But after lockdowns were instituted, deaths levels became stable or decreased, despite your claim that the lockdown deaths were the actual cause of the catastrophe.
Schroedinger's Covid-19 :-)
I'm confused. Lockdown happened first, and the plateau of deaths happened second.
So how could anyone, in good faith, argue that lockdown death numbers are somehow similar to Covid-19 death numbers?
You don't have the data. And these things are already quantified and tracked. And no, it doesn't work like you say.
Anyway, have a great day and believe what you want to believe :-)
I haven't seen anyone here, and certainly not josephcbible, make absurdly absolute claims that Covid hasn't killed _anyone_. I'm sure Covid has been a factor in the deaths of many people.
Deaths, as reported, peaked in the spring. Epidemiologists have a name for an entirely mainstream explanation of what happened. They call it a "harvesting effect." I agree that the name is unsavory. It refers to a disease quickly culling the weak in a population.
The majority of the excess mortality has accumulated since spring, _after_ the country went into forced lockdown. There is no reason to default to the belief, as you seem to be doing, that Covid has continued killing masses and masses of people. Certainly not compared to the much more salient explanatory force of the massive, nationwide lockdowns.
Go see these things:
https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos
For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzh6HwN0gbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzh6HwN0gbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAB43K2gtOk
Your comment is not backed by anything, there are statistics for types of deaths and there is almost 0 (ZERO!) support for lockdowns causing this many deaths.
How do you think you're smarter than all the world's governments, combined? Are you a qualified scientist or just Random Joe on the internet? If you're the latter, you might want to re-think your viewpoint.
PS: I'm definitely waiting for one of these moments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, but it's unlikely :-)
PPS: I'm not going to reply to these threads anymore, as people who are replying to them are either cynical or emotional or both. You just don't have the numbers to back up your claims.
The portion sizes [0] and food served in bars and restaurants in the US are not healthy. Generally, home cooking is associated with consuming fewer calories and improve certain health outcomes [1].
[0] https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/03/29/portion-sizes [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/home-cooking-good-for-yo...
If it turns out that what people cook at home is even less healthy than food in restaurants, that is a horrible thing, and we should definitely start teaching cooking at schools, regardless of Covid.
I mean, restaurants have all the incentives to cook food that is tastier or cheaper at the expense of health. Simply using less sugar and salt at home, and adding some fresh vegetables to each meal, should already result in healthier diet even if you are a beginner at cooking. But yeah, I can imagine that many people are below the level of beginner.
???
Now if we'd go so far as to assume that people consume the same amount of alcohol at home, then staying home is a net negative for health. I don't actually know how alcohol consumption developed during lockdown, so I don't know whether there is any merit to that line of argument. But I see how it can be made.