Sounds like another 2nd-order effect from lockdowns that has been disproportionately harder on children than adults. Really glad I moved out of my “pro lockdown” state.
I mean I disliked the lockdown as much as the next guy, but I would've wanted them to be harsher early on so the disease wouldn't have been allowed to spread and mutate in the first place. Instead, we got SOME measures, that proved to be effective, only for them to be lifted when the disease was nearly gone - every time they lifted restrictions there's been a huge surge in cases, undoing the effects of the measures, and making those who were in favor and sticking to the measures really jaded with the governments' policies.
It's like, you're not supposed to stop an antibiotics treatment when you're feeling better.
I haven't.
This issue affected 1000 thousand people in 35 countries. Did anyone die from this?
Covid on the other hand has killed 6 MILLION. Covid could've been solved in 1 month if everyone would just stay home for 1 month. Unfortunately, because of people like you spread noise, we're still stuck with this for the foreseeable future.
In addition, let me just comment how mathematically stupid it is to take the 1st order effects just because you're worried about the 2nd order effects.
No, it couldn't. And even if it could've, that would be impossible.
Believe it or not, places outside the US did do a 'real lockdown' for a lot longer than a month, and it didn't 'solve' covid.
If other countries harbour the virus then that won't eradicate it (and the countries with lockdowns will re-import it at some point).
As I indicated to dfbsdfbwe2ef2e, I think at this point in history it's really more interesting to get precise data, modelling. Not just to understand what could or could not have been done in the case of COVID-19, but also for the future, the next pandemic (or OK, even still COVID-19, if you're worried about the renewed rise), so that people will have a better foundation to discuss what the best path forward is.
Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point.
You going to lock down all the wild animals in the environment too?
Lockdowns have zero chances of working and were dumb from day one. We got played by China - voluntarily kneecapped our economies after falling for the political theater they put on for us welding apartments shut and all that. I find it fascinating that so few still seem to ignore that they shut down internal travel but still allowed travel outside their country. Nothing suspicious in that at all.
"Bickering about some imprecisely passed-around details doesn't seem to have any benefit at this point."
I mean, maybe there was an effect as you say, and then just maybe that was done by them on purpose, but then the interesting bit would be to prove the hypothesis as well as you can. It would be better if even you at least said "I find this suspicious", over leaving it to the reader to feel like he has to agree or something. This kind of talking is heating up a discussion, for what benefit?
>Birx writes “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.”
https://www.gulf-insider.com/top-us-health-official-admits-t...
> Covid could've been solved in 1 month if everyone would just stay home for 1 month.
Citation needed.
It will be interesting to see some proper knowledge (including numbers and mathematical modelling) around this. But this virus was very contagious, even at the beginning, and as soon as
> In addition, let me just comment how mathematically stupid it is
HN guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
(Also, your argument looks bogus since if there are multiple second-order effects with as much or higher (total) destruction then it would in fact be better to accept the first-order effects, no? Yes, that's probably not the case here, but your argument is that it's "mathematically" stupid, which does not appear to be the case.)
I would prefer if people stayed a little calmer and more rational on HN (not just you).
Because of the ridiculous politicization of COVID and the response to it I take NOTHING at face value since every time the "experts" make an assertion, those assertions change months (if not weeks) later. Just look at the ridiculous evolution of masking guidance. How the vaccine story evolved from you won't get it it to you won't spread it to well, maybe your symptoms won't be quite as severe to the real truth after the FDA and Pfizer were forced to provide the background documentation after getting sued that the vaccines are less than 20% effective. What a shock - big phrama that has already had to pay out billions in the past for lying was lying again?
So, yes, covid did indeed kill way more than 6 million.
For example, according to the public health unit of Canada's most populous city:
"Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."
https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/127588839006028596...
How many children lost a caregiver due to covid? 140,000. Thousands have lost both parents and are now orphaned.
Not to mention the children who have also died of covid.
Even if their theory is right about isolation being the cause of the hepatitis cases, then it was still the right thing to do in terms of risk vs. reward.