I see that cases reached a new record or something in NSW today and Victorian cases continue to defy Daniel Andrews. Clearly the lockdowns are working. Case numbers would be ever so much higher without lockdowns. Rising cases show that lockdowns work because they would be higher without them; just as falling cases some months ago showed that lockdowns work. People who doubt the effectiveness of lockdowns and cast aspersions on their architects and our caring leaders like Dan and Gladys are putting people in harm’s way. Stop it!
As you can tell, I believe that I am suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Unfortunately, I can’t get help because I’m scared to go out. Anyway, the local shrink is booked up with distressed young people. I keep telling myself that we’re all in this together. Though someone told me via Zoom that saying this was now old hat. Apparently, it’s been laughed off the airwaves. Final thought: Must get a jab lest everyone unfriends me.
4 thoughts on “Lockdowns good, freedom bad”
Yes, thanks; and reminiscent of the story of Coelho’s bugler who drove away tigers.
Well we can see that the results of the lockdown has not matched whatever their modelling is.
As with AGW, the numbers are going in exactly the wrong direction.
What would have been useful is a non-lockdown case to compare against. Would the numbers be higher or lower. Of course they do not acknowledge one, so insist that things would have been worse without a lockdown. But that is just using their models again – the ones that already do not work.
They are like someone who has dug themselves into a hole and, now that they are so deep they can’t climb out, they look around at what they can use. Ah! They have a shovel! They’ll dig their way out.
They will assume lockdowns are not working because of something we are doing wrong. Can’t be them. So they do curfews, masks indoors, and enforce new rules with even greater harshness.
Thank heavens they still have their shovels.
I touched on this the other day, and the way the lockdowns are not working as expected. I suspect that their models work by calculating contacts and then applying statistics such as there being a 20% chance of an infection being transmitted. In these models people would be considered as discreet, uniform little coloured circles that come into contact and then bounce off, of which a certain percentage flipping from Corona-free to Corona-active in line with their percentages.
But the little circles are people.
Just thinking about all the people sitting at home, metabolisms slowing to the sedentariness of staying at home with drawing in deep breaths of air outside where the UV has been zapping the couf in the air, without the antiseptic power of the sun’s rays, without the vitamin D replenishment, and quite a few emotionally distressed by the horror stories and their restricted, diminished lives.
This would depress people’s immunological responses.
I doubt they factor that in since they never mention these factors.