mhaze,

In hindsight, comparing Covid to the flu and dismissing the pandemic's severity turned out to be embarrassingly inaccurate, did it not? Covid was far more contagious and deadly than the flu. It overwhelmed healthcare systems and caused millions of deaths.

Better treatments and vaccines reduced the predicted death toll, so the suggestion that Covid's mortality rate would be "well below 1%" was premature. Regardless, the impact on healthcare systems, economies, and societies was devastating.

The lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates turned out to be very effective in preventing the spread. The countries that implemented strict measures generally fared better and managed to control the virus's spread more effectively. There was nothing overblown about the responses.

Suggesting that only the vulnerable be isolated while allowing the virus to rip through the rest of the population was both dangerous and laughable. It would have led to far more deaths given the speed at which the virus spread and the lack of immunity in the population. I bet you held chicken pox parties for your kids, too.

Questioning the actions of the government is healthy, but to be so paranoid and conspiratorially minded as to believe that governments around the world were using the pandemic to seize power is downright unhinged. I bet your eyes twitch, too.

The "truth twitch," I think you lot call it?

As we've seen on several occasions now, JD is long on assertion and short on supporting facts.

If you're going to assert that "comparing Covid to the flu and dismissing the pandemic's severity turned out to be embarrassingly inaccurate", to my mind it might help your reputation to set about trying to add a few facts. But that's not JD's style. In FACT, in Australia the Covid death toll was quite similar to the yearly 'flu death toll and fully justified my original predictions.

Equally if you're going to claim that "[t]he countries that implemented strict measures generally fared better" some evidence might be proffered. But that's not JD's style. Again the evidence is that heavy lockdowns did nothing to reduce overall deaths but was highly detrimental to the economy and caused increases in deaths from other causes. As I always said, the proof of the pudding here would be overall excess deaths and in places like Australia, the results there have been less than encouraging for the lockdown supporters. Its always difficult to compare jurisdictions but looking at groups within countries would help. The Australian experience is instructive. Victoria locked down much more heavily than any other state yet ended up with greater deaths than NSW despite a smaller population.

But the funniest part of JD'd analysis (for want of a better word) is that he thinks the virus had an impact on economies. Even the most clueless observer knows that economies suffered, and suffered badly, not due to the virus but due to the reactions to the virus. This seems to have gone over JD's head just as the fact that the virus primarily affected the aged and that vast swaths of society were all but immune. The average age at death was over 80 and people under 40, unless suffering other ailments, rarely got anything but a mild dose. Again this seems to have eluded JD.

Still when you live in a world that shows absolute obeisance to all authority, as JD appears to do, then the lockdowns must be defended.

mhaze,

I’ve supported most of what I’ve said on this forum with scholarly links at some point or another. So, to claim that I’m “long on assertion and short on supporting facts” is obviously untrue.

With that out of the way, let's examine the numbers. The flu typically causes around 1,500 to 3,000 deaths per year in Australia, depending on the season . In contrast, Covid-19 caused over 14,000 deaths in Australia as of August 2024 . Globally, Covid has caused over 6.9 million deaths, compared to an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 annual deaths from influenza. The stark difference in these figures underscores the much greater impact of Covid-19 compared to the flu.

But, hey, that’s not my style, is it?

The lockdowns undoubtedly reduced the transmission and death rates significantly (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7). Victoria's higher death toll compared with NSW This was due to several factors, such as outbreaks in aged care facilities, to name one. If we consider excess deaths as a measure, then consequentially, countries that did have more stringent measures in place generally had lower excess mortality.

You're cherry-picking your data.

The economic impact of Covid was due to both the real effects of the virus and the public health responses that were necessary. In this regard, nations that imposed drastic and timely measures had better control over the virus and were therefore not experiencing an economic contraction as long and less in magnitude. For example, New Zealand's GDP contracted by 2.1 percent in 2020 but rebounded to post a 5.3 percent growth in 2021, compared to countries like the United States, which saw a 3.4 percent contraction of GDP in 2020 with a slower recovery.

Moreover, the notion that Covid-19 primarily affected the elderly neglects the long-term impacts on younger populations. Approximately 65 million people worldwide have been affected by long Covid, leading to significant lost productivity and increased healthcare costs. Long Covid has been estimated to cost the US economy up to $3.7 trillion in lost wages and medical expenses . (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00491-6/fulltext)

Yes we need to hold those responsible for the COVID response responsible. It's not too late to send a message to others that might think that they can avoid responsibility for similar behavior.

Canem Malum,

I agree. But I would urge you to bear in mind the fact that the pandemic was unprecedented; poor response times, poor communication, and the uneven distribution of vaccines should therefore be viewed in context of this when assessing government responses.

I suggest we focus on learning from these mistakes rather than seeking to blame and punish.

JD,

Covid v 'flu... your numbers aren't right but let's go with them for the moment just to demonstrate my point. You say there were 14000 covid deaths to 8/24. Since covid started in 2/20 that works out as an average of 3100/year. You say flu kills 3000/year in a bad season. My point made for me....thanks.

There's obviously much more to it given issues around dying OF or dying WITH the virus and myriad other issues. But the end result is that, in Australia, the virus was in the realms of a bad flu season. I get that you don't want that to be true, but some of us were able to see the facts on that several years ago. BTW... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/cdc-downgrades-covid-same-severity-as-flu-says/

As to the lockdowns you link to an article written a mere two months after the lockdowns began and even before they were finished. I'm sure it was sufficient to convince you but calling the result halfway through the first quarter doesn't really make sense. Claims that the lockdowns produced anything other than economic misery are now falsified. Any number of comparisons have been made between jurisdictions that locked down heavily and those with a lighter touch to show that lockdowns don't and didn't work... eg http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecaf.12611 or
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/sweden-has-the-lowest-excess-mortality-rate-after-the-pandemic-despite-refusing-to-lock-down/news-story/df50001366bb09b6a20421520cbfbf53

"If we consider excess deaths as a measure, then consequentially, countries that did have more stringent measures in place generally had lower excess mortality."

That's laughably wrong... places like Sweden ended up with significantly lower excess deaths despite not locking down at all. Places like Victoria, which had extreme lockdowns, fared worse than the rest of the country. Places like New York, which had the most stringent lockdowns in the US suffered among the highest death rates in the US. And so on.

/cont