W.H.O. on the lockdown. Well how about that.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 12:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who are you commenting on in post #1 of this thread?

No one.  I just thought it interesting that all of a sudden the WHO says lockdowns are bad.  I have been thinking that since a month into lockdowns.  The lockdowns are worse than the virus.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 08:42 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: My only point was that they didn't lock down and we did and they are not much worse off.  

https://www.visitstockholm.com/good-to-know/coronavirus/
https://in.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden/swedish-health-agency-approves-limited-soccer-crowds-idUKKBN25N1RH

They did lockdown. At first there were no groups larger than 50 allowed; customers could still go to bars and places, but weren't allowed to stand in lines; school was out until August, etc. There wasn't a mask mandate and overall they had fewer restrictions than neighboring countries, but they locked down about as effectively as the US and have had similar economic dips.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 08:46 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: No one.  I just thought it interesting that all of a sudden the WHO says lockdowns are bad.  I have been thinking that since a month into lockdowns.  The lockdowns are worse than the virus.

Exactly!

My grandparents said the same about the "lights out" restrictions during WWII.  The shutting everything down at night and having the house dark was so much more worse than being a visible target for the enemy!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 08:46 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: No one.  I just thought it interesting that all of a sudden the WHO says lockdowns are bad.  I have been thinking that since a month into lockdowns.  The lockdowns are worse than the virus.

All of a sudden?  What was the WHO's initial recommendation?

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2020, 08:42 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: My only point was that they didn't lock down and we did and they are not much worse off.  

They also have a universal healthcare system

[*PhilHos*]

(10-12-2020, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cause Trump.

What are you and others going to do if he loses and you have to make your own choices

Bfine, bfine, bfine. Don't you see? The whole reason people vote Democrat is so they can have the government tell them what to do! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-13-2020, 08:27 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: As is ignoring the success they had by acknowledging the problem from the top down.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying using it as a basis for comparison is illogical.  There's three times the population of New Zealand in the LA area alone.  Throw in being a remote island nation and you have an ideal situation for dealing with any pandemic.  The contrast between New Zealand's set up and the United States could not be more stark.  This doesn't mean that the US response has been ideal, it only states the obvious, that NZ is a poor comparison for the vast majority of nations, but the US especially.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 11:16 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Bfine, bfine, bfine. Don't you see? The whole reason people vote Democrat is so they can have the government tell them what to do! 

I used to think that was just a fallacy. But you may be on to something. Cannot wait for Biden to tell me what to do.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 11:16 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Bfine, bfine, bfine. Don't you see? The whole reason people vote Democrat is so they can have the government tell them what to do! 

Government told women they couldn't get abortions legally.  Democrats fought to stop that.

Government told gay people they couldn't get legally married.  Democrats fought to stop that.

That's just two examples of Democrats getting votes to stop the government from telling people what they can and cannot do.

Weird.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2020, 12:12 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wasn't aware the GOP quit holding leaders accountable but it explains a lot. Well, that is if the leader has an "R" next to their name. 

Republicans are all about personal responsibility until it comes to the President.

For some reason he is not to blame for lying to the American people about how dangerous this disease was.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2020, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Government told women they couldn't get abortions legally.  Democrats fought to stop that.

Government told gay people they couldn't get legally married.  Democrats fought to stop that.

That's just two examples of Democrats getting votes to stop the government from telling people what they can and cannot do.

Weird.

If only the mean old government wasn't so controlling and would stop telling coal companies they can't work miners in poisonous deadly conditions or destroy the environment with strip mining.  Or stop telling private businesses they can't serve colored people or Jews if the don't want to. Or stop telling industrial plants they can't dump poison into our air and water. Or stop telling drunk people they can't drive on public roads.  Or stop telling companies they can't hire 13 year olds and work them 50 hours a week for a dollar an hour.

Why can't we all just be free to do whatever we want like the founding fathers envisioned.

Freedom = Utopia.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Government told women they couldn't get abortions legally.  Democrats fought to stop that.

Government told gay people they couldn't get legally married.  Democrats fought to stop that.

That's just two examples of Democrats getting votes to stop the government from telling people what they can and cannot do.

Weird.

Government told black people they were slaves beholden to their masters. Republicans fought to stop that. Just sayin'. 

More recently, Democrats want to control what you can say (i.e. hate speech legislation), what speakers you can listen to ( i.e. cancel culture) and what weapons you may own (i.e. gun control) just to name a few things.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 04:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Government told black people they were slaves beholden to their masters. Republicans fought to stop that. Just sayin'. 

More recently, Democrats want to control what you can say (i.e. hate speech legislation), what speakers you can listen to ( i.e. cancel culture) and what weapons you may own (i.e. gun control) just to name a few things.

Do you believe anyone should be able to own whatever weapon they want?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 04:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you believe anyone should be able to own whatever weapon they want?

Yes. I have little to no problems with registration, background checks, wait periods and things like that. What I don't understand is why I can own certain firearms but not others. Either ban all of them or none of them. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 04:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes. I have little to no problems with registration, background checks, wait periods and things like that. What I don't understand is why I can own certain firearms but not others. Either ban all of them or none of them. 

What's the purpose for registration, background checks, and waiting periods?

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2020, 04:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes. I have little to no problems with registration, background checks, wait periods and things like that. What I don't understand is why I can own certain firearms but not others. Either ban all of them or none of them. 

So you don't have any problem with the government regulating gun ownership, you just hate whatever the Dems suggest.

is that it?

How about we just end this here by admitting that BOTH parties want the government ot be able to tell people what they can and cannot do.  Otherwise you will be arguing that e do not even need a government at all.

[GMDino]

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-distorts-whos-lockdown-comments/?fbclid=IwAR0DqTftw0F-YKCQwN703bXz26_-L8llCsBQcX7SEJhMeNZSf3S3nv88VgA

Quote:At campaign rallies and in tweets, President Donald Trump falsely said the World Health Organization changed its position and “admitted that Donald Trump was right” about lockdowns. But the agency has said no such thing.


The president first made the inaccurate claim in a tweet just before the start of an Oct. 12 rally in Sanford, Florida.


At the rally, Trump echoed that sentiment after stating that former Vice President Joe Biden would institute a lockdown if elected president.

Quote:Trump, Oct. 12: Biden would terminate our recovery, delay the vaccine, prolong the pandemic, and annihilate Florida’s economy with the draconian unscientific lockdown. That’s what he wants to do, lock it down. Lock it down, everybody. …
But the World Health Organization, did you see what happened? They just came out a little while ago and they admitted that Donald Trump was right. The lockdowns are doing tremendous damage to these Democrat-run states where they’re locked out, sealed up, suicide rates, drug rates, alcoholism, death by so many different forms. 

We’ve previously explained that Biden said in an Aug. 21 interview with ABC News that he would shut down the country if that’s what scientists advised. He has since emphasized that he doesn’t think a lockdown would be necessary.


A day after the Florida rally, Trump repeated the claim in a tweet attacking National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has pushed back against a Trump television ad that Fauci said took his words “out of context.”


“WHO no longer likes Lockdowns – just came out against. Trump was right,” he wrote. “We saved 2,000,000 USA lives!!!”
In another rally that night in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, the president again said that the WHO “said Trump was right” and boasted about having saved 2 million lives.


The Trump campaign told us that the president was referencing statements recently made by WHO officials and directed us to two news articles highlighting comments by Dr. Mike Ryan, the executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme, and David Nabarro, one of the WHO’s special envoys on COVID-19.


In one of the articles cited by the campaign, Ryan was quoted as saying this during an Oct. 9 press briefing: “What we want to try and avoid — and sometimes it’s unavoidable, we accept that, but what we want to try and avoid are these massive lockdowns that are so punishing to communities, to societies and everything else.”


Nabarro’s remarks came from an Oct. 8 interview with the British magazine The Spectator. While Nabarro spoke at length, news outlets focused on his plea to world leaders to “stop using lockdown as your primary control method.”


But Trump’s description of their remarks is inaccurate and incomplete. Neither man mentioned Trump or the U.S., and the WHO told us that its position on lockdowns has not changed — it has never recommended them as the primary strategy to control the virus, but recognizes that in some cases they may be needed.


Trump also incorrectly suggested that “Democrat-run states” are currently in lockdown, when no state is shut down the way many were in the spring.


Confusingly, Trump simultaneously claimed that 2 million American lives were saved — a dubious estimate — even though the stay-at-home orders most states issued this spring likely limited the number of COVID-19 deaths.


WHO’s Position on Lockdowns
While Trump’s takeaway from Ryan and Nabarro’s comments was that the WHO was reversing itself, that’s an inaccurate interpretation.
“WHO has never advocated for national lockdowns as a primary means for controlling the virus. Dr Nabarro was repeating our advice to governments to ‘do it all,’” the agency’s press office told us in an email.


“Governments, employers, communities should apply a package of proven public health measures that we know are effective for preventing transmission, including hand and respiratory hygiene, physical distancing, mask wearing, staying home if you’re sick, etc. as well as having robust systems for testing, isolating, tracing and quarantining, etc.,” the statement continued. “Measures to control COVID-19 depend on local risk assessments. Movement restrictions may be among a range of measures that governments can consider in certain geographical areas.”


“If clusters and outbreaks do appear, they should be slowed and then suppressed promptly and that is why localised and targeted movement restrictions, implemented jointly by local actors and national authorities, are needed from time to time,” the press office added.


Nabarro’s statements in the interview are entirely consistent with that assessment. He explained that the WHO backed a “middle way” strategy involving a robust testing, contact tracing and isolation system, along with getting the public on board with physical distancing, wearing masks and other similar measures.


“If we can combine those various steps, what we call ‘doing it all,’ in our organization’s speak, then we can get on top of it,” he said, noting that that is exactly what many East Asian countries have done, along with Germany and parts of Canada.


“We think lockdowns only serve one purpose, and that is to give you a bit of breathing space to stop everything,” Nabarro said. “The virus stops moving, and while you’ve got that breathing space, you should really be building up your testing, building up your contact tracing, building up your local organization.”


Later, he emphasized that point again, saying, “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted.”


In an Oct. 13 Twitter thread, the agency also iterated its position, noting that lockdowns were not ideal, but might be necessary.


“We understand that sometimes such measures – although not sustainable – are needed to swiftly suppress the virus and avoid health systems being overwhelmed,” the WHO said. “Lockdowns are not sustainable solutions because of their significant economic, social & broader health impacts. However, during the #COVID19 pandemic there’ve been times when restrictions were necessary and there may be other times in the future.”


States Aren’t in ‘Lockdown’
Related to Trump’s claim about the WHO is the idea that certain states — namely, Democratic states — are in lockdown and should reopen. But that’s a straw man argument, as no state is still under a highly restrictive stay-at-home order. 


According to a New York Times tracker, many states still have some kind of restriction in place, such as closures or capacity limits on certain businesses, most commonly restaurants and bars or entertainment venues and cinemas that are at higher risk for spreading the virus.
These limits, however, are quite different from the more stringent orders 42 states and territories implemented in March through May, which frequently involved closing all nonessential businesses and required people to stay at home unless they were out for an essential activity.


Previously, the president has inaccurately said that Michigan is “closed,” as we’ve written, even though the governor lifted the state’s stay-at-home order on June 1.


As for New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced new temporary restrictions for specific hotspot areas on Oct. 6, but this doesn’t mean the entire state is under a lockdown. Only six portions of five counties, which are concentrated in the New York City area, are affected.


In the worst-off areas in New York, identified as “red zones,” only essential businesses can remain open; dining is limited to takeout only; in-person schools are closed; and there’s a capacity limit for houses of worship.


The targeted approach, which the state developed with public health experts, is consistent with the WHO’s advice to keep movement restrictions localized. 


Two Million ‘Saved’ Lives
At the same time Trump is disparaging lockdowns in his tweets and rallies, he also mentions that 2 million American lives were saved — an odd feature to highlight, since state-issued stay-at-home orders likely helped avoid COVID-19 deaths.


“We saved 2 million lives,” Trump said during his Johnstown rally. “They said 2.2 million people, we saved 2 million lives and you know we get nothing.”


As of Oct. 14, more than 216,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, according to the Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracker — although the true death toll is almost certainly higher.


We’ve explained before that an early model from Imperial College London projected in March that the U.S. could lose 2.2 million people to the pandemic. But that high death toll assumed no mitigation measures were used at all — and that people also wouldn’t modify their behavior.


In other words, it’s not necessarily a realistic benchmark against which to measure the administration’s success. 
Research does support the idea that lockdowns — which were instituted by states, not Trump — saved lives earlier this year, although it’s hard to say how many. 


A paper published in the journal Nature concluded that lockdowns prevented some 60 million infections in the U.S., but didn’t venture a guess as to how many deaths were averted.


Similarly, Columbia University researchers estimated that if the U.S. had implemented social distancing one week earlier in March, 36,000 fewer people would have died.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 05:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you don't have any problem with the government regulating gun ownership, you just hate whatever the Dems suggest.

is that it?

No, that's not it. You know, you'd be a lot less confused if you'd just read the words that people use instead of reading words that aren't there.

I don't have a problem recognizing that some people should not own guns, but I do have problem with the government saying certain guns NO ONE can own. 

(10-13-2020, 05:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about we just end this here by admitting that BOTH parties want the government ot be able to tell people what they can and cannot do.  Otherwise you will be arguing that e do not even need a government at all.

I can admit that both parties want the government to be able to tell people what they can and can't do. I also think the Democrats want to control what people think.

[Dill]

(10-15-2020, 02:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, that's not it. You know, you'd be a lot less confused if you'd just read the words that people use instead of reading words that aren't there.

I don't have a problem recognizing that some people should not own guns, but I do have problem with the government saying certain guns NO ONE can own. 

I can admit that both parties want the government to be able to tell people what they can and can't do. I also think the Democrats want to control what people think.

There are places that don't have these terrible restrictions. 

They don't have ANY government telling them what they can't do or what to think.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-15-2020, 02:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, that's not it. You know, you'd be a lot less confused if you'd just read the words that people use instead of reading words that aren't there.

I don't have a problem recognizing that some people should not own guns, but I do have problem with the government saying certain guns NO ONE can own. 


I can admit that both parties want the government to be able to tell people what they can and can't do. I also think the Democrats want to control what people think.

That makes you a gun control proponent the same as me. I on the other hand don’t see a reason for a private citizen to own a M61 Vulcan cannon. But, if you get class III dealers license and the gun was manufactured before 1986 you can.