Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

---

That depends. Got anything to contribute?

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

---

That depends. Got anything to contribute?

---

Yep. But not to you, little boy.

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

---

That depends. Got anything to contribute?

---

Yep. But not to you, little boy.

---

Ohh, okay.

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

---

That depends. Got anything to contribute?

---

Yep. But not to you, little boy.

---

Ohh, okay.

---

He's pretty witty

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. %A0But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns. %A0

---

So, you did not like being placed under house arrest without any due process? How about the violation of your First Amendment Rights of assembly, association, worship, and even speech? Or the impairment of private contracts if you happened to be a landlord who could not access the Courts for months for eviction help? Or takings of private property without compensation?

It is like the Constitution was suspended and come to find out there was not even a good reason for the government to go full crypto-commie. Some people were irrationally fearful of the virus and their political future so they made us pay an exorbitant price so they could feel better about themselves.

---

Sounds terrible. Any news from the courts about compensation for the victims of these gross injustices?

---

Someone suggested termination of parts of the Constitution, so it can't be too bad if it happens

---

When are you going to evict that special someone from your head? He has never paid rent but he has been there for years.

---

So you know who suggested termination of parts of the Constitution? %A0 No problem?
Your Dear Leader?

---

It is not a real surprise since he trotted out Fauci who championed all manner of unConstitutional methods of dealing with a contagious respiratory virus.

---

Supposedly unconstitutional, yet strangely immune from legal challenge under the Constitution.

---

Are you having another conversation with yourself?

---

That depends. Got anything to contribute?

---

Yep. But not to you, little boy.

---

Ohh, okay.

---

He's pretty witty

---

He sure showed me.

Pele just died. That proves how dangerous the vaccine is

Osodecentx said:

---

Pele just died. That proves how dangerous the vaccine is

---

Probably listed in the New York Times among the rona victims that died of motorcycle and car wrecks and gunshot wounds.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Pele just died. That proves how dangerous the vaccine is

---

Probably listed in the New York Times among the rona victims that died of motorcycle and car wrecks and gunshot wounds.

---

One of those accident victims was listed as a Covid death for local surveillance purposes only. The other one suffered non-fatal injuries and died in the hospital from Covid. I suspect you added the gunshot victim for rhetorical effect. Again...why? Why not just take a minute and find out at some point?

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Mr. Savik was unvaxxed. She lived long and prospered.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

He Hate Me said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

---

Mexican food buffet might

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

---

Mexican food buffet might

---

Not a bad way to go.

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

Hank Aaron another perfect example and a great case why blacks are so vax hesitant

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

---

Mexican food buffet might

---

long live the Ponchos flag!

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

---

Mexican food buffet might

---

long live the Ponchos flag!

---

Amen Brother! Pancho's Sopapillas are one of life's overlooked treasures!!!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Pele just died. That proves how dangerous the vaccine is

---

Probably listed in the New York Times among the rona victims that died of motorcycle and car wrecks and gunshot wounds.

---

One of those accident victims was listed as a Covid death for local surveillance purposes only. The other one suffered non-fatal injuries and died in the hospital from Covid. I suspect you added the gunshot victim for rhetorical effect. Again...why? Why not just take a minute and find out at some point?

---

When you're shocked you don't fall off the edge of the world we'll all buy you a drink.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Birds are not real. Neither are Spammy or Centex.

---

Franco Harris died after he was vaccinated …. and you know what that means

---

It means you are still not very smart.

---

And then there's Kirstie Alley

---

Chinese food buffets killed Kirstie Alley!

---

Probably get Centex too.

---

Mexican food buffet might

---

long live the Ponchos flag!

---

Wish Rosa's had a flag

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

---

I'm simply convinced you haven't actually read the model because I do believe you can read. They said long term blanket isolation (stay at home) scenarios are unlikely, which is why they made the recommendations they did, and then modeled what would happen if none, some, or all of their recommendations were implemented, They even factored in loosening scenarios that would be reestablished at case trigger points. Perhaps you didn't understand the point of the model was to provide guidance on approach knowing that something like a 1 year shelter in place type policy wasn't feasible.

Both the US and UK implemented every one of their recommendations, and others. The UK applied the strictest adherence, but performed 5+ times worse than the model predicted.

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

Canada2017 said:

---

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

---

Best wishes for a mild case and rapid recovery

Canada2017 said:

---

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

---

wishing you a speedy recovery my friend..

4th and Inches said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

---

wishing you a speedy recovery my friend..

---

Thank you

Others can resume debating the effectiveness of Ivermectin…..but I am the 3rd member of my immediate family to use it .

Has worked like a charm every time . However my wife is unvaccinated and is extremely fatigued.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

---

I'm simply convinced you haven't actually read the model because I do believe you can read. They said long term blanket isolation (stay at home) scenarios are unlikely, which is why they made the recommendations they did, and then modeled what would happen if none, some, or all of their recommendations were implemented, They even factored in loosening scenarios that would be reestablished at case trigger points. Perhaps you didn't understand the point of the model was to provide guidance on approach knowing that something like a 1 year shelter in place type policy wasn't feasible.

Both the US and UK implemented every one of their recommendations, and others. The UK applied the strictest adherence, but performed 5+ times worse than the model predicted.

---

Only social distancing and school closures are triggered, and even they are assumed to be in place 2/3 of the time. The other policies are in place continuously. Of course they knew it might not be feasible, but the point was also to determine which policies would be most effective if tried.

Canada2017 said:

---

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

---

Science denier!!!

Take PFE's horse pill rebranded as paxlovid.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

---

I'm simply convinced you haven't actually read the model because I do believe you can read. They said long term blanket isolation (stay at home) scenarios are unlikely, which is why they made the recommendations they did, and then modeled what would happen if none, some, or all of their recommendations were implemented, They even factored in loosening scenarios that would be reestablished at case trigger points. Perhaps you didn't understand the point of the model was to provide guidance on approach knowing that something like a 1 year shelter in place type policy wasn't feasible.

Both the US and UK implemented every one of their recommendations, and others. The UK applied the strictest adherence, but performed 5+ times worse than the model predicted.

---

Only social distancing and school closures are triggered, and even they are assumed to be in place 2/3 of the time. The other policies are in place continuously. Of course they knew it might not be feasible, but the point was also to determine which policies would be most effective if tried.

---

What. A. Nerd. .

Been wrong since the beginning. Still wrong

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

---

I'm simply convinced you haven't actually read the model because I do believe you can read. They said long term blanket isolation (stay at home) scenarios are unlikely, which is why they made the recommendations they did, and then modeled what would happen if none, some, or all of their recommendations were implemented, They even factored in loosening scenarios that would be reestablished at case trigger points. Perhaps you didn't understand the point of the model was to provide guidance on approach knowing that something like a 1 year shelter in place type policy wasn't feasible.

Both the US and UK implemented every one of their recommendations, and others. The UK applied the strictest adherence, but performed 5+ times worse than the model predicted.

---

Only social distancing and school closures are triggered, and even they are assumed to be in place 2/3 of the time. The other policies are in place continuously. Of course they knew it might not be feasible, but the point was also to determine which policies would be most effective if tried.

---

What. A. Nerd. .

Been wrong since the beginning. Still wrong

---

Okay, Potsie.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think your general dislike of lockdowns is exaggerating their strictness in your mind. Either that or you don't fully understand how strict the IC recommendations were. The optimal scenario was to maintain the most intensive measures continuously. I'm not necessarily saying that's what should have been done, but it's what they were contemplating. Neither the US nor the UK did that. The report stresses that any easing of restrictions would quickly result in a rebound of transmissions, and that is what happened repeatedly.

---

The model didn't recommend strict lockdowns, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. But yes, guilty as charged on not being a fan of lockdowns.

---

Referencing the kind of stay-at-home measures and social distancing that were recommended but not followed.

---

Even you can't say they were categorically not followed here in the states. But they were followed with government force behind it in Great Britain, which is what the model numbers are based upon. They already knew us pesky yanks wouldn't be as submissive and didn't model us, but they even built in a flub factor for the reality of social control difficulty even with Brits. So yeah, we got a very good picture of reality.

---

The strictest recommendations, i.e. the ones that were projected to yield optimal outcomes, were not followed. If you can't see that from reading the study then I don't know what to tell you. The challenge you're left with is this: when the study presents certain scenarios as unlikely, and these unlikely scenarios don't come to pass, you want us to believe the study is worthless. That's a tough sell.

---

I'm simply convinced you haven't actually read the model because I do believe you can read. They said long term blanket isolation (stay at home) scenarios are unlikely, which is why they made the recommendations they did, and then modeled what would happen if none, some, or all of their recommendations were implemented, They even factored in loosening scenarios that would be reestablished at case trigger points. Perhaps you didn't understand the point of the model was to provide guidance on approach knowing that something like a 1 year shelter in place type policy wasn't feasible.

Both the US and UK implemented every one of their recommendations, and others. The UK applied the strictest adherence, but performed 5+ times worse than the model predicted.

---

Only social distancing and school closures are triggered, and even they are assumed to be in place 2/3 of the time. The other policies are in place continuously. Of course they knew it might not be feasible, but the point was also to determine which policies would be most effective if tried.

---

People isolating when sick was pretty much standard for the first two years of the pandemic. Still practiced today, although the minor nature of COVID isn't recognized as often.

But while you're focused on a guesstimated delta between model adherence and actual, something that is a minor variance if you're honest, you completely ignore the other policies that were enforced in conjunction that weren't part of the recommendations, but should have added to better model performance, specifically things like masking and general stay at home orders. Again, every single recommendation was utilized, plus masking and stay at home orders for the general population.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Tested positive for Covid 19 yesterday.

Little doubt given to me by son # 2 who flew in from Dallas and was sick with what he thought was a sinus infection .

Fortunately I had previously stocked up on Ivermectin and we are both feeling much better today .

My son is a bit of a cynic but he was still amazed how quickly the Ivermectin worked on his symptoms.

---

Science denier!!!

Take PFE's horse pill rebranded as paxlovid.

---

Barbara Walters was vaccinated
Barbara Walters died.
Nuff sid

Another friend of mine just spent 9 days in the hospital with

Inflammation and fluid around the heart
Blood clots in lungs and legs

Triathlete. Never had this issue in life before.

Vaxed.

Congrats