Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

You do realize the majority of deaths in NYC were due to Cuomo sending sick COVID-19 elderly patients to be sent to nursing homes and kept in the same rooms as healthy elderly people right? Same with Gov Whitmer in Michigan.

Janice Dean covers it very well when she reported on how her own family member was killed by Cuomo's orders: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/i...

A number of people were killed because of overuse of ventilators. Many people under 40 who were put on them would have likely survived had they not been put on high pressure vents (and they're not used very much today for that reason).

View on HN

So your premise is if we had done absolutely nothing we would be better off? That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, when lockdowns stopped the deaths would have stopped or rapidly slowed down, but they certainly haven't.

In this case, Cuomo killed thousands of people with very bad decisions. Yes, there's a good chance if he did nothing at all, there would have been a lower death count.

The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. There is little to no scientific evidence they've done anything at all! So really, they've likely only done harm and zero good.

> The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end.

I can't find a source for that claim, would you mind sharing one?

S/he is a bullshit artist. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-ap-f...

No, I'm not. That AP article directly contradicts what the WHO envoy said

> We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-...

Honestly, every news organization is continually contradicting themselves at this point. Hell, the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in the same articles!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA

Your comments on this and other covid stories are a long string of hyperbolic statements followed by walkbacks. Maybe if you offered arguments of narrower scope and supported them with data up front rather than after being challenged you'd find a more receptive audience.

You seem like a smart person and I'm sure you can get the downsides of things like organized disinformation campaigns, the resulting impact on vaccine hesitancy, and the second-order effects like avoidable increases in measles, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/

If you could make more of an effort to communicate your ideas in a cooperative rather than an adversarial fashion that'd be great.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-...

No, the premise is that not locking down and not sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones would have left us better off than locking down and sending COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes with healthy ones did.

No, that's not what I said. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should nursing homes have been used for anything, other than housing the people who originally paid to be in those homes. The Gov issues an executive order, and the nursing homes told both the NY government and the Michigan government (Whitmer did the same thing) they did not have the tools, beds or people to possible take COVID patients.

The lockdowns are unrelated to the leaders of those two states arbitrarily deciding to using private nursing homes to store patients; homes that didn't have individual rooms or isolation areas. The patients could have literally been sent anywhere else, like the massive emergency shelters in NYC that were totally empty and unused.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com