Mainstream Media and Official Bullsh*t - Covid-19

[papasmurf]

An argument would be to explain your conclusions and how you reached them, referring to the article.  Do you honestly expect me to read a long article, without knowing what YOUR point is?

The article is self emplanatory. I do expect you to read it all as it is a lesson from history no-one can ignore and especially not the government.

[Scott777]

I just referenced it. The man is a fool.

An argument would be to explain your conclusions and how you reached them, referring to the article.  Do you honestly expect me to read a long article, without knowing what YOUR point is?

[papasmurf]

And neither do you.

I just referenced it. The man is a fool.

[Scott777]

He doesn't have an argument.

And neither do you.

[papasmurf]

A brilliant example of an argument.  Not attacking the person at all, just attacking his argument.   :clp

He doesn't have an argument.

I suggest you read this, bearing in mind there is no innoculation against Covid 19 yet.

Do you really wand death on this scale in Britain?



https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/influenza-spanish-flu-pandemic-1918-19/">https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/ar ... c-1918-19/">https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/influenza-spanish-flu-pandemic-1918-19/

[Scott777]

Peter Hitchens is a fool.

A brilliant example of an argument.  Not attacking the person at all, just attacking his argument.   :clp

[papasmurf]

Equally, as Peter Hitchens says, there's no evidence to support that the lockdown will save a single life.

Peter Hitchens is a fool.

[Scott777]

I suspect that what they want to imply is that the full lockdown wasn't needed because it would have already peaked and started to go down even with the hand washing and lesser measures.  There is no evidence at all to support this.

Equally, as Peter Hitchens says, there's no evidence to support that the lockdown will save a single life.

[Javert]

I suspect that what they want to imply is that the full lockdown wasn't needed because it would have already peaked and started to go down even with the hand washing and lesser measures.  There is no evidence at all to support this.



If the death rates continues to go down today and tomorrow, it may end up being some evidence that closing schools, and thereby effectively forcing lots more parents also to work from / stay at home was already having quite a big effect.  Otherwise, I would have expected the death rate to continue going up a lot even until the end of this week



I would also hypothesise that it's not the actual school closure that's the main factor, but rather that closing the schools forces parents to stay at home too.



However, we don't have any proof of that at all and probably won't for a while - it could easily also be that hospital doctors have got better at saving more lives from the people who get very seriously ill, or other factors.  



We have to be careful about confirmation bias and people seeing everything as evidence in favour of what they are hoping will happen.

[Scott777]

This expert says Coronavirus probably peaked before lockdown, suggesting that lockdown was not necessary and we should have taken the less drastic Swedish approach.

Yes, I'm sure it did peak very early, and simple logic suggests that: if a virus is highly contagious, and often without symptoms, and also with symptoms similar to cold and flu, it's exactly what I would expect.

This misses the point. Yes, coronavirus infections probably did peak before lockdown. But lockdown would be the reason for that peak because without it new infections have gone up and up, and still be going up today.

This is back to front.  If it peaked before lockdown, how could the lockdown cause the peak?

[Javert]

Here's another example of boolsheet.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssary.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html



This expert says Coronavirus probably peaked before lockdown, suggesting that lockdown was not necessary and we should have taken the less drastic Swedish approach.



This misses the point. Yes, coronavirus infections probably did peak before lockdown. But lockdown would be the reason for that peak because without it new infections have gone up and up, and still be going up today. We would probably not have reached a peak in infections yet.  As things are, we seem to be at a peak in confirmed cases, but that lags at least  couple of weeks behind new infections statistics, which don't actually exist because nobody is monitoring them.



As for the Swedish example, Sweden now has almost as many cases per million of population as we do.

er..... isn't that like saying that on my evening out, my alcohol consumption peaked just before I went home and went to bed.  Obviously the infections will have peaked when you start the lockdown.



However if the lockdown had not been done, they would have continued to rise and the peak would have been higher.

[Barry]

While it's still early days on the data, the early signs aren't positives for Sweden's approach when compared to other Scandinavian states.

https://i.ibb.co/DY8pk4H/86-EDD373-F8-AB-4-FB8-B7-EC-E9-D9-DBD7-D36-E.jpg">

Sweden 156

Denmark 63

Poland 10

Finland 18

Norway 32

These are deaths per million population.

It appears that we are all likely to end up with 400 to 500 dead per million population.

In Madrid it is 1000 per million.

It's how quickly we get to the 400-500 and balancing the economic damage.

[papasmurf]

While it's still early days on the data, the early signs aren't positives for Sweden's approach when  compared to other Scandinavian states.



https://i.ibb.co/DY8pk4H/86-EDD373-F8-AB-4-FB8-B7-EC-E9-D9-DBD7-D36-E.jpg">

Image no showing, This one is OK https://i.ibb.co/DY8pk4H/86-EDD373-F8-AB-4-FB8-B7-EC-E9-D9-DBD7-D36-E.jpg">



Nalaar, sorry I deleted your post trying to correct your image, Forum Admin.  ]

[Barry]

As for the Swedish example, Sweden now has almost as many cases per million of population as we do.

As you say the infection rate was higher earlier, but the death rate peaks after that, probably by 3 weeks or more.

As for Sweden, only time will tell if they have done the right thing. Even if they have, the disease may be controllable in the more scarcely populated Sweden, but perhaps not so in our more densely populated areas.



i hope there will be a public enquiry into this epidemic, so that we might respond better in the case of a similar event in the future. The role of the news media could be up for examination as part of the investigation. It will take years.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Here's another example of boolsheet.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssary.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html



This expert says Coronavirus probably peaked before lockdown, suggesting that lockdown was not necessary and we should have taken the less drastic Swedish approach.



This misses the point. Yes, coronavirus infections probably did peak before lockdown. But lockdown would be the reason for that peak because without it new infections have gone up and up, and still be going up today. We would probably not have reached a peak in infections yet.  As things are, we seem to be at a peak in confirmed cases, but that lags at least  couple of weeks behind new infections statistics, which don't actually exist because nobody is monitoring them.



As for the Swedish example, Sweden now has almost as many cases per million of population as we do.