Covid Death Stats: Looking Like Us Doubters May Be Right

[denso13]

The numbers are not accurate and have been exaggerated for effect to frighten the people

Why?

I know they are learning all the time but that then does mean that previously they were wrong.

Well yes, wrong or mistaken, call it what you like. That is a long way from misleading people which is the common implication.

But the point is the UK is one of the worst and you think the measures taken have worked.

I think they have demonstrably worked. Cases rise, lockdown happens, cases go back down. You seem to think that is just coincidence.

Well, there have been no cases. Which word would you choose?

Certainly not "disappeared" which implies to me ceasing to exist or becoming extinct. Surely you don't believe that?

 

[Notch7]

Ah, sorry, I made a mistake working it out.

View attachment 232075

Ad hominem.

You don't want a serious debate about non pharmaceutical interventions, you just want to make simplistic slogans.
Your argument that "lockdowns don't work" is on a par with "get Brexit done"

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why?

Because at the 'beginning' not enough were 'obeying' the instructions.

Well yes, wrong or mistaken, call it what you like. That is a long way from misleading people which is the common implication.

Fair enough. Same result though.

I think they have demonstrably worked. Cases rise, lockdown happens, cases go back down. You seem to think that is just coincidence.

As I said, it can't be proved either way. The tiers didn't work, did they?

Certainly not "disappeared" which implies to me ceasing to exist or becoming extinct. Surely you don't believe that?

Disappeared or 'not appeared' this year, then, if you prefer.

 

[Notch7]

E.g. two metre rule, droplets fall to ground; then leave windows open so the virus blows away

Strawman

Instructions to the public have to be simple.

You can't have 1.35m outside, 2 metres inside.

 

[Notch7]

en exaggerated for effect to frighten the people - SAGE instructions.

That's a Daily Mail interpretation.

Surely you must understand that people don't listen to advice, so govt has exaggerated to try and ensure people comply with the rules.

Do you not remember the crowded beaches last year?

 

[EddieM]

Oh god, are we back to ad hominem & strawman... sigh!!

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ad hominem.

You don't want a serious debate about non pharmaceutical interventions, you just want to make simplistic slogans.
Your argument that "lockdowns don't work" is on a par with "get Brexit done"

Well, I can't dispute the formulae, can I?

I just don't think the lockdowns have been lockdowns, and my point remains that without them, do you think the cases and deaths would have been 4 or 5 times more?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Strawman

Instructions to the public have to be simple.
You can't have 1.35m outside, 2 metres inside.

So, it was wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's a Daily Mail interpretation.
Surely you must understand that people don't listen to advice, so govt has exaggerated to try and ensure people comply with the rules.

That's what I said.

Do you not remember the crowded beaches last year?

Yes. There was no increase in infections.

 

[denso13]

As I said, it can't be proved either way.

Of course it can. Did you read the paper @Notch7 posted?

 

[Notch7]

As I said, it can't be proved either way. The tiers didn't work, did they?

You mean there is not absolute proof.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3025-y

You are trying to use the argument there is no absolute proof because of a lack of large scale studies complete with control groups.....but in a live pandemic, you are never going to get that

However the bulk of scientists agree with the available data...i.e. That NPIs do work.

 

[Notch7]

Yes. There was no increase in infections

FA to do with the point I was making.

 

[Notch7]

That's what I said

Untrue.

I have added context.

 

[denso13]

Well, I can't dispute the formulae, can I?

Why not, you are disputing other things in the paper.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, they are rather complicated.


But they worked it out using their formulae didn't they?

Have other methods of calculating or projecting numbers been wrong? Ferguson, Whitty?


Of course, you both seem to be forgetting that the reason for (the first) lockdown was to 'flatten the curve', i.e. to delay, not eradicate or prevent, the total number of cases so that the NHS could cope.