User talk:70.171.14.30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rant

I most certainly did NOT ,make "unconstructive" or "disruptive" edits to the DeSantis page. Wikipedia has allowed a partisan who knows nothing about pandemic management to present biased anti-science on this page.


I am attempting to get peer reviewed facts and data concerning the Florida coronavirus management policy on to the Desantis web page, faced with an unethical editor who thinks that wikipedia should be used as a political weapon.

Here is what I am trying to post, with the unethical editor deleting it.

As the pandemic unfolded, public health scientists engaged in a vibrant discussion about the value of various public health measures to manage the pandemic.[1] That discussion was complicated by several novel features of CoVID-19 that had not been seen previously in coronaviruses, especially its ability to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all, and the ability of individuals with few or no symptoms to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who appeared to be at exceptional risk. [2] In these properties, CoVID-19 differed dramatically from other coronaviruses, notable SARS 2003 and MERS [3]

This discussion included the effectiveness of lockdowns in improving public health outcomes, Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, felt that large scale lockdowns were appropriate public health measures.[4] Other jurisdictions disagreed, most notably Sweden. In Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open.[5]

Acting on that science, Governor DeSantis chose for Florida a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. DeSantis further examined emerging science and data showing that lockdowns created other problems in public health, including mental health.[6] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost, which was also translated into medical problems.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). The total number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). These data establish that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. If the data are adjusted for population age, Florida's outcome is especially significant, as Florida ranks second in the US in its proportion of elderly.

Further, Florida has performed economically better than the lockdown jurisdictions. For example, as of March 2021, Florida's unemployment rate is 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate.[7]

For the first time, a public health crisis became a focus of politics. For example,



March 2021[edit]

Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck My edits to the DeSantis page concerning the pandemic were factual, fully supported by references, and not in the slightest disruptive. I am a 30 year professional expert in public health, especially in infectious diseases, who values science over politics. The misinformation that you and other political partisans have placed on this page damages the ability of public health professionals to manage pandemics. DeSantis, like all governors, made decisions in good faith with imperfect information, like Cuomo, Whitmer, Newsome, and others. He, like the other governors, relied on data and science as it emerged, as he could best digest ti. It is libelous to claim that he did otherwise. In particular, it is libelous for you to suggest that he acted because of his relation with Trump, or because he was told to do things by his wife, or that he wanted press releases with sports casters.

Never in my 30 years of work in public health have I seen such a damnable politicization of a common threat. The Sun Sentinel and the WaPo have been especially reprehensible. People die because of this nonsense, and YOU need to STOP DEFENDING IT.

Here are the facts As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide engaged in a discussion about the value of different public health measures to manage the pandemic.[8] This discussion was complicated by several novel features of CoVID-19 that had not been seen previously in coronaviruses. These included the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. [9] In these properties, CoVID-19 differed dramatically from other coronaviruses, notable SARS 2003 and MERS [10]

This discussion included the effectiveness of lockdowns in improving public health outcomes. Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, felt that large scale lockdowns were appropriate public health measures.[11] Other jurisdictions disagreed, most notably Sweden. In Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open.[12]

Acting on that science, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose for Florida a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. As the pandemic progressed, DeSantis continued to adjust his policy as science and data showed that lockdowns created other problems in public health, including mental health.[13] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost, which could also create other medical problems.[14]

A year into the pandemic, the Florida strategy had proven successful by many metrics, especially in comparison with states that chose severe lockdowns. Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as some had predicted. Instead, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida was 8734, compared to California (8805) and New York (8337).[15] The total number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). If the data are adjusted for population age, Florida's outcome is especially significant, as Florida ranks second in the US in its proportion of elderly.

These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, it was clear that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. While they did create collateral medical and economic damage. Thus, by the end of the year, Florida has performed economically better than the lockdown jurisdictions. For example, as of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate.[16]

For the first time, a public health crisis became a focus of politics, with media outlets that were hostile to DeSantis raising unsupported allegations about his motivations. Some even falsely claimed that DeStantis was relying on sportscasters and family members for pandemic management advice, to the exclusion of science and data. For example,

References

  1. ^ Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A., Persad, E., Klerings, I., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2020). Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID‐19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).
  2. ^ Sayampanathan, A. A., Heng, C. S., Pin, P. H., Pang, J., Leong, T. Y., & Lee, V. J. (2021). Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19. The Lancet, 397(10269), 93-94.
  3. ^ Park, Ji-Eun, Soyoung Jung, and Aeran Kim. "MERS transmission and risk factors: a systematic review." BMC Public Health 18.1 (2018): 574.
  4. ^ Koh, D. (2020). COVID-19 lockdowns throughout the world. Occupational Medicine, 70(5), 322-322.
  5. ^ Born, B., Dietrich, A., & Müller, G. J. (2020). Do lockdowns work? A counterfactual for Sweden. Kamerlin, S. C., & Kasson, P. M. (2020). Managing COVID-19 spread with voluntary public-health measures: Sweden as a case study for pandemic control. Clinical Infectious Diseases.
  6. ^ Killgore, W. D., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., Lucas, D. A., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Loneliness during the first half-year of COVID-19 Lockdowns. Psychiatry Research, 294, 113551.
  7. ^ http://lmsresources.labormarketinfo.com/charts/unemployment_rate.html
  8. ^ Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A., Persad, E., Klerings, I., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2020). Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID‐19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).
  9. ^ Sayampanathan, A. A., Heng, C. S., Pin, P. H., Pang, J., Leong, T. Y., & Lee, V. J. (2021). Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19. The Lancet, 397(10269), 93-94.
  10. ^ Park, Ji-Eun, Soyoung Jung, and Aeran Kim. "MERS transmission and risk factors: a systematic review." BMC Public Health 18.1 (2018): 574.
  11. ^ Koh, D. (2020). COVID-19 lockdowns throughout the world. Occupational Medicine, 70(5), 322-322.
  12. ^ Born, B., Dietrich, A., & Müller, G. J. (2020). Do lockdowns work? A counterfactual for Sweden. Kamerlin, S. C., & Kasson, P. M. (2020). Managing COVID-19 spread with voluntary public-health measures: Sweden as a case study for pandemic control. Clinical Infectious Diseases.
  13. ^ Killgore, W. D., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., Lucas, D. A., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Loneliness during the first half-year of COVID-19 Lockdowns. Psychiatry Research, 294, 113551.
  14. ^ Mandel, A., & Veetil, V. (2020). The economic cost of COVID lockdowns: An out-of-equilibrium analysis. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4(3), 431-451. Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2020). The cost of the Covid-19 crisis: Lockdowns, macroeconomic expectations, and consumer spending (No. w27141). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  15. ^ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
  16. ^ http://lmsresources.labormarketinfo.com/charts/unemployment_rate.html

March 2021, continued[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ron DeSantis. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.  A S U K I T E  15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ron DeSantis, you may be blocked from editing. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ron DeSantis. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ron DeSantis, you may be blocked from editing. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ron DeSantis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

Do you have an affiliation with Ron DeSantis or the DeSantis administration? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Before editing again, would you please read our policies on original research, particularly the part on synthesis of published material, since it appears that is what you are doing -- and pretty aggressively. Wikipedia is necessarily a collaborative editing environment, and when other editors disagree with you, you need to work out any difficulties on the talk pages rather than edit warring and insulting them (e.g. calling other editors "vandals" or "unethical"). Finally -- are you the same editor as 64.238.189.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? If so you are evading a block. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


{unblock|reason=What is this about?}


unblock|reason=What is this about?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.171.14.30&oldid=1024309697"