Actually, we do. There have been plenty of COVID-19 cases, and there have been plenty of hospitalizations and deaths, so there's *plenty* of data to draw from.

I think it may be time for you to look at the scientific literature on the topic. With the disease being common (so it's easy to study), and such research being considered essential (for obvious reasons), causing it to continue even during hard lockdowns, there's plenty of literature on the subject of COVID-19 that's been done in the past year. Maybe it's time for you to study that?

Like, for example, for all you lockdown skeptics here, there's articles like this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268966/

Read the article I just linked, and if that's not enough, look at the citations. Think it's time for you to do a little scientific research.

Not a lockdown skeptic.....those are the actual WHO and CDC recommendations....you know, the experts we have been told over and over that we should trust?

Lockdowns(hard lockdowns) have been shown(by the above groups) to do more harm(financial with businesses closed for good and many jobs lost, depression due to those things and others, etc) than good....and as such the WHO and CDC recommendations have changed.

(btw that's how science works....recommendations can change over time as new studies are performed and new data becomes available, and as situations change....what might be desirable one minute may become undesirable later on, and vice versa)

So, we have alot of data on the bubonic plague? We also have data, such as the genome, of the 1820 plague and the 1920 plague? Oh we don't, 'cause we didn't have the technology? Right. We know what cells things infect, but to get the amount of data necessary to give someone a DNA test and tell them whether or not they have exceptional amounts of ACE2 receptors has never been a concern, until now. Feel free to show me the data. We're still trying to find out how certain things like that work, and we really don't have a clue. If we did, we would be intentionally giving the live virus to the people less susceptible prior to having a vaccine ready, 'cause we'd know who could and could not risk it. That would've prevented the need for lockdown, and the few people who are high risk wouldn't be in line for the vaccines right now. That's the medicine of the future, but we have alot more to learn before we ever get to that point. In the far, far future, maybe 100 or more years from now, we'll be able to give quick blood tests to do that kind of stuff. The dataset cited has too many variables, not enough controls. They could not account for cultural diffferences, which has a noticeably different effect within a single country or state (hispanics die more than blacks, blacks die more than whites in Texas, even when limiting to young people). It also does not account for variances in testing policy, as well. I could probably go into more, but my ADHD is really bad with my GF in my ear over PSN: first time she's been able to talk (as opposed to text only) to me in over a week. This is a problem with these papers, anymore: they look nice until you actually dig into them. Fortunately, i didn't have to dig far into this one. Please, in the future, question the paper from a skeptic's point of view before bothering to post it.

See this is what I mean. If you don't apply source critique or don't have critical thinking faculties, you will fall into the trap of actual fake news (not just the buzz term from the conservatives/far right movements).

Take this example. A tabloid from the UK (the Spectator) cherrypicks from a video interview things that they want Nabarro from WHO to say about lockdowns. It makes news in a lot of places, some semi-respectable even with journalistic integrity, though not many. But was it taken out of context? Is it remotely accurate and says what the tabloid wants it to say? No. In Nabarro's own words after being contacted:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/15/donald-trump/who-didnt-change-its-stance-lockdowns-didnt-admit-/

"We checked with Nabarro to find out if the clip accurately reflected the points he raised during a nearly 20-minute interview. He responded, by email: "My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent."

That context Nabarro mentioned covered a range of topics, such as the estimate that about 90% of the world’s population is still vulnerable to COVID-19, that lockdowns are only an effective pandemic response in extreme circumstances and what Nabarro means when he talks about finding the "middle path.""

More from the fact check
""Strict lockdowns are best used sparingly and in a time-limited fashion because they can cause negative health and economic consequences," said Michaud. "That is why Nabarro said lockdowns are not recommended as the ‘primary’ control measure. Critics like to frame lockdowns as being recommended as the only measure, when in reality that is not the case.""

"And what about Trump’s assertion that the WHO had changed its position and admitted he was right?

A member of the WHO media office told us in a statement, "Our position on lockdowns and other severe movement restrictions has been consistent since the beginning. We recognize that they are costly to societies, economies and individuals, but may need to be used if COVID-19 transmission is out of control."

"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 spokesperson said."

So you see, even at the definition of a strict lockdown that not many countries even implement, the WHO position does not rule it out at all, and in fact says that they may be necessary due to the lack of other measures in place.

Of course, what people mean with lockdowns varies greatly which is why I wanted to define it in my previous post. My guess is that many things that people consider a lockdown are in fact 'targeted restrictions' which most countries in Europe for example are doing everywhere, even though not strictly implementing lockdowns. Gathering restrictions, restaurants and pubs closing early/completely, travel restrictions etc. Some are fighting even against these things and will take any supporting comment as vindication for their non-scientific beliefs.

Fake news. And it should say a lot that Trump tweeted about it saying he was right about it. That should speak volumes about the accuracy of the original article...

THat's actually not a strawman, but let's not get bogged down in apparent logical fallacies as it's not only boring, it would take too much time to point them all out or how they're being called out. And did I mention how boring it was??

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/masks-block-999-of-large-covid-linked-droplets-study

99.9% efficacy with large droplets. If you'd been following the developments of mask efficacy for some months now, it should come as no surprise to be honest.

"A woman standing 2m from a coughing man without a mask will be exposed to 10,000 times more such droplets than if he were wearing one, even if he is only 50cm away, they reported in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

"There is no more doubt whatsoever that face masks can dramatically reduce the dispersion of potentially virus-laden droplets," senior author Ignazio Maria Viola, an expert in applied fluid dynamics at the University of Edinburgh's School of Engineering, told AFP."

And the second assertion source, since you don't believe me and think I'm arguing in bad faith:

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/statements/statement-situation-update-on-covid-19-doing-our-share,-a-new-horizon-with-technological-and-pharmaceutical-development,-and-preserving-the-rights-of-children

"First, if we all do our share, lockdowns are avoidable. I stand by my position that lockdowns are a last-resort measure. Mask use is by no means a panacea, and needs to be done in combination with other measures; however, if mask use reached 95%, lockdowns would not be needed. But, at mask-use rates of 60% or lower, it is hard to avoid lockdowns."

This is not only a false dichotomy and portraying things as absolutes and black and white (sorry, no logical fallacies I remembered too late), but it also assumes mask usage should be a solitary measure in fighting covid and that it carries some form 'penalty'. And again with the false assertion and assumption that lockdowns are ineffective due to what I assume is reading too much fake news from dubious sources. And the populace is only aggravated by preventative measures (preventing some little thing such as death) if they don't know any better and/or are influenced by misinformation. A side-effect of calling reputable news sources fake news, like some form of ww2 era dictator, I would imagine.

I'm not sure what this venom and vitriol towards government that could prevent deaths by action in the covid crisis, has to do with what I was saying. Just because your government is corrupt, doesn't mean others are, or are anywhere near as corrupt. As to your other conspiracy theories, I can only amuse myself with them.*tinfoil hat on*.

Can we stop with the bogus race science at Christmas time please at least??

*Edit: really sorry about the multiple posts, I assumed my comments would be appended :(

It appears the response is too large, so i have to selectively snip with elipses carefully placed so you can find the start and stopping points.

I can't tell if you're strawmanning me or not: At no point did i ever make a case against masking. So, well, this point you're making is absolutely irrelevant. It's a point we agree on, so i don't know why you're quoting me and putting this info in.

Also, i have no interest in restricting our ability to point out logical fallacies. Later on you go against your own word, anyway, so there's no point. Right, I agree, until the point of lockdown. There are lots of things people can do. One of the most important things other than masking (and without government compulsion, because what is necessary and not is not for the government to decide) would be avoiding family gatherings and unnecerry congregation: COVID seems to be spreading the most through work places and holiday gatherings (the current situation in the US is the result of halloween followed by thanksgiving right within the infection window). This would appear to be why hispanics and blacks are most affected. The viral load prior to immuno-response, i suspect, will turn out to hold more predictive value on mortality than age. I'm sure is the data were to be sorted by occupation, you'd start to see interesting patterns emerge among the young people who are dying (particularly, cases where people are locked in with positive patients, such as medical personel, corrections officers, etc). Again with the strawman. And ad hominem. Good goin', and fairly presumptive. I've met people who were plenty angry despite knowing that masks work, yet are angry at the regulations regarding them. You seem to be disconnected from those whom disagree with you. Meanwhile, said people have expressed to me a fear of totalitarianism being far greater than a fear of COVID. These individuals falsely presume safety, or don't particularly care, and see the bigger picture that there is a creeping power grab. These lockdowns being in place before masking policies has given them just reason to fear this, actually. Go aheaad and ask people why they refuse to mask. You'll find, indeed, some see them as useless, but those are some of your lowest level thinkers that are reacting to polar politics, or are too selfish to give a damn (like some individuals i've seen who are known to have covid who refuse to mask and choose to be in public as much as possible) because they view their own interests as greater than those of everyone else, no matter the cost.

The argument i'm seeing consistently is that if you back off the scary totalitarian looking ideas (lockdowns/martial law), you'll more than likely get masking compliance from the former group of people, because you're no longer posing a threat to them. The latter, you might have to file criminal charges on (and we alreaady have legal precedents regarding cases of peoople with STDs such as HIV). However, you have to be reasonable, and you have to work with people. Charging granny out alone walking her dog with attempted murder isn't going to fly, but simply telling a positive covid patient to put on a mask isn't likely to result in compliance. Most police officers are fairly good judges at this sort of thing, just give them the discretionary powers and set them loose: no minimum sentences or shit like that. I'm extrapolating. Pay attention to the people you're disagreeing with, and, maybe, try taking their arguments at their word every now and then. You're not a mind reader: the people who refuse to mask are not all magically ignorant people. Authorities have declared standards, changed those standards, all while claiming they've never changed them at all, and have called for actions way stricter than necessary, at least from the eyes of the regular people. Whether this is US government or the World Health Organization. The average person has lost faith in authorities. It would be wise to re-establish it.

https://www.thinglink.com/card/1396967249583013889

Data is data, and i don't particularly care what you do and do not accept. I most certainly agree that race is not the end all be all, as it almost never works at the individual level, but clearly when zoomed out it's important. Obviously hispanics should get vaccine priority, since their mortality rate is much higher, followed by blacks and so forth. Unless you suddenly dispute the USCDC.

Obviously, this will likely vary from country to country, and other countries, such as your own, will likely need to have a different policy, as the cultures are likely to be different (i'm not expecting a huge Hispanic population in Finland, ). I will suggest you focus more on individual areas, though, as people tend to gather closer to like-minded people, and you're likely to see a similar correlation with economics: people whom are poorer generally will be more reliant on one another, which logically means they'll be closer to one another, which logically means they're more likely to spread it amonst each other. There's more than one way to skin a cat if you're shy on race (which would make sense in Finland, in particular), so i'd lean towards economics, but isolating individuals who are economically most disadvantaged would be alot harder than some other methods. However, my quick lookup on finnish demographics appears to isolate people based on language. Since you have that, those who do not speak finnish would naturally be your top priority, as they are more reliant on a smaller group of people, thus likely to be way too close.

We can talk about what is racist, culturalist, etc, when we're not talking about people dying of a deadly disease. I think lives are a bit more important than an -ism. These vaccines have been largely tested to be safe and effective, so we need to get them to the most vulerable people (the people who are, for one reason or another, unable isolate themselves from others, like doctors, nurses, police, translators, etc). I want to use every relevant demographic, regardless of sensitivities. We can talk about finding better predictors when we have all the time in the world to acquire information to sort differently. We have vaccines out there and we need to distribute them most effectively (this also means keeping tack of people who already survived an infection, because they more or less got their immunity the hard way).

So...we shouldn't make laws, because some people will see laws as an infringement on freedom, and thus be obliged to break those laws? That's...dumb.

PS: Cue this thread being deleted/locked.

You asked for sources for my claim about mask efficacy and lockdowns that implied or outright stated that you either don't believe what I'm saying, or that you disagree with the assertions. I merely provided the sources - you can't just turn around and accuse me of a strawman for doing so. Also, I'm pretty sure at this stage of you accusing me of yet another strawman wrongly, that you have no clue actually what a strawman is. Later on you'll accuse me of yet another logical fallacy wrongly, which reinforces this fact. And by the way, this boring discussion is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned 'boring'.

That completely ties into lockdowns and/or targeted restrictions, which is why I've on several occassions mentioned the importance of defining what we mean by a lockdown.

What. Where on earth are you getting this from? Have you or your 'scientists' ever thought about correlating income, education and employment situation before succumbing to bogus race science??

How on earth is that a strawman? Really? This is the third time, and you're 0/3 currently.

This is a joke right? A xmas joke? Phew, thanks for the laugh. Because nobody could be so inadept in calling out logical fallacies, 0/4 times. Let me know which part of that was an ad hominem. Or don't. I prefer you don't since this line of discussion is completely and utterly boring, especially with a person with such a poor grasp of logical fallacies.

If the fear of masks and lockdowns and preventative measures against COVID are greater than the fear of death, then something is seriously wrong, and the population has clearly succumbed to misinformation and propaganda and illiterate science. I wouldn't be surprised to be honest in some parts of the world.

Where the hell are you getting martial law from? Why are you equating the two, lockdown and martial law? Since when has the WHO recommended martial law?

What exactly is the nature of this existential threat of mandating increased mask usage? What is this great evil you refer to? How can anyone in their right mind think it's worth dying for the alleged and completely wrongfully attributed restrictions on freedom to infect other people?

Because if you're looking at examples of authoritarianism, look no further than your current administration and its incompetence at one of the biggest crises in modern history, directly resulting in (even more than usual) deaths, due to an all powerful emperor that gutted the CDC and neglects expert opinion.

Yes, clearly the call for actions by the WHO is stricter than necessary - that's why the US is leading the statistics, right? So much winning. It's hard to get enough of it.

Race science is completely bogus, especially in medicine. It is entirely a social construct, with no merit in medicine or biology. If you targeted African Americans with a drug, you'd suddenly find more efficacy with Japanese people, merely by accident. It's not only wholly racist, it's wholly unscientific.

Which hispanic gene is it that contributes to an increased mortality rate with covid? Which black gene is it then? Is it the non-existent gene that determines race? Because that's what it is - there is no gene common to black people or white people or even a cluster of genes that shows what race you are.

Time and time again the science illiterate bring up this supposed 'data' that can easily be analysed with linear regression and difference-in-difference analysis to attribute cause and bias, to ascertain the real effects of a dependent variable on an independent one. The truth is, everytime someone shouts "Black people are stupid" "Hispanic people are more prone to crime!" etc. it can be explained by non-racial socio-economic factors, that correlate far better than race.

Please stop pretending this push for race science in light of the covid crisis is anything more than an attempt at pushing racist ideology to the mainstream forefront. This unscientific rambling might convince people less versed in statistical methods or science, but it's not gonna work for most people sensible enough to see through the bullshit.

Race is an incredibly weak proxy for genetic diversity:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

"In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim."

Look man, it's Xmas, and I'm sure you don't mean all this race science nonsense. But arguing that covid measures are unnecessary or too strict in light of the rampant rates in say the US, with droves of people dying? How is that beneficial to anyone, or anywhere near honest? When exactly do you think 'strict' measures should be implemented, if not now? Aren't you basing all this off of misinformation that the (inept and corrupt ) current government is there to harm you in some way, by taking away your 'freedoms', freedoms like infecting other people and dying? Well I wouldn't worry too much - from what we know of your government, it will do fuck all and not lift a finger to help people.

Just wanted to say that i'm hoping everyone had a happy holiday season so far, and are staying safe and well.

Oh good, there's not much to respond to. This is the last time i'm responding to someone who's more interested in characterising me than they are on the topic at hand, in this thread. We adults have more important things to discuss.

I was more focused on the conditional restrictions, but sure. The term isn't exactly a medical term, so i can't imagine it came from doctors and the like. I know what the first thing i and everyone else around me thought when they heard the term, and also saw what the government was ordering: partial martial law. And the conditions were applied before we were even told to wear masks. I still remember the night and day change, and it wasn't just the United States: countries in the EU were doing the exact same things, from the "hug a chinese" campaign in Italy and across the US to suddenly "Yeah, you have to stay in doors or we're fiining you." I find it ironic we had to first prove we weren't racist, suddenly everything was shut down by order of a corrupt government. Then, finally, we got told that wearing masks was a good idea, after a total lack of masks, because for some reason the stores weren't selling them. If we cared more about facts rather than proving we're not an "-ist," maybe we wouldn't have the virus in this country to begin with. SARS-CoV-2 is the second time this happened, and the first time didn't turn into a pandemic. I don't know what it's like in Finland, but there's a noticeable cultural difference between different groups of people, yet you cannot simply specify a culture like that. The closest indicator to culture is "race." We might not like that, but it is the truth. There are rich hispanics, and poor hispanics, and covid doesn't care what the differnce is. The metric is more reliable, no matter what our sensibilities are, but i'm glad the -ism is more important than peoples' lives to some people[/sarcasm]. I guess you don't remember the history of "Communism vs the Free world." Not only was there death, but death in some very horrific ways. Meanwhile, most people believe that COVID kills less people than dictatorships. Surprise, the governments of the world agreed when they let BLM and the like protest everywhere ignoring the lockdowns. Why would they be protesting during a deadly pandemic? Oh, yeah, because they believe the arm of the government (police) are more dangerous. Imagine my shock when "both sides" come to the same conclusion. Sure as hell looked like attempts at martial law, to me. You have weaponized agents of the state (police and military) arresting and fining people for making the mistake of being out in public. I've heard some nasty things about Australia, too, but i haven't followed that country as closely so i don't know if the people getting ripped out of their cars by police were just one-off incidences or normal policy. Go out and ask. As i pointed out, we have BLM and Antifa on the left (imagine being a BLM guy in your country flouting the lockdown rules over something that happened in the United States, which turned out not to be true, anyway), and on the other side we have people not caring now. By all means, take your pick and ask the people yourself. As many as there have been, i'm sure you personally have met some of these people in your life and not just through the computer screen. Meanwhile everyone was afraid of being a racist, so he wasn't allowed to stop flights from China, which we now know would have been the de facto most effective thing that he could've done. And also, not have "hug a chinese person" campaigns. Yeah, sure, I blame the president. For something bogus, it sure seems to be consistent. But, by all means, reject science. The genes in particular which afect skin tone: it's culture, not race. Meanwhile, the most reliable metric for identifying cultures is race, nothing else. Like i said, we can discuss that another time when those metrics are more useful. In the case of COVID, despite large portions of white people unemployed and the like, these same white people aren't dying. Turns out, race is more reliable. Crime is not COVID, and COVID doesn't seem to care about IQ or anything like that. Race is the winner on this one, regardless of the other measurable metrics. Ok, things that look totalitarian are resulting in lower compliance, regardless of your position on the spectrum, but let's go full speed ahead on this anyway. Meanwhile, let's ignore the most reliable predictor for COVID death, because COVID is the same as incarceration or whatever?

Out of your book, please, it's Christmas, I'd like to focus on saving lives. People see government as a more dangerous threat than the bug, so maybe try working with the people instead of trying to simply control them. I'm more worried about what is practical than moral grandstanding. I've lost enough to COVID and government policies this year; I'd like to see an end to the things that put us in this position. We can talk about your moral compass when people aren't dying, OK?
I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. We're going to be feeling this 3 holiday chain until the end of January.

Well seeing as the asymptomatic rate is high, hopefully most won't show any symptoms.
(of course I feel they should also try isolating as well...both to prevent others from getting sick if they now have it, to to prevent getting it if they don't have it yet)

The rate of asymptomatic cases will drop significantly due to higher initial viral load, due to the gatherings of these holidays. That's what caused all the problems in China: Chinese new year. Naturally our western nations hold christmas to a high regard, so it'll be where you get the least compliance. Halloween was bad, but wasn't the biggest. Thanksgiving is bigger, but imaging talking to an 9 year old that no one's coming for christmas to give them more presents. Most families are likely caving. We'll see the majority of the fallout in about 3 weeks ('cause new years, too, but that's more of a holiday for couples).

Well if nothing else, hopefully we'll see more herd immunity as a result.

You talk a lot about race being a proxy for culture. Have you no idea how false that is? Are you actually saying all black people have the same culture? Or Latin American people? Or even white people?? Have you even thought this true?

And what does culture have to do with medicine and genetics?

I've refrained from asking scientific evidence for you to back up your bogus race science theories, but I think it's about that time you put your money where your mouth is.

What the hell does communism have to do with lockdown or targeted restrictions in order to reduce the pandemic effects and to save lives? Why on Earth do you keep bringing up BLM just to trash it and showcase your even more prejudist mindset (though bringing up race science told me all I needed about you)?

Rubbish, it's nothing like martial law. School closures and travel restriction =/= martial law, god the hyperbole.

Again with the mandatory irrelevant injection of prejudist ideals and politics. Ignoring the mass movement of anti-lockdown and anti-masking people, yet focusing on people outdoors, most distancing and wearing masks, because muh leftism is fanatical communism!

If you're unaware of his incompetencies in handling the covid crisis, then nuff said, you basically don't follow current events. Apart from maybe some dodgy forums readily digested and 'interpreted' for you.

Prove that race science is not bogus. Show some peer reviewed science to back up what you're saying, I dare you.

You already neglected the Scientific American article I posted last time. I'm pretty sure you can find some discredited dodgy non-peer reviewed 'scientist' to corroborate your prejudist non-science ideals.

Yes, that's why there is only one white culture in the US, and one black and hispanic culture. Gawd.

How convenient the actual metrics that correlate far better are to be ignored. So again, please start sourcing stuff about these crazy prejudist bold claims that are bogus science according to, well scientists.