So moving on....

During the height of the WuFlu scare, there were few tools available to test the various hypotheses. Although most nations issued death numbers, there was little uniformity in the way those numbers were determined. Even within jurisdictions there were differing methods as to how to count Covid deaths. Additionally, the numbers coming out of countries like India and especially China were highly suspect and therefore skewed any attempt at international comparisons.

Not to mention that the entire thing became highly politicised.

As data became better, more and more analysis has demonstrated that the original fears about the virus were spectacularly overblown as were the original estimates as to deaths.

Most importantly, time has allowed for better statistics to be generated. From the outset, it was clear that comparisons between jurisdictions would only be possible when excess death data became known, since it would eliminate the problem of differing definition as to what constituted a covid death. We still have problems with some jurisdictions such that China's claimed death numbers are usually disregarded in international analyses.

Excess death data reveals that a nation's lockdown policies had little effect on their overall excess death rate. New York locked down more heavily than most yet ended up with among the highest excess death rates on the planet. New Zealand also was at the forefront of the lockdown mania and they ended up with low excess deaths. Conversely Sweden rejected the lockdown philosophy but ended up with low excess deaths.

The data reveals little correlation between lockdown policies and excess death rates. And as the data improves, the relationship breaks down ever more.

Dear mhaze,

Struth you are an utter drongo mate.

You continue to display a pathological refusal to budge an inch on the fact that lockdowns worked in Australia. Even when irrefutable evidence is there you are utterly unable to concede even the smallest point.

Yet when I concede even the smallest point you are a derisive clown about it.

Growth the hell up.

As to a higher excess death rate in a populous place like NYC of all places being higher than countries like Sweden and New Zealand? Why on earth do you think that might have happened?

"As to a higher excess death rate in a populous place like NYC of all places"

You raised NYC because you thought it somehow helped your failed assertions. Now that you realise it doesn't you wonder why I talk about it.

Moving on to the issue - ie lockdowns didn't work....

There are any number of reasons why death rates were higher or lower in this place or that. As we've seen, being an island under quarantine was a major advantage. It also helped if you were in the southern hemisphere since there were several months of data available before the onset of the winter uptick in infections.

Research is showing that vitamin D levels were a factor which of course also advantaged Australia and places like Florida.

Having a culture of multi-generational living (grandparents living with their kids and grandkids) was a detriment since it made isolating the most vulnerable doubly difficult. Of course for many ideologs, just accepting that there were different risks based on age and that the risks to the young were effectively close to zero was a problem.

There are of course some holdouts but generally those who once touted lockdowns have moved on and are trying to not discuss their errors. That's a good thing and will ensure that that mistake won't be repeated. What will and indeed is being repeated is the active suppression of alternate views, which in this instance, turned out to be correct. We see today attempts to suppress any voice that opposes the transsexual movement and body modification (mastectomies and the like) just as we've seen for years the attempts to silence voices raised against homosexual marriage.

Suppression of momentarily unpopular views is never right and in this case was a disaster. The lockdowns went on for far too long and did irreparable damage to lives, livelihoods and economies. Every time you see the next piece of bad economic news, remember that its origins lay in those errors made in mid 2020.

Dear mhaze,

Well that was another long winded and disingenuous way of not conceding that lockdowns worked in Australia.

Vitamin D? Really.

Of course quarantining an island helped us but containing the outbreaks which did occur took lockdowns which dramatically halted the spread of a deadly virus and saved the lives of 10s of thousands of Australians. That is completely irrefutable yet you sullenly refuse to acknowledge it.

The NYC comparison to Sweden with regard to population density is also completely valid. NYC has a population density of 11,313.71/km2 while Stockholm is 370/km2.

To dismiss this as a factor is inane.

I wasn't trying to find a "way of not conceding that lockdowns worked". That case has already been prosecuted and resolved many times over.

I was just going back over some of the reasons covid had different effects in different locales, whereas some (no names mindyou!) think its all to do with the stringency of the lockdown regime.

"Vitamin D? Really."

I had mentioned this in earlier threads. Perhaps you missed it or it couldn't find a place in your lockdown mania....
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33744444/

Should I mention ivermectin as well?

Of course population density is a factor. But a minor one as compared to the others. New York's problem was that it was run by a foolish governor, and even dumber major, who did things like put people with active cases in nursing homes to protect the hospitals and reduced public transport to force more people to travel cheek-by-jowl.

What you need to understand here, SR, is that the data is now available to look at the big picture. Picking out one or two data points and then trying to make sense of the world-wide response is a fool's errand. Looked at a whole, a location's level of lockdown stringency is not predictive of its covid outcomes. I know you want it to be not so, but the data is clear.

Dear mhaze,

You write: "I wasn't trying to find a "way of not conceding that lockdowns worked". That case has already been prosecuted and resolved many times over."

And there you go and do it again. You just can't help yourself.

The studies you yourself have linked to concede lockdowns worked in this country.

Why are you still struggling with this?