Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific American Unintentionally Argues Against Lockdowns
Rational Ground ^ | KARL DIERENBACH

Posted on 11/25/2020 12:26:21 PM PST by CheshireTheCat

....But control was all an illusion. Whether due to seasonality, climate, or luck, New Mexico had avoided the fate of its neighbors. Scientific American pointed out how New Mexico’s COVID testing positivity was at 2.3% while Arizona to the west was at 6.7% and Texas to the east was at 8%. Fast forward to November, and New Mexico was at 12.7%, higher than both Arizona and Texas.

As shown in the graph from New Mexico Department of Health, on the day the Scientific American article was published, New Mexico saw one of its best days for COVID hospitalizations. It was about to explode by 650%. Similarly, cases would go from 137 new cases on September 15 to 1,348 new cases on October 28....In the end, either the models are garbage or New Mexico made the “evidence-based” decision to allow cases and hospitalizations to explode. Needless to say, it’s the former, and none of the people interviewed for the Scientific American article talked about, knew of, or even considered the possibility of the impending explosion in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. So much for the models.

The models were helpful in one regard: According to Scientific American, they were used “to indicate that larger households, packed into smaller spaces, make it easier for the virus to spread.”....[I]f you’re an epidemiologist and you need to build a computer model to determine that people catch viruses from each other when they are packed into small rooms, you need a refund from your university.

The Scientific American article finished with an ode to science, declaring New Mexico’s decisions as “science-based” and describing how “it’s really exciting to have a governor who values science and evidence.”....

(Excerpt) Read more at rationalground.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS:
Follow the science or the science will follow you.
1 posted on 11/25/2020 12:26:21 PM PST by CheshireTheCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CheshireTheCat

“larger households, packed into smaller spaces, make it easier for the virus to spread.”

It took me less than 10 seconds of thought, hearing rumors of lockdowns back in March, to have that profound “insight”. What geniuses these guys are, to come to the same conclusion only 8 months later.


2 posted on 11/25/2020 12:33:16 PM PST by rightwingcrazy (;-,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheshireTheCat

Scientifically speaking, if we “eliminated” all the fat, elderly, and other undesirables, fewer humans would die of covid.


3 posted on 11/25/2020 12:44:55 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheshireTheCat
Did the lockdown work?

"yes"

Then why are we doing another one?

Did the lockdown work?

"no"

Then why are we doing another one?

4 posted on 11/25/2020 12:44:58 PM PST by KC_Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

Don’t be using common sense, it’s illegal in government policy.


5 posted on 11/25/2020 2:41:54 PM PST by allwrong57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson