Article <raf1rjtboge5fq871h6d1jkfmo5n6e2gdl@4ax.com>

Deutsch English FranÃ§ais Italiano
<raf1rjtboge5fq871h6d1jkfmo5n6e2gdl@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: D1.1 genotype H5N1
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:20:06 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <raf1rjtboge5fq871h6d1jkfmo5n6e2gdl@4ax.com>
References: <vodh0r$1b1l1$1@dont-email.me> <voe21j$1dh89$1@dont-email.me> <voe4s7$1eo0s$1@dont-email.me> <voea78$1fdb2$1@dont-email.me> <voeh1n$1k5mv$3@dont-email.me> <vofnp3$1qi7l$1@dont-email.me> <voftbq$1rhhu$2@dont-email.me> <voh3h1$226cm$1@dont-email.me> <nv9oqjlhqp2bo3vf3n7degr3e33istj07k@4ax.com> <voiaqt$2bufp$1@dont-email.me> <3jdpqj977r90rm9fg1lm9sv9kljpap80l2@4ax.com> <vojbph$2ig4c$1@dont-email.me> <idssqj5sb9da123b5e06pb7tc9fknpmppj@4ax.com> <voq9kf$2dhv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="57098"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w7qtsNm95R8dbLBk3FkTAsIagOg=

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:50:55 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>:

>On 2/13/2025 4:28 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:44:49 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> On 2/12/2025 9:01 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:22:22 -0600, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:11:27 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:20 AM, JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>      RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, it is you that was on another planet.  The US never had
>>>>>>>>> lockdowns like China.  What happened was sparse and ineffective because
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is zero room to argue here. The lockdowns were excessive.
>>>>>>>> The cost was extreme. The benefit was nil. The whole damn thing
>>>>>>>> was a foreseeable & foreseen mistake, assuming they weren't
>>>>>>>> intentionally trying to "Reset" the economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What planet were you living on?  There never was a centralized plan to
>>>>>>> control the infection in the US.  Actions like lockdowns were sporadic
>>>>>>> and varied from state to state, and were pretty minimal when they were
>>>>>>> implemented.  Arkansas tried, but neighboring states like Oklahoma
>>>>>>> decided not to do it, so nothing much changed in Arkansas due to
>>>>>>> boardering states with larger populations not doing much at all.
>>>>>>> Testing and contact tracing were never really implemented population
>>>>>>> wide, and states were pretty much on their own in terms of trying to get
>>>>>>> their people tested.  Companies like mine had to implement their own
>>>>>>> contact tracing and testing program months after it should have been
>>>>>>> started after commercial testing became available.  Just recall how long
>>>>>>> it was before the Biden administration gave everyone free Covid tests.
>>>>>>> nearly a million people (probably more just were not counted) had died
>>>>>>> by then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> China tested whole city populations (10s of millions in each group),
>>>>>>> isolated infected, and cleared Covid from their country early in the
>>>>>>> pandemic, but the virus eventually came back (my guess is that some of
>>>>>>> it came in with frozen food processed in other countries).  No one else
>>>>>>> did that, and the whole world, including China, is still suffering
>>>>>>> because of that failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just FYI, there were lockdowns in multiple jurisdictions.
>>>>>> Just because they weren't mandated nationally (which would
>>>>>> be illegal without a Federal emergency declaration) it
>>>>>> doesn't mean they didn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> They existed, but not in any form that would be effective.
>>>>>
>>>> I said nothing about effectiveness, only that they existed.
>>>>>
>>>>>    If your
>>>>> neighbors were not doing it, it failed, and as you point out they were
>>>>> also ineffective because there was no testing and isolation program like
>>>>> they had in China, and if everyone wasn't doing it it was a waste of
>>>>> time.  The US never bothered to identify all the infected.  Where in the
>>>>> US were they excessive?  States like Texas and Oklahoma opted to do
>>>>> pretty much nothing.
>>>>>
>>>> California, for one. Of course, the restrictions didn't
>>>> apply to the higher officials such as Newsom, who, from the
>>>> video evidence (mostly surreptitious or assumed to be
>>>> private), continued to operate pretty much as usual.
>>>
>>> California efforts were a joke.  I've seen YouTube videos demonstrating
>>> that nothing really was ever implemented in any effective manner, and
>>> pretty much none of the neighboring states did much.  They could
>>> implement social distancing and outdoor dining that a lot of other
>>> states could not do very well due to outdoor temperatures, but you can
>>> likely find videos of customer limits in bars being ignored and such.
>>> It wasn't much of any type of lock down for any significant period of
>>> time.  They did set up on line education systems, and a lot of kids were
>>> taught at home by their usual teachers.  They did things, but
>>> enforcement was problematic, and likely what they did was never
>>> considered to be any type of excessive burden.
>>>
>> So we agree: Lockdowns were implemented, but they were
>> ineffective even though they caused significant personal and
>> economic problems for large numbers of people.
>
>They were never implemented in any effective manner, nor in any way that 
>was a significant burden to anyone in the US.  The contention that was 
>being rebutted was that lockdowns were excessive and a burden to the 
>population.  That never happened in the US.
>
The fact that they were in your opinion ineffective (an
opinion I happen to share) has nothing to do with whether
they were a burden OR excessive, but if you believe that an
ineffective process cannot be excessive and burdensome
there's really nothing more to discuss.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> China was initially effective using lockdowns.  They forced whole cities
>>>>> to stay home and wait to be tested, and they were able to test millions
>>>>> in just a couple weeks.  They eradicated the infection in China for a
>>>>> period of time.  When the virus was reintroduced, they began to have
>>>>> compliance issues because it was repeatedly reintroduced, and the
>>>>> strategy failed.  My guess is that they needed to irradiate all the
>>>>> imports as well as implement their quarantine in order to keep the virus
>>>> >from coming back because the rest of the world failed to control the 
>>>>> virus.  That never happened in the US.  Nothing even close happened in
>>>>> the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lockdowns were indeed excessive in some venues (and
>>>>>> essentially ineffective; see the Swedish data for contrast)
>>>>>> and the costs were indeed extreme, in both personal and
>>>>>> economic terms.
>>>>>>>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov