

                      I’m sorry you felt that way, Sevo. It was an honest, sincere attempt to try to determine what you think an appropriate public health response to a pandemic should be within a libertarian framework.

                      Further, I don’t think you’ve given the matter what I would consider serious thought; your thinking seems to be simplistic in the extreme:
                      How many cases do we have, and how do we reduce that?

                      Well in terms of public health, that is indeed a very reasonable metric to use, don’t you think?

                      I have not called for government-mandated ‘lockdowns’.

      2. My last month cheque was for 1500 dollars… All i did was easy on-line work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the net and they paid me for it 95 usd each hour. Read More.

    4. The answer is to continue living life like we had for hundreds of thousands of years you retarded sophist fuck.

      Life isnt without risk pussy. We are talking about an 8% increase in the yearly death rate so far, a statistical non issue.

      I’m sorry your parents raised you to believe in the fountain of youth.

      1. It’s a “statistical non issue” as long as you’re not one of the statistics.

        Life is of course not without its risks. At the same time, we all do things to try to mitigate the risks in our own lives.

        Is there any *voluntary* measure that you would advocate for trying to minimize risks in a public health context?

    5. We let the ’57 and ’68 pandemic flus run their course. They both had higher infection fatality rates than covid-19 has, and both skewed markedly younger in who was killed.

      If people are unwilling to tolerate that as a viable answer, they can choose to voluntarily cower in their homes.

      The libertarian answer is to let individuals make their own choices, and live with the consequences.

      1. The libertarian answer is to let individuals make their own choices, and live with the consequences.

        Normally I would agree. But part of the problem with this issue, though, is that in the case of infectious disease, the individual’s choices potentially affect more people than just the individual him/herself. If you choose to ignore your symptoms, go to a public place, and thus infect me, then I am the one who has to suffer based on your choices. If you had harmed me by hitting me, we would call that a violation of the NAP and a violation of my rights. But if you injure me by spreading a virus to me, should that be regarded in the same way? If not, why not?

        1. You accept some level of risk when you go to a public place, some downsides of which aren’t even someone’s fault. In this case, you knew there was a pandemic, and you went to a public place. You accepted the risk you might catch it. (You could also take plenty of other mitigating measures, like wearing a mask, to decrease your risk – no one is stopping you from doing those things voluntarily).

          Note that the best evidence suggests catching covid-19 isn’t that casual. It requires close proximity for an extended period of time. Unless they are *actively violating your rights* by physically keeping you there, you’re not going to get coronavirus just because someone infected with it was briefly near you.

          The riskier the behavior you engage in, the more risk you’ve effectively accepted. That’s all on you. Don’t blame other people for your own choices.

          We make these kinds of choices all the time. When you get into your car, you accept there is some risk of an accident. If someone hits you, sure, it was their fault, but the only way you can eliminate any risk of being in an accident while driving is to *not drive*. Blaming the other guy, even if they are to blame, doesn’t change that you were in an accident, and that your choices ultimately put you at the risk of that happening.

          Fun fact, your lifetime odds of dying in a car crash is ~1 in 114, but that doesn’t condition on you being in a car accident. (That would be like giving the odds of dying of covid-19 without conditioning it on *having* covid-19). Despite that, you’re still more likely to die in a car crash than die of covid-19 *given you have covid-19* if you’re under the age of 50. (The CDC estimates the latter at 0.05 percent, which is over an order of magnitude smaller).

          1. You accept some level of risk when you go to a public place, some downsides of which aren’t even someone’s fault. In this case, you knew there was a pandemic, and you went to a public place. You accepted the risk you might catch it. (You could also take plenty of other mitigating measures, like wearing a mask, to decrease your risk – no one is stopping you from doing those things voluntarily).

            Reminds me a little bit of this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw

            (a great movie, BTW)

            I agree that there is some degree of risk that everyone tolerates just by leaving the house. But there must be some limit to that level of thinking. No one would seriously argue that if you go to a restaurant, and there is dirty water, rotting food, and filthy tables, that “it’s your own fault” if you get sick by going to that restaurant – the restaurateur indeed has some obligation, even if it is a voluntarily imposed one, to make his/her restaurant at least minimally suitable for serving food to the public. By contrast, if you go to a restaurant and another patron sneezes on you and you get sick because of it, the restaurateur cannot reasonably be blamed for that. That is one of the reasonable risks of going out in public.

            I guess I would argue that during a pandemic, if we want a voluntaryist approach to public health, we ought to all think more like the restaurateur and be thinking about what we can do, voluntarily, to try not to make other people sick.

            1. I should note i have no problem with businesses freely choosing to require customers to wear masks. They’re private businesses, they can choose who they do business with.

              Competition, as usual, solves. People who are worried about the pandemic will choose businesses which implement better safety measures. If enough people are risk conscious, those businesses win. Businesses will try to find ways to appeal to risk-averse customers. Businesses like theatres will innovate in ways to reduce infection risk instead of being forced to close.

              The heavy hand of government foreclosed all of that. Voluntary measures were clearly signalling that consumers cared about pandemic risk before the government *forced* business closures.

              1. Competition, as usual, solves. People who are worried about the pandemic will choose businesses which implement better safety measures. If enough people are risk conscious, those businesses win. Businesses will try to find ways to appeal to risk-averse customers. Businesses like theatres will innovate in ways to reduce infection risk instead of being forced to close.

                I agree with all of this in general.

                But this assumes that generally the safety-conscious businesses will win out in the competition. What if that is not the case?

                What if the consumers don’t really care about the virus and don’t purposefully select businesses who have chosen to implement safety measures? Then those who do will be at a competitive disadvantage. The theater which only permits half capacity will lose out to the theater which permits full capacity even if more people get sick.

  11. I don’t think you deserve a seat at the debate table if your actual premise is that wearing a mask is oppression. There comes a point when we’re talking about life and death and we have to cut out the unserious.

    1. don’t think you deserve a seat at the debate table

      Of course you don’t its the only way you win debates.

      1. We have serious things to debate, and one of them is not whether being asked to wear a mask for the sake of hygiene is tyranny.

        1. That you think that is why we laugh at you.

        2. being asked to wear a mask for the sake of hygiene

          No one here will dispute this is ok. Key word: ASKED.

          1. Tony, like other lefties here, assumes a “No” to be a non-answer.

    2. if your actual premise is that wearing a mask is oppression.

      It’s more the enforcement that always ends with guns and death that is the oppression, some Karen like you whining about not wearing masks is comedy.

      1. You know that there’s a deadly pandemic going on?

        1. I know there’s a cold going around and you’re a bitch trying to implement enforcement of a dubious mask requirment that will end in guns and death like all enforcement does.

          1. Did you know you have to wear pants too? Where’s the slippery slope to guns and death around that? You’ve been a slave this whole time!!

            1. I know there’s a cold going around and you’re a bitch who I just made a fool of trying to implement enforcement of a dubious mask requirment that will end in guns and death like all enforcement does.

            2. “…You’ve been a slave this whole time!!”

              This from a scumbag who will gladly knee-walk if so directed by some ‘authority’.
              This from a scumbag who fantasizes that the government grants ‘rights’.
              This from a scumbag who cannot post without lying.

          2. But around here, even asking people politely to voluntarily wear a mask is not acceptable. It is a “symbol of subjugation to tyranny” or some such.

            1. “But around here, even asking people politely to voluntarily wear a mask is not acceptable.”

              You’re welcome to ask, but you don’t seem to understand when someone says NO!
              Cowardly pieces of lefty shit seem to have that problem.

              1. Can I come up to you and spread shit on your face, or would you suddenly appreciate the value of hygiene?

                1. Did your mommy tell you everyone else had to make sure you didn’t get sick, you pathetic piece of lefty shit?
                  Go crawl in a hole and stay there, for the good of mankind.

                2. That would be assault asshole.

                  If you don’t want to get coughed near, stay inside.

            2. “But around here, even asking people politely to voluntarily wear a mask is not acceptable”

              Where the fuck is “here” and who said that because it wasn’t me. So, not being me, maybe whine to the person you failed to quote saying that but that you totally didn’t make up.

            3. It went past asking weeks ago you lying fuck.

              We can also save people by capping car speeds at 25 mph. Are you willing to push that idea as well? Or are you just a pussy coward who doesnt care about others?

              1. I would be in favor of a recommended speed limit, not a mandatory one though.

                Would you be in favor of voluntary, recommended public health measures to stop the spread of the virus?

                1. Yes, that makes sense.

                  The gov should be giving the best recommendations it can find. In March they might have recommended quarantining, and that’s ok. By end of April they should have been recommending avoiding any indoor crowded places. Now they should recommend masks for when you go into crowded places or else avoiding them. Throughout they should recommend avoiding anyone at risk – old people, people with known problems, etc.

                2. No one here has objected to voluntary methods, but as soon as you get that, like lefties everywhere, you ratchet up the hypotheticals in the hopes of getting the “yes” to mandatory measures you so dearly desire.
                  No.

                  1. Actually, there have been some people here who have objected to voluntary requests to wear masks.

                    But I do think there are some difficult questions when it comes to going the purely voluntary approach. Such as, what to do if people refuse to listen to the recommendations. It may not be *as* big of a deal with coronavirus, but what if, heaven forfend, it was something like a more contagious version of Ebola? That would pose some real challenges I think.

                    I personally think addressing the issue of public health is a weak spot in libertarian philosophy, because infected people can unknowingly ‘harm’ other people by transmitting the disease, and it’s difficult to apply NAP-like logic to those kinds of situations. I do think that *IF* there is going to be a successful version of a purely voluntary approach to public health, it has to start with individuals taking seriously the threat posed by a particular disease and acting accordingly.

        2. Not that deadly for most of the population. Not wearing a mask is less risky than driving a car.

    3. “I don’t think you deserve a seat at the debate table if your actual premise is that wearing a mask is oppression…”

      No, you, as a pathological liar, do not get to define who sits where.

  12. “I don’t think”

    No one cares.

  13. “Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost?”

    Well of course they were.
    That’s a stupid question.
    Look how many people ended up unemployed, lost their businesses and had their life savings eaten up.
    Plus, look at how many governors were able to FINALLY unmask their fascist selves and oppress the ungrateful masses, unlike those capitalist pigs in Taiwan and Sweden who refused to bow down to the COV-19 gods, and let the obviously inferior little people do what they want and think for themselves.

  14. “Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost?”

    No.

  15. Every time I see a politician in a mask I want to slap them. You know they do it for theatre.

    Here, as numbers are practically negligible the fricken province of Quebec decides to mandate masks in the subway and buses. 73 cases total. I need crazy pills.

    Fucken pussies. We’re a civilization of fucken pussies.

    1. Disagree. They should wear masks to show what they recommend people to do in situations that require masks. If they are outside and not in the vicinity of an at-risk person, they should take off the masks. They should model appropriate behavior – both mask on and mask off.

  16. No. The cure is now waaayyy worse than the disease.

    Problem is it’s a habit now. ‘Oh spikes! LOCKDOWN!’

    Oh, the fools and knaves who rule over us.

  17. “Texas, according to lockdown supporters, did pretty much everything wrong: It closed businesses too late, allowed them to reopen too soon, and failed to develop testing and tracing capacity enough to make a real difference. But what about California, which led the nation in ordering businesses to close and telling people to stay home and has been only gradually lifting those restrictions? Newly confirmed cases are also rising dramatically there, from 2,108 on June 15 to 7,149 on June 23—a more-than-threefold increase similar to what Texas saw during the same period, although that number had dropped to 4,810 as of June 27.”

    Know why? Because no one knows what the frick they’re doing. But it’s easy to shut down businesses and people that don’t impact you personally. It’s a disgrace really.

    For the love of God, public health officials said it’s ok to protest because ‘social justice is more important than social distance’.

    It’s a complete breakdown of leadership across the board in 2020.

    1. Actually, promoting people to go mask-less at BLM protests is racist. They are endorsing the increased death rates of black people! Has anyone made that point?

  18. Absolutely not worth the cost. I would rather more people have died and we got it over with.

    1. Let’s take one tiny example of how a lockdown messes with people’s psyches.

      Here in Quebec, we’ve been averaging c. 70 cases per day for over a week now. Canada as a whole has seen cases drop to negligible levels.

      So the Quebec government, logically, said it was going to stop daily reporting and conferences and moved it to a weekly basis.

      They’re following the trends. ‘Hey, it’s good. Let’s take a break!’

      Nope.

      People complained vociferously. They want their little blanket of daily updates. Information they can easily get on the Internet. What possible productive purpose can be achieved by daily corona porn?

      Like I said pathetic pussies. It’s over now. Go out and enjoy life.

      But we opened this Pandora’s Box. Now it’s going to be one heckuva challenge closing it with all these cucks caressing their masks.

      1. Corona porn addiction. Look for it in all the new psychology diagnosis manuals.

  19. “Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary asked during a recent Soho Forum debate, wouldn’t you rather get it later in the epidemic, after doctors had a chance to figure out which treatments worked best? That strikes me as a pretty good argument, although the benefit Makary imagines has to be balanced against the medical cost of restrictions that delayed potentially lifesaving diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.”

    I see the logic but not really. We knew early on people under 50 weren’t in danger. Period. I’m of the opinion now just fricken learn to love the virus already. All this theatre and pant shitting delays the inevitable. Then again, the people who think they can vanquish this are probably the same people who think government policy can control Mother Nature with climate change. We give up personal liberty for this virus? Not a good trade in my view.

    I hope I’m wrong. But probably not.

    Take the hit.

    And fuck China.

    Sweden. I hope they pull it off.

    1. “We knew early on people under 50 weren’t in danger. Period.”
      Um, false.

      1. You really want to go down this road Tony? Go look up the fatality rates per age group. Now fuck off because it’s pinkos like you following orders that contribute to irrational decisions.

        1. It’s about more than just fatality rates.
          People who get the coronavirus but still recover, can suffer life-altering disabilities. Diminished lung function, other organ problems, even brain damage is possible.

          https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-we-know-about-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19

          So it’s not true that people under 50 were “not in danger”. Everyone who gets it is in some type of danger.

          1. Go re-read your link SLOWLY and CAREFULLY.

            1. I’m not going to waste time, but he pulled a ‘turd’ and posted a link which doesn’t back his claim at all, right?

              1. Seems and reads like it.

                1. ODL has now twice linked a study which, he claimed ‘proved’ the value of masks.
                  4-5 paragraphs down, you get to the “Summary”:
                  In all the (I think) 3 conditions, the masks ‘may be of value’.
                  The first time, I left the quote out. Unfortunately, I quoted it next time, and he hasn’t bothered linking that or any other making the claim since.

            2. What about it?

              1. Er no Jeff. I’m not your teacher. If you can’t see it then you’re a retard for real.

                Put down the crayons and go read it with a critical eye.

                1. I don’t know what to look for if you don’t tell me what the source of your objection is.

                  1. This says everything anyone ever need to know about you.

                    1. That I can’t read minds? Yes sadly it is true.

                2. This is ridiculous even for you.

                  I bring facts and data into the discussion, then you proceed to lie about them and insult my intelligence.

                  Why not just read the fucking source and tell me what you have a problem with instead of your little games.

                  1. Oh and now he’s upset and calling you a liar because he doesn’t see the problem with his “facts” and he thinks goading you is “constructive”

                    1. No in this case it’s not constructive but I do not understand what exactly is the problem with the link I posted and I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I’m some stupid idiot for not seeing some obvious flaw.

                      If you have a problem with what I posted then point it out.

          2. Ok Karen. They also had to travel to the hospital and that is super dangerous!!!

            Lol

          3. Everyone’s in danger all the time. An airplane could literally drop out of the sky on your house (seriously, that actually happens). But what’s the actual *risk*, and how does it compare relative to other risks?

            The fatality rate is really low for under-50 people, and the ‘serious complication’ rate is probably also really low. No one who supports ridiculous restrictions wants to give context for this risk, but it seems to only be scary because it’s novel.

    2. “…Sweden. I hope they pull it off.”

      The Swedes already have. While the rest of the world was knee-capping their economies for no gain at all, the Swedes said no, thanks.

      1. Yes, I agree. But media and people think they failed.

        I think in the long-run they win.

        They won’t have, for example, people like Tony who pant shit.

        1. “…But media and people think they failed…”

          Well, most of the media and a certain number of people thought that hag would have been a better POTUS than we have, so what can you say?

          1. Now they believe an blathering incoherent corrupted douche bag in Biden is better.

    3. Sweden. I hope they pull it off.

      https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/03/868567924/swedens-coronavirus-response-chief-acknowledges-potential-for-improvement

      Unlike many others, including countries from the United Kingdom to South Korea, Sweden did not effectively shutter its economy. Instead of quarantine and shelter-in-place orders, the country issued comparatively light suggestions — banning gatherings over 50 people and otherwise asking them to maintain social distancing as best they can.

      Swedish officials have said their approach could lead to “herd immunity” more quickly than other countries. Herd immunity means that enough people in a population have become immune to the virus — either through vaccine or previous infection — that the risk of new infections lowers across the board.

      In other words, the idea was, if Sweden kept its bars and restaurants open, more people among the less vulnerable would develop immunity and ultimately slow the spread.

      So far, though, Sweden has not yet seen the health results for which it’s hoping.

      The country vastly outpaces its nearest neighbors in the confirmed cases and death toll linked to COVID-19. And it has not reached herd immunity — a threshold often pegged to around 60% of the population immune — as officials had hoped it would last month.

      Already in the spotlight for its distinct approach, the country has attracted significant second-guessing as well, particularly in light of the less than ideal outcome so far. When asked if too many people had died in Sweden of the disease, Tegnell answered simply: “Yes, absolutely.”

      Still, in comments later to a different Swedish outlet, the news daily Dagens Nyheter, he clarified that he thought Sweden’s overall approach was sound, especially with what officials knew at the time.

      “There are things we could have done better,” he said, “but in essence I think Sweden has chosen the right path.”

      1. I repeat, they didn’t knee-cap their economy for NO GAIN.

      2. A much better audio source for Sweden info – https://sverigesradio.se/radiosweden

        still in English for an external audience. But the only editorial filter it is going through is the Swedish govt – not a foreign group of editors/journalists/etc with their own agenda re how they want to paint Sweden for their own domestic purposes

      3. Is this guy for real?

        All they’re saying is they could have done better.

        They did second-guess themselves because the world is bullying them. But they stayed the course and will come out of it right in line with other countries. So what they did better or worse than some countries? It’s not a fricken contest.

        Point is they will have achieved it by a) not destroying their economy and more importantly b) by not turning their citizens into fucken pansies like you. Don’t underestimate the psychological damage we’re doing. We’re tuning into nations of Howie Mandel’s with OCD.

        1. https://www.livescience.com/results-of-sweden-covid19-response.html

          In late May, Sweden’s overall COVID-19 mortality rate was estimated at 39.57 deaths per 100,000 residents; at the same time, the U.S. mortality rate was estimated at 30.02 deaths per 100,000 residents, according to NPR. Norway and Finland, both bordering Sweden, instituted stricter lockdown measures than their neighboring country, and at the time, each had fewer than six COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 residents.

          The research group Ourworldindata.org now estimates that Sweden has the eighth highest number of coronavirus-related deaths per capita, Reuters reported.

          Upon setting their COVID-19 strategy, Swedish officials including Olofsdotter predicted that the country might reach so-called herd immunity before countries under lockdown, according to NPR. Herd immunity refers to a point at which so many people gain immunity to a virus, either through natural infections or vaccinations, that the overall risk of new infections becomes very low. With too few people to infect, the virus can no longer spread rapidly.

          Without an approved vaccine, experts estimate that 60% of the population would have to become infected and recover from COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity — assuming that every infection grants robust immunity that doesn’t quickly wane through time, NPR reported. However, an antibody survey conducted in Stockholm suggested that fewer than 7.5% of the city’s residents had been exposed to the virus as of mid-May.

          So they didn’t get herd immunity and they had a higher death rate per capita than their neighbors. You are right they didn’t “destroy their economy” but they did pay a price for it.

          1. There are challenges. Every staked their bet.

            That they didn’t lockdown, it can be reasoned, they can reach HI before most nations in the West.

            Who cares they have worse numbers than Norway? It’s still better than, say, the UK or Belgium. It’s just cherry picking data.

            Look at the entire arc.

            1. Well, Norway is their immediate neighbor. The UK and Belgium aren’t.

              Their approach resulted in more death. That shouldn’t be handwaved away.

              1. Their approach resulted in more death

                No you innumerate retard, it changed the distribution.

                You don’t actually understand this, and that is the proof.

                1. This implies that there’s going to be a constant amount of death regardless. Why do you think that is the case?

                  1. Um…because that’s how pandemics work, and we were told that (if one had his eyes open) all along.

              2. Sweden’s geography is more like the UK or Belgium than Norway. Just because their neighbors doesn’t mean that’s the best comparison.

                1. I believe Sweden has more population density as well.

                  And Norway has half the population. It’s tiny. Nortiny.

          2. “but they did pay a price for it.”

            From your link: “…at the same time,..”
            Yeah, we’ll see what their neighbors numbers are once those imprisoned are freed, much like we’re seeing in the US.
            And the Swedes have jobs!

            1. Sweden unemployment is highest since 2010. And they are projecting it to keep rising into 2021.

              That rate will always lag any ‘event-shock’ in Sweden because they require advance notice for larger-scale layoffs.

              1. “Sweden unemployment is highest since 2010. And they are projecting it to keep rising into 2021…”
                Even more reason to avoid lockdowns.

                “That rate will always lag any ‘event-shock’ in Sweden because they require advance notice for larger-scale layoffs.”
                Irrelevant.

              2. US unemployment highest since 1933!!!!

                Are we winning?

                1. If it keeps going until November and shitbags like JFree can blame it on Trump, you bet!

                2. That depends.

                  You want to compare the US to Sweden in order to pretend that the only thing that’s different is the lockdown. Which is crap. Because the MAIN thing that is different between the US and every other developed country is that the US has an employment-based medical coverage system. Which – golly fucking gee – has a huge impact when a pandemic rides into town.

                  The US dumped employees like they had the plague because they didn’t want to be on the hook for those medical costs. Shift those costs over to the now-unemployed and/or someone else. That FAR outweighs any costs of a one-month or so furlough at the lower half of the pay scale. Hey presto – no more medical exposure problem. THAT is why the US now has a higher unemployment rate than every developed country – and why it will stay that way for as long as the pandemic is around. It is not the lockdown that added that cost to every prospective employee. It is the unpooled MEDICAL RISK.

                  Sweden can certainly be compared re the lockdown specifically to other countries that have a similar medical coverage system. And a good comparator is Denmark – a very strict lockdown. Both have had almost identical increases in unemployment (2-3%) and drops in consumer confidence. Denmark a higher drop in 2Q GDP – but likely offset a bit at least by more of a rebound in 3Q as they come out of lockdown. Overall it’s more of a wash re the economy than you think but that at least is an honest comparison.

                  Comparing anywhere to the US re that issue is OTOH fundamentally dishonest.

                  But hey – you can fucking bet that a boatload fewer people remain ‘happy’ with their employer coverage now because – they now have no employer and no coverage. I guess we’ll see how fast this changes the politics of healthcare.

                  1. “You want to compare the US to Sweden in order to pretend that the only thing that’s different is the lockdown. Which is crap. Because the MAIN thing that is different between the US and every other developed country is that the US has an employment-based medical coverage system. Which – golly fucking gee – has a huge impact when a pandemic rides into town.
                    The US dumped employees like they had the plague because they didn’t want to be on the hook for those medical costs.

                    As always,
                    You.
                    Are.
                    Full.
                    Of.
                    Shit.
                    The D governors shut down the economy, and I have to assume they, unlike you, you pathetic piece of cowardly shit, knew that doing so would remove them from coverage.
                    And now, you, you pathetic piece of cowardly shit, blame it on “they”.
                    Do you have the decency to be embarrassed? Fuck you with a running, rusty chain saw. There is no pain which you could suffer that you don’t deserve.

                    1. I am not at all sure that those who made the shutdown decisions had the slightest inkling of how many employers would simply shed their workforce permanently because that was in fact a uniquely American response to lockdown. No other country on Earth has had the same or even remotely similar increase in unemployment as happened here.

                      It’s pretty obvious they didn’t even have an inkling of the public health stuff involved in that decision – and that stuff was part of the shutdown ‘process’ in every single country that has done shutdown. And you want to assume they were knowledgeable about secondary economic impacts unique to the US? Hahaha

                      Fact is – they, like you, simply couldn’t deal with, couldn’t mentally process, an uncomfortable FACT. That a pandemic was here. And that it would kill a lot of people. AND that in the absence of doing something, it would overwhelm the medical system and would kill even more people.

                      They looked at that fact – and panicked. You did too. You of course panic by denying the fact even exists. By sticking your head up your ass and pretending that this is just the flu. It will go away as long as you keep chanting ‘this is just the flu’. And the only thing that will be left to fight is your little DeRp cartoon world. Where D’s are the foe who decided to lockdown every state. Red states and blue states alike. And they took over DC too. Like commie pod people. NOW you have a foe you understand and you don’t even need to process the virus facts. And guess what – so do they. You DeRps have learned absolutely nothing about anything. Just the same old same old.

                  2. The US dumped employees like they had the plague because they didn’t want to be on the hook for those medical costs

                    Complete BS.

                    When required to shut down by government edict, many businesses found that – SURPRISE – they had little or no income. One cannot pay out what does not come in (unless you are Apple rich), so you reduce costs, I.e. employees.

                    Simple economics seems a mystery to you. I’ll bet you never had to meet a payroll in your life. (Like most academics and politicians)

                    1. When required to shut down by government edict, many businesses found that – SURPRISE – they had little or no income.

                      That is, in fact, no different than every other country on Earth that had a lockdown. And not much different than in those countries where people simply stopped spending money and stayed indoors at home.

                      Same/similar circumstances everywhere. Unique outcome here in the US. Don’t fucking lecture me about ‘market’ as if it is some unique element of American exceptionalism and arrogance.

                    2. Haha!! Ever try to fire someone in France? Almost impossible short of them committing murder. Many other countries have similar laws that make employment nearly permanent. The US, by contrast, has mostly at-will employment, which makes us much more agile and able to respond to changing conditions. (It’s one of the reasons we out perform almost all other places) Progs, as usual, fail to recognize this advantage, and support closed shops and oppose right to work laws. Just another paternalistic view that people need not be responsible for themselves.

                      We used to be a country that celebrated self-reliance and the self-made man, but now it takes a village and government handouts. That’s why we are slipping back to the standard of living of the rest of the world. Donkeys are to blame mostly.

                  3. Denmark had elementary school students back in school the middle of April. They at least understood children were not suceptible. While Denmark’s early lockdown makes the country look good now, much like CA did, it won’t last. As soon as they ease other lockdown rstrictions they’re going to experience upticks just like everywhere else in Europe and U.S.. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Tawain that did not lockdown were fortunate they were dealing with the first mutation. The second mutation that began in Europe and found its way to U.S. is less deadly but has enhanced infectivity (“D” (aspartic acid) to “G” (glycine). That’s why we can’t get rid of it, no matter what we do. But IFRs will continue to decline.

          3. Note: that 60% number assumes the population homogeneously mixes. Real populations never actually do that. The real value is lower.

            Based on flu pandemics (including 1917, 1957, and 1968), the real % of the population for herd immunity is likely somewhere in the 25-33% range.

      4. So far, though, Sweden has not yet seen the health results for which it’s hoping.

        It ain’t over till it’s over.

        The second wave is expected to hit, and it will be far worse in places that shut down,

    4. I see the logic, but the only way doctors learn how best to treat the sick is for enough people to get sick.

    5. “In June, people under 50 have made up 50% of those hospitalized in D-FW hospitals and 30% of those in critical care”

      https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/22/texas-coronavirus-cases-hospitalizations-austin-houston-dallas/

  20. “There was ‘real hubris’ on the part of public health officials at the very start,” the Times says, quoting Vanderbilt University infectious disease specialist William Schaffner. Those officials, according to the Times, believed “the United States could lock down and contain the virus as China had,” and “that futile hope helped create an unrealistic expectation that the shutdown, while intense, would not be for long, and that when it was lifted life would return to normal.”

    That points to my assertion we have idiots ruling over us. Who in their right mind thought they could emulate China?

    Right there is all you need to know about the quality of minds and leadership before us.

  21. “Now that we have emerged from lockdowns with no real confidence that they actually reduced the ultimate death toll, many people are understandably asking what the point was. “Many Americans started in the pandemic with a strong feeling of solidarity, not unlike the days after Sept. 11, 2001,” the Times observes. “They closed their businesses, stayed inside, made masks and wiped down their groceries. In a country often riven by politics, polls showed broad agreement that shutting down was the right thing to do. But months of mixed messages have left many exhausted and wondering how much of what they did was worth it.”

    In the words of Red Foreman: Dumbasses.

    Enjoy your mouth diapers.

  22. The lockdowns had only one possible purpose – to buy time.

    It’s pretty clear that no one much thought about the costs of that time

    It’s even more clear that we did absolutely nothing with that time we bought

    Stupidest. People. Ever.

    1. Nope.
      You’ve retired the chair; you pushed for the entire program, and now you’re trying to walk it back.

      1. I ain’t walking anything back. You just have no clue what I’ve even been saying. And you ain’t seen fucking nothing yet.

        1. “I ain’t walking anything back. You just have no clue what I’ve even been saying. And you ain’t seen fucking nothing yet.”
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          I and everyone else here have seen your PANIC act for entirely too long to buy that steaming pile of shit.
          Stuff your PANIC flag up your ass and sit on it, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.

            1. So the cowardly piece of lefty shit posts a YT vid?
              How…..
              Appropriate.
              Fuck off and die.

    2. “The lockdowns had only one possible purpose – to buy time”

      Oh fuck here comes Jeff to demand that you prove that because he is an ignorant retard

  23. I hate to break it to the anti-mask crowd here, but even Mitch McConnell is now on the pro-mask bandwagon.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/505091-mcconnell-makes-strong-call-for-masks-saying-there-should-be-no-stigma

    “We need new routines, new rhythms and new strategies for this new middle ground in between. It’s the task of each family, each small business, each employer and all levels of government to apply common sense and make this happen. To name just on example, we must have no stigma — none — about wearing masks when we leave our homes and come near other people,” he said.

    “Wearing simple face coverings is not about protecting ourselves. It is about protecting everyone we encounter,” he added.

    1. but even Mitch McConnell

      Jeff loves that appeal to authority. To Libertarians. About a crony capitalist Republican.

      1. There are quite a few posters here who are very supportive of Republicans, to say the least.

        1. So tell them.

          1. I just did.

            1. And your signalling is noted by all others.
              Aren’t you just precious?

    2. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here… Read More.

  24. If you knew that you were going to catch the virus at some point, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary asked during a recent Soho Forum debate, wouldn’t you rather get it later in the epidemic, after doctors had a chance to figure out which treatments worked best?

    Yes, and that’s why I’d like a lot of other people to get it. It’s not time doctors need, it’s experience.

    We can’t all be last in line.

    1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

      This is what do,……. Home Profit System

    2. And that seems to be what all the strategizing is about, tacitly: delaying getting sick so the virus passes you by, you get the population immune so they’re not a threat to you, they get the virus so they produce convalescent serum that can be used to treat you…. The salient, yet unspoken, fact about all this is that while this is a good strategy for an individual if nobody else pursues it, it can’t possibly work as a public health measure! Because if everybody pursues it, nobody gains.

      This is so weird because usually the authorities are all about getting the individuals to sacrifice for the common good, to do what’s not best for themselves as individuals but best for society as a whole. Yet in this case what they’re advocating is just the opposite, but they don’t admit it!!

  25. I’m supposed to be working on something, but for those who cite the CDC C-19 stats as evidence, well…
    2019-2020 Seasonal Flu stats:
    “39,000,000 – 56,000,000 flu illnesses”
    “24,000 – 62,000 flu deaths”
    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

    This for an illness for which we supposedly have a vaccine, and for which the medics are schooled regarding the symptoms.
    Notice the “precision” with which the death count is claimed under those conditions.
    (see ‘Reply’ since I’m not willing to wait for Reason’s Godot to approve the second cite; fuck you Welsh; quit and let Reason hire some one competent to do you job)

    1. Now, let’s look at the C-19 numbers:
      “Total Cases 2,545,250”
      “Total Deaths 126,369”
      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

      This for an illness unknown before ‘now’, which presents symptoms which are as yet undetermined, which causes death by specific causes which are not yet clear, but we can claim there are exactly 126,369 deaths attributed to this?

      OK, we can ignore any PANIC caused by case numbers; they pale by comparison to the CDC’s stats for seasonal flu; stuff it up your ass, JFree.
      And then we are to take the death toll seriously?
      Does.
      Not.
      Pass.
      Sniff.
      Test.

      1. Well you’ve certainly convinced me.

        The death count is probably zero then. And it is a reasonable question whether covid19 even exists. Excellent research there Sevo.

        1. “Well you’ve certainly convinced me.”

          I see you made no comment regarding the CDC numbers I linked, and given that you are a fucking cowardly lefty piece of shit intent on advancing coercive efforts, I am not at all surprised.
          I have a suggestion:
          Stuff your PANIC flag up your ass, stick first, and sit on it. Further, do humanity a favor and make your family proud: Fuck off and die.

          1. Wow. You are such an eloquent writer, no wonder you convince everyone. Love how you cherry pick the numbers you like while ignoring those you don’t. So you like the numbers for seasonal flu deaths, which are estimated by epidemiologists, and who are apparently expert enough in this regards, except then you ignore the epidemiological estimates for Covid 19, which are higher that the current recorded death toll. You whole point seems to be that this is not happening, despite all the contrary evidence. Do you believe the moon landing was fake? How about September 11th? No doubt, you can reply by cursing me out and calling me names.

  26. ●▬▬▬▬ஜஜ▬▬▬▬● [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. Read More.

  27. Start now earning cash every month online from home. Getting paid more than $15k by doing an easy job online. I have made $19715 in last 4 weeks from this job. Easy to join and earning from this are just awesome. Join this right now by follow instructions here…….

    ↠↠↠ http://www.worknet8.com

  28. Finally, my paycheck is $ 8,500? A working 10 hours per week online. My brother’s friend had an average of 12K for several months, he work about 22 hours a week. I can not believe how easy it is, once I try to do so.. Read More.

  29. Amazing. Americans show the world how ignorant, selfish and boorish they are when it comes to science, or anything involving rational thought. trumosters and their fox news freak brethren can’t follow medical advice that would save tens of thousands of lives. Wearing a mask os so taxing! Staying in for a couple weeks takes away your freedoms! Yet you go to work for the man and kiss his butt everyday for your meager salaries. Evolved nations saw how to battle the virus and return to a near normal existence. Germany, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the hub of it all China.

    Now the trump Darwinian Award states of FL, TX, AZ, ID, UT, are all falling into crisis because ignorant people refuse to follow directions that would benefit them, their families, and the nation.

    America under trump and his imbecile clown posse have shown the world that America is exceptional; in it’s stupidity, arrogance, and selfishness. SAD!

    1. a couple of weeks? did you just wake up in march? it appears you missed a few months. we ignored the science and quarantined the sick, susceptible and healthy alike. we destroyed lives, livelihoods, educations, businesses, relationships, and on and on even after the curve got flattened and we learned who is at risk and who really isn’t.

      0% per 100,00 mortality rate under 18 last i looked. close the schools

      1. No such quarantine actually happened on a nationwide basis, it was only done in some states and some counties. And the curve never actually did get flattened.

  30. worth it? no.

  31. Just tired of this. One more time you dumb fucks!
    The point of social distancing, masks etc. is to slow (not prevent!!!!!) the spread of Covid to a point that can be handled by our medical system. 90% of us either will get Covid-19 or will benefit from a vaccine. Hopefully we’ll only get it once.
    As for someone looking at infection rates. Death rates are a lagging indicator, meaning that it takes about 15 days to die once you test positive and then it takes days, if not weeks for the coroner to classify the death as being caused by Covid-19.
    For the states that drop the rules too quickly, you will not see an immediate spike, you will see a gradual rise followed about 3 weeks later with a rise in deaths.
    Mitigating all this is that we are developing treatments, have better understanding on how respirators help/hurt etc. so the survival rate of those on respirators is going up (It might be pushing 20%).
    As for blaming someone for closing down too late or too harshly or being too much of a Trump (i.e. idiot), keep in mind that 20/20 hindsight was not available as data flowed in.
    As for mandatory lock-down, there are enough reports of just fucking assholes going in tight social areas (bars, protests, concerts etc.) that yeah, it had to be mandatory.
    Put another way, if we practiced PERFECT social distancing for about 2-3 weeks, the disease would have no where to go and would die out. But we don’t so…. here we are.

  32. The one thing that I’ve learned this year is that hindsight is not 20/20.

    1. Revisionist history is a whole industry.

  33. What we should have done is mobilize the best non-bureaucrat scientists from the top drug firms to bring their best antivirals forward so infected people could be treated. We sort of did that with test kits, which had the FDA approve many kits, some of them good and some of them not so good. The market weeded out the bad ones. Unfortunately we didn’t do that with antivirals, so now we are stuck. Our public health departments and politicians want us all to isolate and quarantine, which is pretty much the same strategy as was used against plague in the Middle Ages. See how far we’ve come?

  34. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour on………See this site.…Click Here For More Detail.

  35. I have earned $18394 last month by working online from home. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in my part time for maximum 2 hrs a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and regular earning from this easy home job is much times better than other regular 9 to 5 office jobs. I suggest you all to join this right now and start earning easily by just follow details on the given website……..www.cashbarr.com

  36. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here….Click For Full Details.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.