• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Coronavirus Global Pandemic |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
2,520
4,123
545

I guess as with everything else the previous administration must have left everything up largely to the states. It sounds like the administration pushed out those first ~30 million doses and then just stopped once 45 checked out early this month.

Well at least we're going to be moving in the right direction now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dthomp

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,432
1,858
910

I guess as with everything else the previous administration must have left everything up largely to the states. It sounds like the administration pushed out those first ~30 million doses and then just stopped once 45 checked out early this month.

Well at least we're going to be moving in the right direction now.

The right direction would be to ask if it makes sense to take a vaccine that's effectiveness is essentially unfalsifiable.
 

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,384
860

I guess as with everything else the previous administration must have left everything up largely to the states. It sounds like the administration pushed out those first ~30 million doses and then just stopped once 45 checked out early this month.

Well at least we're going to be moving in the right direction now.
I don't even understand why this is even a thing. The country has existing infrastructure to distribute what 150 million plus doses of flu vaccine per year? We've had several stories of states sitting on doses using SJW criteria to dole them out while they expire (e.g. Cuomo in NY) and eventually have to be thrown out. That's not on Trump.

The right direction would be to ask if it makes sense to take a vaccine that's effectiveness is essentially unfalsifiable.
Unrelated I guess to the assertion, but I agree.
 
Last edited:

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,399
2,845
580
Video: Doctor Dies 16 Days After Getting COVID19 Vaccine (1/20/21)

Why do people bring up smoking all the time? Smokers are less likely to be affected by corona apparently. Even from my own experience last year with an outbreak at my work. Everyone that got it was a non smoker. The virus didn’t affect any smoker. We’re talking 35 people. There’s something about smoking that kills this virus or something. I don’t get it
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,393
406
1,635
I think that’s ok. I am willing to roll the dice. Maybe you are not. I would advise people to weigh the risks themselves. But they need to go into with open eyes. There are knowns and unknowns to both. People can decide for themselves.

Definitely. It’s a personal decision and everyone has their own unique cost/benefit analysis to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,451
25,306
1,805
Why do people bring up smoking all the time? Smokers are less likely to be affected by corona apparently. Even from my own experience last year with an outbreak at my work. Everyone that got it was a non smoker. The virus didn’t affect any smoker. We’re talking 35 people. There’s something about smoking that kills this virus or something. I don’t get it

I think there was a study last summer that showed smokers having serious cases of COVID at a lower rate than non-smokers, but I also remember seeing in one Dr. John Campbell's videos that recent data shows smokers are significantly worse off (not higher chance of infection, but worse infections) than non-smokers. I'll try to find it the link to the source, but the guy puts out so many damn videos...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Batiman

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
3,240
6,535
595
I think there was a study last summer that showed smokers having serious cases of COVID at a lower rate than non-smokers, but I also remember seeing in one Dr. John Campbell's videos that recent data shows smokers are significantly worse off (not higher chance of infection, but worse infections) than non-smokers. I'll try to find it the link to the source, but the guy puts out so many damn videos...
I don’t think anyone really knows anything yet. The only things that seem to definitely increase your risk are being obese (and the more obese the worse it seems) and a very chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension. There almost has to be some kind of genetic component that increases risk, but I don’t think we will ever know for sure. People have talked about initial viral load and things.

There is still a lot we don’t know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zefah

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
11,546
7,292
885
Why do people bring up smoking all the time? Smokers are less likely to be affected by corona apparently. Even from my own experience last year with an outbreak at my work. Everyone that got it was a non smoker. The virus didn’t affect any smoker. We’re talking 35 people. There’s something about smoking that kills this virus or something. I don’t get it

I think it was something like the receptors that Covid binds to are more likely to be damaged in smokers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Batiman

segasonic

Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,228
216
1,515
UK is doing a great job with vaccinations. I hope this puts some fire on the people responsible for the slow-ass rollout here in Germany...
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,470
6,138
860
Why do people bring up smoking all the time? Smokers are less likely to be affected by corona apparently. Even from my own experience last year with an outbreak at my work. Everyone that got it was a non smoker. The virus didn’t affect any smoker. We’re talking 35 people. There’s something about smoking that kills this virus or something. I don’t get it

there's no credible, peer reviewed study that shows smoking reduces your ability to get covid. your anecote is pure coincidental. if anything, it makes you more likely to catch it due to your fingers touching the cigarette and then your mouth, reduces your immune system, and given that covid can affect your lungs and give you pneumonia, smoking definitely will contribute to a harder recovery or more serious symptoms.
 

008

Member
Aug 7, 2019
934
923
325
Why do people bring up smoking all the time? Smokers are less likely to be affected by corona apparently. Even from my own experience last year with an outbreak at my work. Everyone that got it was a non smoker. The virus didn’t affect any smoker. We’re talking 35 people. There’s something about smoking that kills this virus or something. I don’t get it

The smokers I know haven’t gotten covid. If they did, nothing came of it.
 

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,399
2,845
580
there's no credible, peer reviewed study that shows smoking reduces your ability to get covid. your anecote is pure coincidental. if anything, it makes you more likely to catch it due to your fingers touching the cigarette and then your mouth, reduces your immune system, and given that covid can affect your lungs and give you pneumonia, smoking definitely will contribute to a harder recovery or more serious symptoms.
There are studies that lean that way but not 100% credible. They were actually putting nicotine patches on patients in France at one point though. I know it’s just anecdotal but it was super weird how covid went through my workplace and infected about 60% of my building. Not one smoker caught it. Even the ones that carpooled with positive people. I know plenty of people that got covid and I know plenty of smokers. I’ve never met a smoker that tested positive. This is just my experience. There’s also a huge smoking population in Japan, but somehow only 1% of the people hospitalized were smokers. Not sure how that’s changed since then though.
 

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,399
2,845
580
The smokers I know haven’t gotten covid. If they did, nothing came of it.
I think smokers are just used to having soar throats, cough, phlegm etc. That covid doesn’t even faze them. As compared to non smokers who will instantly notice when those symptoms pop up
 

008

Member
Aug 7, 2019
934
923
325
I think smokers are just used to having soar throats, cough, phlegm etc. That covid doesn’t even faze them. As compared to non smokers who will instantly notice when those symptoms pop up

Possibly. But, I don’t know of any smokers personally ending up in the ICU. There has to be something to it.
 

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
2,399
2,845
580
Possibly. But, I don’t know of any smokers personally ending up in the ICU. There has to be something to it.
Ya there was some smoking doctor that was baffled by the numbers. He was some sort of smoke -free country spokes person. He was worried more people would start to smoke lol. It’s also something they might not want the public to know understandably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 008

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,484
1,040
1,300
The right direction would be to ask if it makes sense to take a vaccine that's effectiveness is essentially unfalsifiable.
If the group that receives the vaccine doesn't display a statistically significant difference in the incidence of illness, then the effectiveness of the vaccine is falsified.
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,432
1,858
910
If the group that receives the vaccine doesn't display a statistically significant difference in the incidence of illness, then the effectiveness of the vaccine is falsified.

People will lie to pollsters about who they are going to vote for, why not lie to pollsters about whether you got a vaccine? Good luck collecting accurate information on hot button issues. I bet we could do a study that proves people will lie about this in the millions or even tens of millions if we can keep track of how many vaccines are administered and then do a poll of the population to see how many people say they received it.


This also doesn't get into the question of whether or not there are differences in health, lifestyle, or genetic predisposition of people who choose not to get vaccinated. People like to paint anti-vaxxers as low income trailer park types, and there are some of those, there are also plenty of rich people that are vaccine skeptics, as well as hippie/yuppie types. What if it turned out to be the case that the average vaccine skeptic was healthier than the non-skeptic, and so even if they take no vaccines they have better health outcomes?


What if even the only difference between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers was that anti-vaxxers spend most of their recreational time in nature, and so they have an overall lower chance of contracting Covid 19 as it's mostly caught indoors?


Anti-vaxxers occupy a number of niche demographic groups that are usually involved in a bunch of health and wellness activities that are based on whatever worldview causes them to doubt vaccines. I know it's anecdotal, but based on people I have known I find it likely that the average anti-vaxxer is someone who spends far more time engaging in activities to improve their health than the average person who gets all the vaccinations.


There are enough confounding factors that I haven't even thought up that any study that could falsify the claim that the vaccine is effective is probably a decade out.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: prag16

Durien

Member
Sep 13, 2020
68
62
205
My state government allowed schools to reopen but attendance won't be mandatory and children can't go without their parents' permission. No one in my class except my parents allowed. I implored them to as we have to do the practicals for Physics which will come in finals. But as majority didn't allow school won't reopen. I am kinda tensed how will we do the practicals ( experiments) in the finals.
You know, I was talking to my wife about this as well. What are the kids doing who need to take chemistry and physics classes? We have 2 kids, my son in 9th, my daughter in 3rd. My son took biology this year. No dissection. That used to be a huge part of your final grade in the class. PE was interesting. He had to put his chromebook where the teacher could see him exercise and he would exercise for close to an hour. (LOL I work downstairs and my meetings sounded funny with all the racket above me.)

Side note: Distance learning for my 3rd grader with 2 parents who work from home. yeah....not working out so great. Not gonna lie....I am really curious as to how it is going for other parents. As a matter of fact, if someone can start a thread for me (I'm too new to start my own threads that would be great). I don't want to hijack this one.
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,432
1,858
910
You know, I was talking to my wife about this as well. What are the kids doing who need to take chemistry and physics classes? We have 2 kids, my son in 9th, my daughter in 3rd. My son took biology this year. No dissection. That used to be a huge part of your final grade in the class. PE was interesting. He had to put his chromebook where the teacher could see him exercise and he would exercise for close to an hour. (LOL I work downstairs and my meetings sounded funny with all the racket above me.)

Side note: Distance learning for my 3rd grader with 2 parents who work from home. yeah....not working out so great. Not gonna lie....I am really curious as to how it is going for other parents. As a matter of fact, if someone can start a thread for me (I'm too new to start my own threads that would be great). I don't want to hijack this one.

They will just get passed. Due to Covid they aren't doing the driving test to get your normal license to drive a car. You apply, you take your written test, and you just get your license, or so my younger brothers tell me. They say all of their friends are now super quick to apply because they were nervous about taking the test, and don't want to wait in case they start doing driving tests again. This is a really bad idea, but it's at least what I am told is happening in my area.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Rock And Roll

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,484
1,040
1,300
People will lie to pollsters about who they are going to vote for, why not lie to pollsters about whether you got a vaccine? Good luck collecting accurate information on hot button issues. I bet we could do a study that proves people will lie about this in the millions or even tens of millions if we can keep track of how many vaccines are administered and then do a poll of the population to see how many people say they received it.


This also doesn't get into the question of whether or not there are differences in health, lifestyle, or genetic predisposition of people who choose not to get vaccinated. People like to paint anti-vaxxers as low income trailer park types, and there are some of those, there are also plenty of rich people that are vaccine skeptics, as well as hippie/yuppie types. What if it turned out to be the case that the average vaccine skeptic was healthier than the non-skeptic, and so even if they take no vaccines they have better health outcomes?


What if even the only difference between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers was that anti-vaxxers spend most of their recreational time in nature, and so they have an overall lower chance of contracting Covid 19 as it's mostly caught indoors?


Anti-vaxxers occupy a number of niche demographic groups that are usually involved in a bunch of health and wellness activities that are based on whatever worldview causes them to doubt vaccines. I know it's anecdotal, but based on people I have known I find it likely that the average anti-vaxxer is someone who spends far more time engaging in activities to improve their health than the average person who gets all the vaccinations.


There are enough confounding factors that I haven't even thought up that any study that could falsify the claim that the vaccine is effective is probably a decade out.
The effectiveness of vaccines isn't validated by seeing what happens in the general population and trying to make an educated guess as to the underlying causes. That's what social science is all about.

They're validated by blind, randomly controlled trials, where individuals are put either into the vaccine or the placebo group, and their outcomes are observed. The beauty of randomisation is that every characteristic is equally likely to be selected, so that a priori neither group is more likely to develop the illness. And after X number of people have developed the illness in the control (placebo) group but not in the vaccine group, it becomes wildly implausible to claim that this is simply due to chance.

If at the end of the trial, incidence of illness is similar between the two groups, the vaccine is judged not to be effective. There's your falsifiability.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Loope

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,432
1,858
910
The effectiveness of vaccines isn't validated by seeing what happens in the general population and trying to make an educated guess as to the underlying causes. That's what social science is all about.

They're validated by blind, randomly controlled trials, where individuals are put either into the vaccine or the placebo group, and their outcomes are observed. The beauty of randomisation is that every characteristic is equally likely to be selected, so that a priori neither group is more likely to develop the illness. And after X number of people have developed the illness in the control (placebo) group but not in the vaccine group, it becomes wildly implausible to claim that this is simply due to chance.

If at the end of the trial, incidence of illness is similar between the two groups, the vaccine is judged not to be effective. There's your falsifiability.

Does it really happen like that? Or is that a theoretical framework? Also who does the study? What are their incentives to be unbiased?


To be frank what you wrote sounds like a fairytale to me. For the reliability of many of the tests that have been used to determine whether or not someone has Covid, I am skeptical of most Covid related data. I don't think we really know how many people have it, what the chances of getting it are, if any of the data is at all being based on PCR testing we might as well be trying to read tea leaves or goat entrails for answers about Covid.
 

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,384
860
Does it really happen like that? Or is that a theoretical framework? Also who does the study? What are their incentives to be unbiased?
In theory that's where the double-blind factor kicks in. The people observing and collecting data etc don't know which group participants are in. In theory there's no way for them to put their thumb on the scale. That said, if the people at the top overseeing the study want a particular results, I find it hard to believe it's impossible for them to make that happen. These are the drug companies by and large doing the studies themselves, not the government or any other neutral 3rd party.
 

CrapSandwich

former Navy SEAL
Sep 10, 2006
1,572
1,288
1,550
Meta-analysis of vitamin-D related covid studies:

Prescribing vitamin D supplementation to patients with COVID-19 infection seems to decrease the mortality rate, the severity of the disease, and serum levels of the inflammatory markers.
Seems like the obvious strategy would be to not wait until you're infected
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ma-Yuan

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
33,441
45,480
2,510
California
manabyte.com
Meta-analysis of vitamin-D related covid studies:


Seems like the obvious strategy would be to not wait until you're infected

I've been taking Vitamin D, C, and Zinc for months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ma-Yuan

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,432
1,858
910
In theory that's where the double-blind factor kicks in. The people observing and collecting data etc don't know which group participants are in. In theory there's no way for them to put their thumb on the scale. That said, if the people at the top overseeing the study want a particular results, I find it hard to believe it's impossible for them to make that happen. These are the drug companies by and large doing the studies themselves, not the government or any other neutral 3rd party.

Whether it's the government or big corporations I've seen lots of massive failures in my lifetime of major institutions, and if I look at my parents lifetime, even worse. I think corporations, the government, even our academic institutions, they tell good stories about how "this time it's different, we know what we are doing," but as far as I've seen it's never true. I don't trust new medical treatments as a general rule, let other people be guinea pigs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prag16

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
3,240
6,535
595
That's a fast start to his 100 days of masks. I'd be curious what the bigger thing than coronavirus is.
But see the important thing is that he signed the order for you to wear one. If we’ve learned anything about covid, it’s that the rules are for you. The people making the rules can’t be expected to actually follow them. Come on man.
 
Last edited:

CrapSandwich

former Navy SEAL
Sep 10, 2006
1,572
1,288
1,550
But see the important thing is that he signed the order for you to wear one. If we’ve learned anything about covid, it’s that the rules are for you. The people making the rules can’t be expected to actually follow them. Come on man.
I'd go a step further and say the point is for him to appear to be doing something. That's the trade of the politician. But the amount of blatant hypocrisy on this stuff should be a good eye-opener for anyone that is dumb enough to turn a sympathetic eye towards their politicians.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
5,792
19,989
840
Fascinating to watch the Covid cases come down in the U.K now we’re in a full and proper lockdown. Even more fascinating to watch the Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics trying to move goalposts now hard data is blowing all their arguments out of the water.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: segasonic

Loope

Member
Dec 7, 2020
326
411
250
Fascinating to watch the Covid cases come down in the U.K now we’re in a full and proper lockdown. Even more fascinating to watch the Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics trying to move goalposts now hard data is blowing all their arguments out of the water.

Since what day are you guys on lockdown? 15 days or more? This new strain is nasty as shit.
 

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,384
860
Fascinating to watch the Covid cases come down in the U.K now we’re in a full and proper lockdown. Even more fascinating to watch the Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics trying to move goalposts now hard data is blowing all their arguments out of the water.

Few if any have argued that lockdowns can't slow the spread at all. The argument is that they can't STOP the spread, and likely do more harm than good on the whole.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
5,792
19,989
840
Since what day are you guys on lockdown? 15 days or more? This new strain is nasty as shit.

Started 5th of January.

Very relieved to see cases and the R number drop so fast in just over two weeks. Deaths still horrifically high, but we’re still working through the poor bastards that got the new variant before the lockdown.

With the vaccine being distributed so well now, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: segasonic and Loope

Belgorim

Member
May 17, 2007
1,363
75
1,120
Sweden
Fascinating to watch the Covid cases come down in the U.K now we’re in a full and proper lockdown. Even more fascinating to watch the Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics trying to move goalposts now hard data is blowing all their arguments out of the water.

I know you like to label people with these tags, but what is that article even saying about lockdown sceptics and covid deniers?

What covid sceptics and what lockdown sceptic are trying to move goalposts now?

I would consider myself a lockdown sceptic (as most seem to be here in sweden), but I have no issue with that report at all. It is obvious that cases will start dropping if you implement a hard lockdown.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,484
1,040
1,300
Does it really happen like that? Or is that a theoretical framework? Also who does the study? What are their incentives to be unbiased?


To be frank what you wrote sounds like a fairytale to me. For the reliability of many of the tests that have been used to determine whether or not someone has Covid, I am skeptical of most Covid related data. I don't think we really know how many people have it, what the chances of getting it are, if any of the data is at all being based on PCR testing we might as well be trying to read tea leaves or goat entrails for answers about Covid.
It's not a fairytale.

"In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose)."

"A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups."


They're measuring actual incidence of illness, not just whether a person receives a positive test result. The incentive not to lie is the risk of multibillion dollar fines to the US government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements), criminal exposure (since we are talking about fraud), and legal exposure to every government that the vaccine has been licensed to, on the basis of the trial data. On top of the political and PR fallout that would result. The other thing is that there is a second level of falsifiability, since governments should be able to check if people who have received the second dose of the vaccine are still contracting covid-19, and at what rate.
 
Last edited:

McHuj

Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,739
1,264
1,430
Austin, Tx.
I would consider myself a lockdown sceptic (as most seem to be here in sweden), but I have no issue with that report at all. It is obvious that cases will start dropping if you implement a hard lockdown.

No kidding. It looks like cases in the US are also starting to come down without a lockdown.

Pretty much you're going to see the same trend in every country, but those in lockdown will get to the minimum earlier. It's not going to eliminate the virus.
 

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
3,240
6,535
595
I know you like to label people with these tags, but what is that article even saying about lockdown sceptics and covid deniers?

What covid sceptics and what lockdown sceptic are trying to move goalposts now?

I would consider myself a lockdown sceptic (as most seem to be here in sweden), but I have no issue with that report at all. It is obvious that cases will start dropping if you implement a hard lockdown.
Cases in my state are plummeting and we are not in any kind of lockdown. We went from a 7 day average high of 10.5k a day down to 5.5 k in a month. This is with Christmas and New Years both happening in the last month. So it’s not just lockdowns. Restaurants, gyms, and basically all stores are open. My gym has youth volleyball and basketball tournaments every weekend. Schools never closed for one day. It’s basically normal life here. And cases dropped 50% in a month.
 

Game Analyst

Member
Feb 10, 2009
5,826
1,721
1,295
soundcloud.com

Video: Covid-19 data: Has lockdown reduced infections? | SpectatorTV (1/22/21)
Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, looks at the latest coronavirus data. Official government figures show cases declining around New Year, but a REACT study by Imperial College London claims that Covid-19 infections are not falling in England. What explains the discrepancy?

Edited
 
Last edited:

Belgorim

Member
May 17, 2007
1,363
75
1,120
Sweden
No kidding. It looks like cases in the US are also starting to come down without a lockdown.

Pretty much you're going to see the same trend in every country, but those in lockdown will get to the minimum earlier. It's not going to eliminate the virus.

Cases in my state are plummeting and we are not in any kind of lockdown. We went from a 7 day average high of 10.5k a day down to 5.5 k in a month. This is with Christmas and New Years both happening in the last month. So it’s not just lockdowns. Restaurants, gyms, and basically all stores are open. My gym has youth volleyball and basketball tournaments every weekend. Schools never closed for one day. It’s basically normal life here. And cases dropped 50% in a month.
Same in Sweden, though a lot probably has to do with people being a bit cautious over the holidays. Hospitalisation numbers have dropped 20 % in a week. Now that everyone has been back to work/school for almost 2 weeks numbers could start to rise again though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GamingKaiju

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
5,792
19,989
840
I know you like to label people with these tags, but what is that article even saying about lockdown sceptics and covid deniers?

What covid sceptics and what lockdown sceptic are trying to move goalposts now?

I would consider myself a lockdown sceptic (as most seem to be here in sweden), but I have no issue with that report at all. It is obvious that cases will start dropping if you implement a hard lockdown.

There are still lockdown sceptics and Covid deniers all over social media.
 

Hulk_Smash

Member
Jan 8, 2014
2,071
2,713
870
Cases in my state are plummeting and we are not in any kind of lockdown. We went from a 7 day average high of 10.5k a day down to 5.5 k in a month. This is with Christmas and New Years both happening in the last month. So it’s not just lockdowns. Restaurants, gyms, and basically all stores are open. My gym has youth volleyball and basketball tournaments every weekend. Schools never closed for one day. It’s basically normal life here. And cases dropped 50% in a month.
Which state do you live in? Just curious. I'm in NC.