Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre-Covid forecasts

Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre... by Izkata on Saturday May 27, 2023 @09:51PM (#36100370)

It wouldn't have been needed. Nor was the one we did have. The huge amount of fear in March 2020 resulted in evidence of that*: Cell phone tracking data in the US showed people were staying home about a week before a single lockdown started. The lockdown orders had no effect, no additional people stopped moving around, and movement started creeping back upwards only a few weeks later while the lockdowns were still in full effect.

*I've looked for this over and over since then and haven't been able to find it, I get the feeling it might have been taken offline.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre... by cortesoft on Saturday May 27, 2023 @10:05PM (#36100454)

This simply isn’t true. If every single person had stayed fully locked down, the pandemic would have stopped in its tracks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre... by misterhtmlcss on Sunday May 28, 2023 @01:00AM (#36101290)

Source?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre... by dent9876543 on Sunday May 28, 2023 @04:36AM (#36102224)

But that simply isn't true either.

Perfect eradication has to be the objective, not simply stopping it in its tracks. Otherwise, whenever you open up, you start spreading again.

It's also a rather offensive appeal to human superiority in as much as it totally ignores the various animal reservoirs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre... by peteradio on Sunday May 28, 2023 @11:31AM (#36104895)

Yes because everyone would have died of starvation, problem solved right?

[ Parent | on HN ]