Study: Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths (1 Viewer)

[JIslander]

1) Again.  I don't understand your point.  I am not disputing that.  Still don't get it

2) Of course it didn't.  We all know that.

NVM -- we're talking past each other --

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The only reason.  And I mean the only reason I was OK with the shutdowns was to alleviate pressure at our hospitals.  That's it.  Other than that I thought the shutdowns went way way way too far.  (remember we couldnt even buy vegetable seeds at the grocery store in Michigan) 

There was a mass frenzy related to this.  I still believe a big portion of it was political, because of the guy in office.  But I also think we massively overreacted looking back.   

I don’t think it was political really at all.  I wouldn’t have changed my 2020 behavior even remotely if Biden had been in office instead of Trump.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

I also want to say that I agree that the only reason for the shutdowns were to alleviate pressure on the hospitals.  We did that, for the most part.  The shutdowns were successful.

Agree, they were successful.  But that dismisses the point of the recent discussion: Just based on percentages alone it still would have been successful if we took the alternate approach of protecting the old and vulnerable.  

At what cost to children and businesses?  I know the hot topic is masks on kids, but, we lost a bunch of small business and our economy took a big hit for unnecessary restrictions and shutdowns of businesses.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

There are no whatabouts.  Each situation is handled exactly as I explained on how you would protect grandma.  

So literally every vulnerable person (tens of millions of Americans) would be totally isolated from everyone else, and the only way any non-isolated people could interact with someone in the vulnerable population in any way would be to mask for a week beforehand and then test negative prior to the meeting?

Did that seem like a workable solution to you? It didn't to me. If it was, don't you think more than a small handful of the thousands of public health experts who spend their careers studying this stuff would have suggested it? I don't even know how you'd enforce it! Not to mention the trouble you'd have finding geriatric and immunocompromised care workers if you told them they had to stop socializing completely if they want to do the job.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

So literally every vulnerable person (tens of millions of Americans) would be totally isolated from everyone else, and the only way any non-isolated people could interact with someone in the vulnerable population in any way would be to mask for a week beforehand and then test negative prior to the meeting?

Did that seem like a workable solution to you? It didn't to me. If it was, don't you think more than a small handful of the thousands of public health experts who spend their careers studying this stuff would have suggested it? I don't even know how you'd enforce it! Not to mention the trouble you'd have finding geriatric and immunocompromised care workers if you told them they had to stop socializing completely if they want to do the job.

Ah, now we're back to the old just about everyone is vulnerable so might as well be everyone argument. 

No. I just explained how to handle grandma.  She wasn't left "totally isolated", in fact she was able to see her grandkid and even give him a hug.  Hint - The current recommendation (today, even with all the vaccines and boosters) is to be tested prior to going and seeing grandma.  Did you miss out on all the free home test kits, aren't you following the recommendations anyway?

Again, nothing to protect grandma is more than what you're already currently asked to do.  It doesn't magically make it harder just because those who don't need to aren't doing it.

 

[supermike80]

I don’t think it was political really at all.  I wouldn’t have changed my 2020 behavior even remotely if Biden had been in office instead of Trump.

I am fairly certain it was at least partly political, at least in Michigan.   

 

[PhillipPhoto]

I don't even know how you'd enforce it! Not to mention the trouble you'd have finding geriatric and immunocompromised care workers if you told them they had to stop socializing completely if they want to do the job.

It would be even harder to enforce restrictions on EVERYONE!  We might even have to make some mandates and fire people!

Did you miss all the stories of the care workers isolated from their families?  You act like we gained some benefits/looser restrictions because we tried to enforce restrictions on everyone.  Can you list one restriction that was eliminated or reduced based on the fact that we took a one size fits all approach? 

 

[moleculo]

.   Do you agree with this?:

Link

If not, why not?

separating policy makers from science is pretty much the polar opposite of what I want, so no...of course not.  It is imperative that policy makers use science and data to drive decisions - that is a core, underlying belief of mine and a major reason why I have turned away from the republican party.

There are very few things I disagree with more than this.

 

[moleculo]

All those are taken into account in the implemented policy.  There is no reason except for lack of understanding that the new policy just defines WHO instead of EVERYONE.  

Bad policy - mask all kids because of grandma.

Good policy - make sure grandma is protected and isolated.  If kid wants to go see grandma make sure he masks for a week prior at school and tests negative prior to heading over to grandma's house.  They both can wear masks during the visit as a secondary precaution and if they want to use cellophane for hugs that's up to them.  

Oh, so grandma is vaccinated now?  Why the hell are we still masking kids in school?

This breaks down when you realize that like 2/3 of the US population has a comorbidity that increases risk.

Further, and this is my fundamental disagreement with GBD, is that the logical conclusion is that everyone should get COVID pretty much as quickly as possible.  That is a guarantee to flood our health care system, and would lead to deaths an order of magnitude higher.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

This breaks down when you realize that like 2/3 of the US population has a comorbidity that increases risk.

Further, and this is my fundamental disagreement with GBD, is that the logical conclusion is that everyone should get COVID pretty much as quickly as possible.  That is a guarantee to flood our health care system, and would lead to deaths an order of magnitude higher.

Ah, now we're back to the old just about everyone is vulnerable so might as well be everyone argument. 

No. I just explained how to handle grandma.  She wasn't left "totally isolated", in fact she was able to see her grandkid and even give him a hug.  Hint - The current recommendation (today, even with all the vaccines and boosters) is to be tested prior to going and seeing grandma.  Did you miss out on all the free home test kits, aren't you following the recommendations anyway?

Again, nothing to protect grandma is more than what you're already currently asked to do.  It doesn't magically make it harder just because those who don't need to aren't doing it.

 

[moleculo]

Agree, they were successful.  But that dismisses the point of the recent discussion: Just based on percentages alone it still would have been successful if we took the alternate approach of protecting the old and vulnerable.  

At what cost to children and businesses?  I know the hot topic is masks on kids, but, we lost a bunch of small business and our economy took a big hit for unnecessary restrictions and shutdowns of businesses.

we don't know that though.  You are speculating that we would have been ok with less mitigation.

I'd also point out that businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus - behavior changed regardless of governmental policy.  Further, businesses fail all the time, for lots of reasons.  If the economy is strong, new businesses will spring up in their place.  

 

[PhillipPhoto]

separating policy makers from science is pretty much the polar opposite of what I want, so no...of course not.  It is imperative that policy makers use science and data to drive decisions - that is a core, underlying belief of mine and a major reason why I have turned away from the republican party.

There are very few things I disagree with more than this.

That's your interpretation of this?

Among the reforms Bhattacharya says are needed is putting a firewall between public health officials who make policy decisions and the funding that scientists receive so the money cannot be used to suppress scientific discussion or to blackmail researchers into silence.

It's having policy makers separate from the funding, not the science.  For example, Fauci was responsible for the science, application of funding, and setting public policy.  To help him become unbiased he should be separated from the funding. Or better yet, have Fauci turn over all the science to a panel of experts who are uninfluenced by the funding to set policy.  Per the article:

The people have been mis-served by public health. And so, the people are going to have to demand that the reforms that happen are driven by people who are not conflicted, who didn't make these mistakes. And I know that there's an impetus to try to do an evaluation, where the people doing the evaluation are those same ones who made the mistake. If that happens, it'll just cement the distrust that the public has in public health.

You do understand that Fauci & Co. did their best to shut down any scientific discussion counter to what they had to say, right?

 

[PhillipPhoto]

we don't know that though.  You are speculating that we would have been ok with less mitigation.

I'd also point out that businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus - behavior changed regardless of governmental policy.  Further, businesses fail all the time, for lots of reasons.  If the economy is strong, new businesses will spring up in their place.  

Based on the percentages.  That's not speculating.

Businesses were forced to suspend business.  Fact.  The amount of behavior change and how much that contributed is speculation.  

 

[moleculo]

That's your interpretation of this?

It's having policy makers separate from the funding, not the science.  For example, Fauci was responsible for the science, application of funding, and setting public policy.  To help him become unbiased he should be separated from the funding. Or better yet, have Fauci turn over all the science to a panel of experts who are uninfluenced by the funding to set policy.  Per the article:

You do understand that Fauci & Co. did their best to shut down any scientific discussion counter to what they had to say, right?

I disagree with all of this, wholeheartedly.  Almost every word in your response goes against my core beliefs.  I know you are coming from the position that a man who has served (with accolades) in every administration since Reagan, both R & D, is a  power-hungry political animal...because that's how science-ignoring political hacks have painted him.  It's completely wrong.

 

[moleculo]

Based on the percentages.  That's not speculating.

Businesses were forced to suspend business.  Fact.  The amount of behavior change and how much that contributed is speculation.  

if you get to speculate, so do I.  

 

[PhillipPhoto]

if you get to speculate, so do I.  

Percentages don't lie.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

I disagree with all of this, wholeheartedly.  Almost every word in your response goes against my core beliefs.  I know you are coming from the position that a man who has served (with accolades) in every administration since Regan, both R & D, is a  power-hungry political animal...because that's how science-ignoring political hacks have painted him.  It's completely wrong.

Ok, fine.  I couldn't tell because you misrepresented what was said from the jump.

I'm coming from a position that he's been wrong on just about everything.  It doesn't have anything to do with political reporting hacks.

 

[Battersbox]

we don't know that though.  You are speculating that we would have been ok with less mitigation.

I'd also point out that businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus - behavior changed regardless of governmental policy.  Further, businesses fail all the time, for lots of reasons.  If the economy is strong, new businesses will spring up in their place.  

Businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus is true to some extent. However, had people better understood the relative risks sooner, many wouldn't have been so scared.

You can only tell people there is a deadly virus circulating for so long. Sooner or later, they have to see some evidence for themselves. Many (most?) of us have simply not seen that evidence.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I disagree with all of this, wholeheartedly.  Almost every word in your response goes against my core beliefs.  I know you are coming from the position that a man who has served (with accolades) in every administration since Regan, both R & D, is a  power-hungry political animal...because that's how science-ignoring political hacks have painted him.  It's completely wrong.

I don't think Fauci is a power-hungry animal.  I do think he's very deeply invested in an agency that probably directly or indirectly funded the research that led to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  He's also has strong, long-time professional connections to some of the people who were directly or indirectly involved in that research.  It's completely normal for people in those situations to play "circle the wagons."  

That's not a conspiracy theory about somebody wanting to pave the way for a UN takeover of the United States or anything like that.  It's just standard human behavior in organizations.

Edit: To be fair, we don't know exactly what role the NIH played in funding research through EcoHealth Alliance or WIV or anything else, in part because the NIH has done everything humanly possible to keep that information away from the public.  Which is a problem in and of itself, of course.

 

[JIslander]

Businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus is true to some extent. However, had people better understood the relative risks sooner, many wouldn't have been so scared.

You can only tell people there is a deadly virus circulating for so long. Sooner or later, they have to see some evidence for themselves. Many (most?) of us have simply not seen that evidence.

Perhaps nobody, even health officials, knew exactly how this was going to progress and had to adjust along the way.  I totally get that with a pandemic none of us have ever experienced before. 

And very surprised, it seems many here didn't have the "evidence" of people within their family/friend circle dying.  That changes your outlook by quite a bit ---

 

[Battersbox]

Perhaps nobody, even health officials, knew exactly how this was going to progress and had to adjust along the way.  I totally get that with a pandemic none of us have ever experienced before. 

And very surprised, it seems many here didn't have the "evidence" of people within their family/friend circle dying.  That changes your outlook by quite a bit ---

99% of us I think were fine with the initial closures and restraints on businesses. In many parts of the country they lasted far, far too long. That's the issue.

I agree very much with your second paragraph...how affected we've been personally surely informs many of our opinions. I try to remember that when opining in here (or anywhere).

For me, I know nobody who's died, either friend or family. In the 2-district high school my wife works in and my kids attend and I volunteer, we've had no fatalities, and maybe 1 or 2 hospitalizations that would be deemed serious. That's over a 2-year span now. And this in a relatively hard-hit state (Illinois). 

So yeah, when people state they've lost multiple family members etc, it's hard to fathom for someone like me.  I understand I've been very fortunate and others haven't. But, my entire immediate world has been very fortunate also...like several thousand people--admittedly the majority of them are high school aged kids.

 

[The Commish]

lol, that's not what I said.  I drew my own conclusions before the study was published.  The fact that my conclusions aligned with the study pretty well just reinforced my own conclusions.  That's a prefect example of critical thinking.

no its not. Thats merely an example of coming to the same conclusion as someone else. An analysis of HOW you came to your conclusions might lend evidence to an example of critical thinking though. 

 

[moleculo]

Ok, fine.  I couldn't tell because you misrepresented what was said from the jump.

I'm coming from a position that he's been wrong on just about everything.  It doesn't have anything to do with political reporting hacks.

i disagree with this as well.

 

[moleculo]

I don't think Fauci is a power-hungry animal.  I do think he's very deeply invested in an agency that probably directly or indirectly funded the research that led to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  He's also has strong, long-time professional connections to some of the people who were directly or indirectly involved in that research.  It's completely normal for people in those situations to play "circle the wagons."  

That's not a conspiracy theory about somebody wanting to pave the way for a UN takeover of the United States or anything like that.  It's just standard human behavior in organizations.

Edit: To be fair, we don't know exactly what role the NIH played in funding research through EcoHealth Alliance or WIV or anything else, in part because the NIH has done everything humanly possible to keep that information away from the public.  Which is a problem in and of itself, of course.

that's a far cry from " shut down any scientific discussion counter to what they had to say."  Really, any thread related to the origin story of COVID is more political than science-related policy, which is what this discussion is really about.

 

[moleculo]

Businesses went under because people were scared of a deadly virus is true to some extent. However, had people better understood the relative risks sooner, many wouldn't have been so scared.

You can only tell people there is a deadly virus circulating for so long. Sooner or later, they have to see some evidence for themselves. Many (most?) of us have simply not seen that evidence.

If you haven't seen the evidence, you haven't been looking.    I mean, ask @Terminalxylem how things have been going for the past couple of years.

I didn't need to have a loved one die to recognize that COVID was a big deal.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

i disagree with this as well.

Noted.  Thanks for chiming in!

 

[moleculo]

Noted.  Thanks for chiming in!

of course!  

I do think this is something important to note: two people who have followed a 2 year old news story can have such diametrically opposed viewpoints and opinions.  We likely will never agree on something as basic as if Dr Fauci was a net positive for our country - a man who isn't even a politician.  It's crazy to me, and an illustration of how we are fractured we are as a nation.

 

[Battersbox]

If you haven't seen the evidence, you haven't been looking.    I mean, ask @Terminalxylem how things have been going for the past couple of years.

I didn't need to have a loved one die to recognize that COVID was a big deal.

There is evidence you read about. And there is evidence you encounter in your personal life. The latter has been lacking for 2 years. And I'm not alone in that.

Covid is a big deal. Our response to Covid was too heavy handed. Both of those statements can be true.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

of course!  

I do think this is something important to note: two people who have followed a 2 year old news story can have such diametrically opposed viewpoints and opinions.  We likely will never agree on something as basic as if Dr Fauci was a net positive for our country - a man who isn't even a politician.  It's crazy to me, and an illustration of how we are fractured we are as a nation.

Cloth masks were ridiculous to start with, anybody familiar with OSHA requirements for airborne particulates knows this. Double masking 6 months later is just icing on the cake.  He should be a politician, he convinced a whole lot of people to do the inconceivable.  

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

There is evidence you read about. And there is evidence you encounter in your personal life. The latter has been lacking for 2 years. And I'm not alone in that.

Covid is a big deal. Our response to Covid was too heavy handed. Both of those statements can be true.

One of my pet theories of the past couple years is that the public was conditioned by popular culture to think that a pandemic would be an apocalyptic scenario in which bodies would pile up in the street and society would break down (think "The Stand"). Covid is far deadlier than the flu, but since the way the pandemic played out was closer to a bad flu season than to the Apocalypse, people were able to put it in the "flu" box, especially if it didn't affect anyone close to them (and sadly, even in some cases where it did).

 

[TripItUp]

I think both sides have a lot to learn from this, but I doubt either side will learn a damn thing.  

Humans gonna human.  I don't care any more.   You can't fix stupid.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you haven't seen the evidence, you haven't been looking.    I mean, ask @Terminalxylem how things have been going for the past couple of years.

I didn't need to have a loved one die to recognize that COVID was a big deal.

I don’t know what planet these people live on. They must think the anecdotes, case counts/deaths and news coverage from multiple sources are falsified?

 

[JIslander]

I don’t know what planet these people live on. They must think the anecdotes, case counts/deaths and news coverage from multiple sources are falsified?

IMO, it started early in Trump Admin with Kelly Anne Conway's "alternative facts'" assertion.  4 years of same and here we are.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

It would be even harder to enforce restrictions on EVERYONE!  We might even have to make some mandates and fire people!

Did you miss all the stories of the care workers isolated from their families?  You act like we gained some benefits/looser restrictions because we tried to enforce restrictions on everyone.  Can you list one restriction that was eliminated or reduced based on the fact that we took a one size fits all approach? 

That was like the first month of COVID, two at the most, and as you recognize it was already difficult enough on those people to warrant significant media attention.  And you think the solution was to extend it indefinitely? OK 

I don't feel like debating this further. It's in the past, and I think most of us are largely in agreement as to how things should be proceeding now that there's a vaccine and greater understanding of the disease itself. It came up only because you or the other guy posted a ridiculous story suggesting that "red states" did better than "blue states" with the pandemic, which they arrived at by giving "kids doing in person schooling rather than remote schooling" and "people not dying" equal weight. This is dumb and bad, as is the whole red state/blue state dichotomy. 

The simple fact is that some people and regions took more precautions, other people and regions took fewer, and the people who took more precautions continue to have a much much lower rate of hospitalization and death. I'm just thankful to be, and live pretty much exclusively amongst, those people.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don’t think it was political really at all.  I wouldn’t have changed my 2020 behavior even remotely if Biden had been in office instead of Trump.

do you not believe that political parties use whatever they can grab to give themselves the best chances at election/power ?

 

[Prinefan]

do you not believe that political parties use whatever they can grab to give themselves the best chances at election/power ?

That's a very broadly worded statement.  Would you please be more specific about the bolded?  I've seen drastic differences in the last admin and this admin referencing the bolded.  

 

[Boston]

I think both sides have a lot to learn from this, but I doubt either side will learn a damn thing.  

Humans gonna human.  I don't care any more.   You can't fix stupid.

Yup…heels get dug in and nothing is gonna change it.

 

[Stealthycat]

That's a very broadly worded statement.  Would you please be more specific about the bolded?  I've seen drastic differences in the last admin and this admin referencing the bolded.  

sure

GOP hated Clinton - they grabbed anything they could to oust him (Monica)

DNC hated Trump - they used a fake dossier, they used Stormy Daniels, they tried using taxes then grabbed at a Ukraine incident that in fact, Biden literally did .... then when covid came? Shutdown, crash economy, blame all the deaths on Trump .... blame Trump for everything, unemployment, national debt, covid deaths, NATO, international incidents etc

and they got the W in Nov 2020 and now blame the economy/inflation/gas/Russia/covid deaths on anyone but themselves

political parties .... nasty business, they use anything they can to get votes don't they ?

 

[the moops]

You can only tell people there is a deadly virus circulating for so long. Sooner or later, they have to see some evidence for themselves. Many (most?) of us have simply not seen that evidence.

At peak virus, there were over 3000 people a day in this country dying from this virus. If that is not evidence than I am unsure what is

 

[supermike80]

sure

GOP hated Clinton - they grabbed anything they could to oust him (Monica)

DNC hated Trump - they used a fake dossier, they used Stormy Daniels, they tried using taxes then grabbed at a Ukraine incident that in fact, Biden literally did .... then when covid came? Shutdown, crash economy, blame all the deaths on Trump .... blame Trump for everything, unemployment, national debt, covid deaths, NATO, international incidents etc

and they got the W in Nov 2020 and now blame the economy/inflation/gas/Russia/covid deaths on anyone but themselves

political parties .... nasty business, they use anything they can to get votes don't they ?

Republicans pitch liberty, protection of your rights(guns) build through fear of losing those things. 

Dems promise money..Lots and lots of free money.(student loan forgiveness for instance)

Republicans try to fear you into voting for them.  Dems attempt to buy votes.   They both do it.  And to say it is only one party is absurd.

 

[Godsbrother]

I think both sides have a lot to learn from this, but I doubt either side will learn a damn thing.  

Humans gonna human.  I don't care any more.   You can't fix stupid.

My sincere hope was that whoever won the 2020 election would do a retrospective on how we handled the epidemic and come out with an unbiased and unemotional report that showed what worked, what didn't, and what we can do in the future should another pandemic occur.

That is what we should be doing instead of figuring out who to blame or give credit.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IMO, it started early in Trump Admin with Kelly Anne Conway's "alternative facts'" assertion.  4 years of same and here we are.

Whatever the case, it’s obnoxiously egocentric to dismiss the severity of this disease just because you don’t know anyone personally who has died. 

 

[Battersbox]

At peak virus, there were over 3000 people a day in this country dying from this virus. If that is not evidence than I am unsure what is

There is evidence you read about, and there is evidence you see in your everyday life. Many of us simply haven't seen it. That's not hard to understand.

We read about millions of people dying of famine and long-term hunger across the world all the time. Each of us could do so much more to assuage that hunger, but we don't. Why not? Do you think it's fake news?

The vast majority of Americans changed their lives in unprecedented ways for a long time for a pandemic that never affected them anywhere in their personal lives in any measure which aligned with what they read about on a macro scale. Yet they still played ball for a long time. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Republicans pitch liberty, protection of your rights(guns) build through fear of losing those things. 

Dems promise money..Lots and lots of free money.(student loan forgiveness for instance)

Republicans try to fear you into voting for them.  Dems attempt to buy votes.   They both do it.  And to say it is only one party is absurd.

I've not denied that both parties are snakes .... there are core differences in platforms 

"fear of losing" ... well its true. Democrats would take almost every gun if Republican's didn't stand in their way, right ? 

 

[JIslander]

There is evidence you read about, and there is evidence you see in your everyday life. Many of us simply haven't seen it. That's not hard to understand.

We read about millions of people dying of famine and long-term hunger across the world all the time. Each of us could do so much more to assuage that hunger, but we don't. Why not? Do you think it's fake news?

The vast majority of Americans changed their lives in unprecedented ways for a long time for a pandemic that never affected them anywhere in their personal lives in any measure which aligned with what they read about on a macro scale. Yet they still played ball for a long time. 

And they should be thankful that in doing so, they and their families and close friends are still alive.

 

[Battersbox]

And they should be thankful that in doing so, they and their families and close friends are still alive.

That's the problem. Many people then stopped playing ball, and the people around them also stopped playing ball even as the authorities warned them it would result in terrible consequences. When those consequences don't arise, they begin to question the sacrifices they made all along.

The misperceptions around age-related relative risks have turned many people into cynics. A full year, 18-mos into this many parents still thought their kids were at real risk. Heck, some still think that. As they learn they never were, they eventually feel duped to some degree. 

Covid is serious. We were too heavy-handed in our response. Both of those things can be true.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

do you not believe that political parties use whatever they can grab to give themselves the best chances at election/power ?

Sure.  That has nothing to do with the statement I made (which you quoted).

 

[JIslander]

That's the problem. Many people then stopped playing ball, and the people around them also stopped playing ball even as the authorities warned them it would result in terrible consequences. When those consequences don't arise, they begin to question the sacrifices they made all along.

The misperceptions around age-related relative risks have turned many people into cynics. A full year, 18-mos into this many parents still thought their kids were at real risk. Heck, some still think that. As they learn they never were, they eventually feel duped to some degree. 

Covid is serious. We were too heavy-handed in our response. Both of those things can be true.

I'd say dying is a bit more of problem than being inconvenienced.    Sure, maybe in some areas it was heavy-handed.  Hopefully we've learned a good bit from this and will be better prepared for the next one -- But erring on the side of caution with a historic pandemic seems prudent.

 

[Stealthycat]

Sure.  That has nothing to do with the statement I made (which you quoted).

covid was weaponized and used by Democrats to get votes - didn't they ? 

 

[Battersbox]

I'd say dying is a bit more of problem than being inconvenienced.    Sure, maybe in some areas it was heavy-handed.  Hopefully we've learned a good bit from this and will be better prepared for the next one -- But erring on the side of caution with a historic pandemic seems prudent.

The bolded is useless. Have a good-faith conversation or ignore me please. No interest in your antics.