Should we bring back lockdowns?

Charles Chase4 said:By that logic, we could just construct a worst-case scenario where 20,000 people die on American highways in 2021, and then use that specific projection to justify banning motor vehicles entirely.

That scenario is perfectly valid and theoretically possible, and any measures resulting from it would guarantee—and I mean absolutely guarantee—that at least a few lives are saved. No cars on the road means no traffic accidents and no fatalities. It’s a simple matter of cause and effect.

I really don't understand why this is being contested. 🤷

And fine, I know what comes next. You'll argue that the virus was an unknown variable, that it was unpredictable, and that even the most brilliant scientists in the world couldn't have foreseen how this completely novel respiratory virus would behave compared to anything ever recorded in history. Fine. Theoretically, that scenario was just as plausible as my highway example above.

However. If it has since become clear that such a scenario was off by several orders of magnitude, is it actually controversial to point out that we are still implementing policies based on it? Or that after a full year, the perceived danger is still being communicated through the lens of that flawed model? Is there perhaps some merit to questioning that? 🤷

Nothing much. At the end of the day, "lives matter most"

Charles Chase4 said:By that logic, we could just construct a worst-case scenario where 20,000 people die on American highways in 2021, and then use that specific projection to justify banning motor vehicles entirely.

That scenario is perfectly valid and theoretically possible, and any measures resulting from it would guarantee—and I mean absolutely guarantee—that at least a few lives are saved. No cars on the road means no traffic accidents and no fatalities. It’s a simple matter of cause and effect.

I really don't understand why this is being contested. 🤷

And fine, I know what comes next. You'll argue that the virus was an unknown variable, that it was unpredictable, and that even the most brilliant scientists in the world couldn't have foreseen how this completely novel respiratory virus would behave compared to anything ever recorded in history. Fine. Theoretically, that scenario was just as plausible as my highway example above.

However. If it has since become clear that such a scenario was off by several orders of magnitude, is it actually controversial to point out that we are still implementing policies based on it? Or that after a full year, the perceived danger is still being communicated through the lens of that flawed model? Is there perhaps some merit to questioning that? 🤷

Look, traffic laws exist because of decades of data. And that data has drastically cut down those "worst-case" disasters.

Fine, I get it—you’ll say the virus was a total mystery, that even the top scientists at the CDC couldn't predict how this brand-new respiratory bug would act since it was unlike anything ever recorded. Fine. Theoretically, that scenario is just as possible as my car example above.

The virus was new, sure, but it shared enough traits with other viruses that we weren't flying blind—plus, the response measures weren't exactly revolutionary or unheard of in history. 😉

But here's the thing: if it turns out that scenario was totally off base—like, orders of magnitude wrong—isn't it still sketchy that they're still making rules based on it? That they're still telling us there's a massive danger using that busted model? Isn't that at least worth debating? 🤷

I don't have an answer for that. Since the mandates are already in place, how can we actually know if the worst-case didn't happen? Or if we just barely missed it?

Matthew Jackson2 said:It’s the same story here in the States and across the entire USA; the whole app concept just tanked because it was fundamentally broken. You could end up stuck in mandatory self-isolation based on a single digital contact trace that lacks any actual substance or detail. Even worse, you face this kind of emotional blackmail where people pressure you to stay home without providing a shred of official paperwork, leaving you totally stranded when you try to explain to your boss why you can't show up or when you're trying to claim sick pay and benefits.

The idea of testing contacts and letting them go about their lives once they test negative actually makes sense to me. People shouldn't be threatened with isolation just because their phone happened to be near an infected person's device, even if they were just in adjacent rooms.

Adjacent rooms are handled via check-in and Check out.
Use QR codes at the entrance to shops and apartment buildings.
That way, it isn't just about being in Store A while someone else is in Store B. And if we were only a meter apart, there’s still a wall between us.

If used correctly, the app and system should keep numbers low enough that only a tiny fraction of people are newly infected. If we had 35 new cases a day—which would be our maximum for 10 months if we had the same infection-to-population ratio as Singapore—we’d be looking at maybe 20 contacts on average. Right now, we're seeing 700 tests and isolations daily. That would mean a maximum of 10,800 people in isolation over 14 days. We have more than that today. Just look at how many we had back in November.

And all of this happens while stores and cafes remain open.

With only 35 new infections a day, you can overlook minor inaccuracies. With 700 mandatory tests, you run into immediate queues and chaos.

Some countries have much more experience with this. Fortunately, we don't.

Gerald Gomez2 said:Just a small correction here.

We aren't even talking about actual scientists. If you look at those involved, you won't find a single epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist, immunologist, virologist, or any medical expert whatsoever. These individuals have essentially just repackaged this apocalyptic propaganda piece:

https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/corona...e-be9337092b56

👎

Casey Cook10 said:Nothing much. At the end of the day, "lives matter most"

If you’re going to write stuff like that, you really ought to make sure to emphasize our "most vulnerable"—you know, the grandmas and grandpas—because clearly, they are the center of the universe. I mean, why shouldn't an 83-year-old woman battling terminal cancer on morphine be forced to cling to one more day, month, or even a year?
Anyone who hasn't witnessed firsthand what that looks like or felt those Tantalov struggles probably has no clue what I'm talking about. But hey, let's just let them suffer a little longer; I suppose that's considered "humane," right?

Amy Long5 said:Adjacent rooms are handled via check-in and Check out.
Use QR codes at the entrance to shops and apartment buildings.
That way, it isn't just about being in Store A while someone else is in Store B. And if we were only a meter apart, there’s still a wall between us.

If used correctly, the app and system should keep numbers low enough that only a tiny fraction of people are newly infected. If we had 35 new cases a day—which would be our maximum for 10 months if we had the same infection-to-population ratio as Singapore—we’d be looking at maybe 20 contacts on average. Right now, we're seeing 700 tests and isolations daily. That would mean a maximum of 10,800 people in isolation over 14 days. We have more than that today. Just look at how many we had back in November.

And all of this happens while stores and cafes remain open.

With only 35 new infections a day, you can overlook minor inaccuracies. With 700 mandatory tests, you run into immediate queues and chaos.

Some countries have much more experience with this. Fortunately, we don't.

Personally, I think this whole phone thing is stupid, especially since not everyone owns one. Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a numbered ID on your hand to solve the problem? Or in this tech age, maybe a QR code on the skin or some kind of chip?

I’d suggest the German folks design something like that; they actually know how to get things done.

Amanda Diaz said:Personally, I think this whole phone thing is stupid, especially since not everyone owns one. Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a numbered ID on your hand to solve the problem? Or in this tech age, maybe a QR code on the skin or some kind of chip?

I’d suggest the German folks design something like that; they actually know how to get things done.

They have something similar in Singapore. And if someone doesn't have a phone, the government provides them with a device for free to handle everything.

And let's cut out the nonsense and the ad hominem attacks about chips or QR codes on your skin.

These are temporary measures. You download the app for a month, then you delete it. If another COVID-19 wave hits, you just reinstall it.

Amanda Diaz said:Personally, I think this whole phone thing is stupid, especially since not everyone owns one. Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a numbered ID on your hand to solve the problem? Or in this tech age, maybe a QR code on the skin or some kind of chip?

I’d suggest the German folks design something like that; they actually know how to get things done.

It’s honestly a bit wild to me how fast people just rolled over to this whole system of being tracked, labeled, and scanned for "safety," all while lying to themselves that it’s nothing more than a temporary fix.

bluerider63 said:It’s honestly a bit wild to me how fast people just rolled over to this whole system of being tracked, labeled, and scanned for "safety," all while lying to themselves that it’s nothing more than a temporary fix.

What do you mean "in such a short time"? They've been tracking our every move for decades.
Nothing new here. Nothing revolutionary. And nothing happened without us giving them the green light.

bluerider63 said:It’s honestly a bit wild to me how fast people just rolled over to this whole system of being tracked, labeled, and scanned for "safety," all while lying to themselves that it’s nothing more than a temporary fix.

Even before all this, you could be followed everywhere by hundreds of surveillance cameras without even having a phone on you, so nobody seemed too shocked then. Why the sudden outrage now?

btw, I remember reading about a murder that happened up in the Appalachian Mountains back in the 80s. They actually caught the killer because they tracked his trip from Niagara Falls using a cash toll payment from a bridge crossing.

Amy Long5 said:They have something similar in Singapore. And if someone doesn't have a phone, the government provides them with a device for free to handle everything.

And let's cut out the nonsense and the ad hominem attacks about chips or QR codes on your skin.

These are temporary measures. You download the app for a month, then you delete it. If another COVID-19 wave hits, you just reinstall it.

How incredibly generous of them. 😁
And they give it away for free? Can I call my credit card company and ask for a refund on my taxes?
Also, do I get to choose between a Samsung or an iPhone—you know, the absolute latest models?

Amy Long5 said:I’m talking about contact tracing via an app.

The kind of app you’re required to have.

The app doesn't care who you were with.
Whether it was a mistress or a dealer. You’re just a number, and you stay a number until you test positive. Even then, once you go for a test, that's it.
Basically, if you test positive, you notify the app, and the app notifies everyone you were in contact with so they can get tested (which should be free by then).
But the app won't tell you exactly when that contact happened. If you were only with one person, you won't know who they are, and nobody else finds out either.

Only if you fail to get tested within 48 hours does the app send your ID and location to health authorities.

In reality, when you use a smartphone today, Google is already tracking you anyway.

The amount of data you'd be sharing is negligible compared to all the other apps out there.
If keeping cafes and shops open an extra week was the trade-off, that’s a small price to pay... especially if it saves even a single life.

As for your Peter Pan stunt, you could have been fined starting in October. It’s just that the owner wasn't obligated to check.

I have to ask: what was your motivation for writing down Peter Pan?

You could have caught it and never been notified if you were in a club with someone positive. Since you don't even live in Germany, the info wouldn't have mattered to you anyway. I don't see the logic. If no one infected had come forward, the owner would have tossed those sheets in the trash after three weeks and nobody would have known.

That is precisely why I have never, in my entire life, left my personal details when walking into a bar or a Club... and frankly, nothing has changed now.
Even when I head to Starbucks, I won't even give them my real name to scribble on a cup.

Personally, I find it absolutely staggering that Germany used to quite literally allow clubs to operate freely—to be perfectly honest—whereas today they are pivoting toward measures that make it feel as though the Gestapo is patrolling the streets, monitoring whether children are wearing masks and how they wear them.
Why such extremes? Personally, I was never a fan of open clubs except during the summer months (though, granted, it was still quite warm in September, even if autumn was already starting to peek through).

There is no way I could have been infected. Between the fact that I’ve already had COVID, and my general stance against those unreliable PCR tests—which I refuse to take unless absolutely forced to—it's a non-starter. I am not foolish enough to end up like that soccer player from Barcelona, testing positive 27 times in 27 weeks because of some dead virus.

Generally speaking, this pandemic would have wound down ages ago if people weren't so... well, let's just say "difficult"... and if people didn't insist on getting tested for every minor sniffle or slight symptom. I will state quite responsibly that we wouldn't have seen more than 100 total cases a day across Europe this summer if we had focused EXCLUSIVELY on the truly sick—and by that, I mean genuinely ill people (for the record, diarrhea is not a disease; pneumonia is a disease).

Charles Ramos7 said:Even before all this, you could be followed everywhere by hundreds of surveillance cameras without even having a phone on you, so nobody seemed too shocked then. Why the sudden outrage now?

btw, I remember reading about a murder that happened up in the Appalachian Mountains back in the 80s. They actually caught the killer because they tracked his trip from Niagara Falls using a cash toll payment from a bridge crossing.

You've got a point there; we're already dealing with serious privacy violations as it is, and adding these scanning checkpoints at entrances is just going to take it to a whole new level of creepy.
Under the current setup, you've still got data privacy laws on your side, meaning the government isn't supposed to just hand over your personal info to some corporation or random third party without a warrant.

Gary Cooper3 said:That is precisely why I have never, in my entire life, left my personal details when walking into a bar or a Club... and frankly, nothing has changed now.
Even when I head to Starbucks, I won't even give them my real name to scribble on a cup.

Personally, I find it absolutely staggering that Germany used to quite literally allow clubs to operate freely—to be perfectly honest—whereas today they are pivoting toward measures that make it feel as though the Gestapo is patrolling the streets, monitoring whether children are wearing masks and how they wear them.
Why such extremes? Personally, I was never a fan of open clubs except during the summer months (though, granted, it was still quite warm in September, even if autumn was already starting to peek through).

There is no way I could have been infected. Between the fact that I’ve already had COVID, and my general stance against those unreliable PCR tests—which I refuse to take unless absolutely forced to—it's a non-starter. I am not foolish enough to end up like that soccer player from Barcelona, testing positive 27 times in 27 weeks because of some dead virus.

Generally speaking, this pandemic would have wound down ages ago if people weren't so... well, let's just say "difficult"... and if people didn't insist on getting tested for every minor sniffle or slight symptom. I will state quite responsibly that we wouldn't have seen more than 100 total cases a day across Europe this summer if we had focused EXCLUSIVELY on the truly sick—and by that, I mean genuinely ill people (for the record, diarrhea is not a disease; pneumonia is a disease).

The Germans kept things open as long as they could manage the tracking. They even called me once, and my test came back negative.

They tracked contacts while incidence stayed around 30-35. It worked fine until certain municipalities hit trouble and had to bring in the National Guard for assistance. They managed to push it to 50 or 70 in some places, but once it crossed that line, closures were inevitable.

And that Club was probably registered as a cafe, since nightclubs have been closed since last summer.

bluerider63 said:You've got a point there; we're already dealing with serious privacy violations as it is, and adding these scanning checkpoints at entrances is just going to take it to a whole new level of creepy.
Under the current setup, you've still got data privacy laws on your side, meaning the government isn't supposed to just hand over your personal info to some corporation or random third party without a warrant.

Exactly. You've got existing laws protecting you, and even if they didn't, who would even be the corporation or interested party involved here?

Amy Long5 said:The Germans kept things open as long as they could manage the tracking. They even called me once, and my test came back negative.

They tracked contacts while incidence stayed around 30-35. It worked fine until certain municipalities hit trouble and had to bring in the National Guard for assistance. They managed to push it to 50 or 70 in some places, but once it crossed that line, closures were inevitable.

And that Club was probably registered as a cafe, since nightclubs have been closed since last summer.

Well, obviously, but the connection to the restrictions didn't go much deeper than that Peter Pan sign at the entrance. It makes sense that the interior looked like a typical cafe, but then again, most clubs in Washington, D.C. function as cafes during the day.
But at night? It was pure classic chaos. Total madness.

The issue for me is this: you allow hundreds of these places to go absolutely wild at night without any oversight, yet during the day, I get lectured by some old ladies because I happen to be standing a yard away from them in a grocery store.

If we are going to violate every fundamental human right possible—if we are truly pivoting toward totalitarianism—then it should apply to everyone equally. It should be the same for all. That was the fundamental flaw of Nazism, too; it was disproportionately targeted at specific individuals. If Nazism had been directed at everyone, considering the current state of affairs, it's fairly obvious we would be spending the next 70 years building a regime rather than fostering freedom in America...

bluerider63 said:It’s all about keeping people under control through fear, which is exactly why they commissioned this sensationalist pamphlet full of nothing but insinuations. Honestly, it's pretty chilling how many self-proclaimed "experts" are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and play along.

It really is quite chilling. This whole "pandemic" situation has served as a perfect lens—both in wide angle and slow motion—to reveal just how morally bankrupt the ruling elite of humanity has become. Despite all our technological progress, our endless legions of specialists, and the constant talk of humanitarianism and planetary stewardship they love to boast about, it turns out everything still boils down to the old adage: Tie the horse exactly where your master tells you to.

Casey Cook10 said:Oh, totally. He spent time in China studying how Westerners perceive things... plus, being a linguist, he definitely knows how to wrap words up so they sound smart and get people to react the way he wants.

But honestly, when it comes to what was actually asked for, I guess he's pretty qualified.

I would also add a healthy dose of sheer ruthlessness to the mix.

David Carter79 said:I guess it’s no wonder you’re surprised by this guy. If you dig just a little bit, it becomes much clearer where he surfaced from and who is actually footing the bill.

From what I can gather, this Pueyo is just another self-proclaimed "corona expert." He apparently started his "professional" career on Facebook—which is pretty strange, don't you think? The guy just plays around with numbers however he sees fit. He popped up out of nowhere, but maybe it's not quite as sudden as it seems???
A little digging reveals quite a lot.
So, basically, this individual gained some traction on Facebook and caught the eye of a PR firm called BW Missions. The founder of that agency is Bryan Wish, who previously established The Kairos Society, which supposedly helps young people develop their businesses and blah blah blah. Now, go ahead and try to guess who is financing Kairos?
That Kairos entity also exists in America, and the director there is Matija Serbec.
Why am I not even surprised that this specific name showed up among the "donors"??

Which patron exactly are you referring to? A quick search brings up names like Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Richard " Virginoljubac" Branson, Bill Clinton, Michael Hayden, and so on.

Megan Green72 said:How about you give me an official list of the people who actually worked on that Robert Koch report?

The pamphlet itself doesn't explicitly name its authors, but it makes this sweeping, blanket claim that "the vast majority of virologists, epidemiologists, physicians, economists, and political scientists" all support the worst-case scenario. It goes on to mention a "team of experts from the CDC, the Brookings Institution, IW, SWP, the University of Bonn, the University of Ningbo, Lausanne, and Kassel."

It sounds quite impressive at first glance, doesn't it?

However, once the smoke screen of those lofty titles and prestigious institutions clears, it turns out the primary "scientists" involved are actually:

Otto Kölbl—a Germanist and web developer with an incredibly unsightly website😁

Maximilian Mayer—an international relations specialist

and

Boris Augurzky—econometrics

hubertus Bardt—economics

Heinz biti—sociology

Roland Döhrn—economics

Michael Hüther—economics

Christoph Schmidt—economics

Honestly, they might as well have hired a seismologist, an art historian, or even a professional stroller! 😁 These people are hardly scientists! 🧐

As I mentioned before, I suspect that a cost estimate provided by a group of janitors from the CDC would be no less realistic than this disgraceful piece of agitprop. Now, why don't you explain to me how the aforementioned individuals qualified themselves for such a delicate task?

nimblesurfer17 said:Believe whatever you want to believe.
Maybe the editor accidentally linked to that specific piece, or perhaps nytimes.com updated their links in the meantime—it happens!
But that snippet is really just a teaser designed to bait people into buying the Sunday print edition or signing up for a digital subscription.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone looking closely.
The link I provided leads to the full investigative report compiled by their research team.
So, maybe take a closer look at the facts before accusing folks of spreading propaganda or suggesting readers are falling for things that were never even written.

Look, I trust my own eyes...

nimblesurfer17 said:Believe whatever you want to believe.
Maybe the editor accidentally linked to that specific piece, or perhaps nytimes.com updated their links in the meantime—it happens!
But that snippet is really just a teaser designed to bait people into buying the Sunday print edition or signing up for a digital subscription.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone looking closely.
The link I provided leads to the full investigative report compiled by their research team.
So, maybe take a closer look at the facts before accusing folks of spreading propaganda or suggesting readers are falling for things that were never even written.

... instead of there being something in the actual story that just isn't there.

The truth is, maybe it was there, maybe it wasn't... or maybe we're all just lost in the woods.

At the end of the day, it's all about what you choose to believe. ☕

electricorca112 said:Look, I trust my own eyes...

... instead of there being something in the actual story that just isn't there.

The truth is, maybe it was there, maybe it wasn't... or maybe we're all just lost in the woods.

At the end of the day, it's all about what you choose to believe. ☕

Did that terrible cup of coffee hit you a little too hard this morning?

You went out of your way to accuse someone without any actual proof—not even bothering to read the very article being discussed. Your "evidence" was literally just a broken link. 🙏
And look, The Crusader never explicitly stated that the specific link provided was the exact source he was referencing. If he had, he would have phrased it like, "The Wall Street Journal published this article..."
But honestly, it doesn't matter how much you overthink it.

You were trying so hard to act like the smartest person in the room, too.
And you're still doing it.

It seems the old saying from Constantine applies to you perfectly:
"It is not a lie if you believe it."

So go ahead, keep accusing people of spreading propaganda without ever actually checking the facts first.

Gerald Gomez2 said:It really is quite chilling. This whole "pandemic" situation has served as a perfect lens—both in wide angle and slow motion—to reveal just how morally bankrupt the ruling elite of humanity has become. Despite all our technological progress, our endless legions of specialists, and the constant talk of humanitarianism and planetary stewardship they love to boast about, it turns out everything still boils down to the old adage: Tie the horse exactly where your master tells you to.

I would also add a healthy dose of sheer ruthlessness to the mix.

Which patron exactly are you referring to? A quick search brings up names like Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Richard " Virginoljubac" Branson, Bill Clinton, Michael Hayden, and so on.

The pamphlet itself doesn't explicitly name its authors, but it makes this sweeping, blanket claim that "the vast majority of virologists, epidemiologists, physicians, economists, and political scientists" all support the worst-case scenario. It goes on to mention a "team of experts from the CDC, the Brookings Institution, IW, SWP, the University of Bonn, the University of Ningbo, Lausanne, and Kassel."

It sounds quite impressive at first glance, doesn't it?

However, once the smoke screen of those lofty titles and prestigious institutions clears, it turns out the primary "scientists" involved are actually:

Otto Kölbl—a Germanist and web developer with an incredibly unsightly website😁

Maximilian Mayer—an international relations specialist

and

Boris Augurzky—econometrics

hubertus Bardt—economics

Heinz biti—sociology

Roland Döhrn—economics

Michael Hüther—economics

Christoph Schmidt—economics

Honestly, they might as well have hired a seismologist, an art historian, or even a professional stroller! 😁 These people are hardly scientists! 🧐

As I mentioned before, I suspect that a cost estimate provided by a group of janitors from the CDC would be no less realistic than this disgraceful piece of agitprop. Now, why don't you explain to me how the aforementioned individuals qualified themselves for such a delicate task?

See? It wasn't even that difficult. Just connect those names with some bold text and everything becomes crystal clear.

I see one post has mysteriously vanished. Vaporized, I guess.