The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-23-2020 03:45 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 02:37 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 12:03 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 11:00 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 03:21 PM)MickMack Wrote:  Agree on all of the bolded points. I think it's important to point out though that the researchers themselves noted the limitations in their data set and went out of their way to say that the study shouldn't be used to make a definitive judgment on public health initiatives (including shutdowns). Some, inlcuding the woman from the tweet linked above, will nonetheless do so.

To add to this (cause I finally got around to reading it) is that the study doesn't even make the same conclusions made by the tweet.

Two key points they highlighted in their discussion:

1.

Quote:"The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08
5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01
1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates"

2.

Quote:These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However, in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.

3.

Quote: In the case of full lockdowns, such a government policy may only be effective in those countries where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral transmission, and encouraging open revolt.

The rest of it is an analysis about various other associations between at-risk factors, mortality rate, transmission rate, etc. etc.

I didn't really clarify my takeaways from the article, but it had nothing to do with lockdowns, but these two areas:

Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08).

1) Obesity (In most cases, this is your own personal responsibility)
2) Median Age (It is what it is. This takes some social buy in for example social distancing especially when elders are present)
3) Border Closure from first reported case (Common sense)

Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06).

1) Obesity (Hmm seems to be a common theme)
2) GDP (I'd assume this more in line with low GDP countries have poor healthcare, but I also would assume this doesn't take into account other deaths directly related to killing an economy like we did.)

Obesity correlates with type II Diabetes, which correlates with underlying respiratory conditions (COPD and Pulmonary Fibrosis). So, if your lungs are already compromised, you are more likely to suffer an adverse impact.

Yup, seems to me like our biggest issue in fighting the virus is our own selves. While we have solid healthcare, we are pretty unhealthy country which we already knew about.