Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Of course, of course...

No doubt you will be able to post evidential links (you love an evidential link! ) to all those times you have argued against Lockdown...

If I saw people arguing for it based on guess numbers that came to conclusions that clearly were NOT compatible with the simple hard known fact numbers that we do have, to fundamental degrees, then you might have seen such. However given that 99% of such situations come from those, like you, who chose their side before there were any simple hard numbers to base a choice on at all, then inevitably as someone who has repeatedly explicitly stated 'I do not know' , 99% of my responses are to those who claim they KNOW lock down was is and always will be net negative. Thos the claim to KNOW it is net positive do not have the problem that their 'evidence' is totally and fundamental incompatible with know simple hard fact numbers. YOU have the problem, hence why you prefer personal ridicule because explaining the 'discrepancy' is too hard / impossible.

[cyprusgrump]

Of course, of course...

No doubt you will be able to post evidential links (you love an evidential link! ) to all those times you have argued against Lockdown...

If I saw people arguing for it based on guess numbers that came to conclusions that clearly were NOT compatible with the simple hard known fact numbers that we do have, to fundamental degrees, then you might have seen such. However given that 99% of such situations come from those, like you, who chose their side before there were any simple hard numbers to base a choice on at all, then inevitably as someone who has repeatedly explicitly stated 'I do not know' , 99% of my responses are to those who claim they KNOW lock down was is and always will be net negative. Thos the claim to KNOW it is net positive do not have the problem that their 'evidence' is totally and fundamental incompatible with know simple hard fact numbers. YOU have the problem, hence why you prefer personal ridicule because explaining the 'discrepancy' is too hard / impossible.

I'll take that as a 'No, I can't'...

[Tim Drayton]

Excellent discussion with Lionel Shriver about the Lockdown...

‘This is international hysteria’

Thanks for posting. That was a wonderful interview.

[erolz66]

Of course, of course...

No doubt you will be able to post evidential links (you love an evidential link! ) to all those times you have argued against Lockdown...

If I saw people arguing for it based on guess numbers that came to conclusions that clearly were NOT compatible with the simple hard known fact numbers that we do have, to fundamental degrees, then you might have seen such. However given that 99% of such situations come from those, like you, who chose their side before there were any simple hard numbers to base a choice on at all, then inevitably as someone who has repeatedly explicitly stated 'I do not know' , 99% of my responses are to those who claim they KNOW lock down was is and always will be net negative. Thos the claim to KNOW it is net positive do not have the problem that their 'evidence' is totally and fundamental incompatible with know simple hard fact numbers. YOU have the problem, hence why you prefer personal ridicule because explaining the 'discrepancy' is too hard / impossible.

I'll take that as a 'No, I can't'...

It is a no I can not show you times I have had to argue against those who claim to KNOW that lock down was is and will be net positive who's evidence is in fundamental contradiction to the simple hard known numbers, because such claims have not been made by those claiming to know its net positive. This is not rocket science CG and the paucity of your 'argument' is plain for all to see and judge for themselves. As is your hypocrisy.

The problem is ErLolz, you ignore any KNOWN FACTS that don't suit your opinion

Show ONE example where I have done that vs simply highlighting distinction between know fact and guess and I will not post in this forum for a month. Just ONE.

I did not have to 'take that' as you being unable to back up your false claim at all. I KNEW from the moment you made it is was false.

[erolz66]

Excellent discussion with Lionel Shriver about the Lockdown...

‘This is international hysteria’

Thanks for posting. That was a wonderful interview.

Still not found 5 minutes to say something, anything, about weekly RTA deaths in UK vs covid-19 death guesses or vs know excess deaths in week, then ? Still busy 'happy clapping' those on your side ? Or am I being unfair Tim ? How long will you ignore this point entirely, that is merely a reaction to YOUR earlier claim ?

I will help you out, just do a quick, "ok in the UK it does not appear that RTA deaths are on anything like the same scale as covid-19 deaths, not even remotely close, but this was a one off 'slip' and nothing else I have said or claimed should be judged in light of this single slip".

Or keep ignoring it entirely and Ill just keep asking again and again as you plough on again and again posting partisan source after partisan source and happy clapping CG and Paphitis.

[Tim Drayton]

As far as 'number discrepancies go' , looking at the 'more RTA deaths than covid-19 deaths' in a bit more detail.

Again using UK stats and using as much as possible non covid-19 based stats because the UK is good at this kind of counting and anything covid-19 specific is arguable.

DoT latest estimate figures for road deaths - year ending june 2018

In the year ending June 2018, there were 1,770 reported road fatalities in Great Britain. Meaning a weekly average of 34 road fatalities a week.

In week 17 ONS stats for total deaths from all causes the weekly number is 21,997 in one week. A increase on 5 year average of 11,539.

So when I look at the NUMBERS. The hard fact numbers and compare them with claims from those who made up their mind long ago like

This pales into insignificance compared to the 1.35 m who lose their lives in road accidents globally every year.

I conclude that something does not add up in a massive and major way. On one hand - hard cold fact numbers. On the claims made by clearly partisan parties with no interest other than trying to show thier chosen side is right by 'volume' of partisan sources they can find.

So Tim got anything to say on this ? Can you find even 5 minutes to consider this in your obviously busy and hectic schedule searching out yet more partisan source after yet more partisan source and happy clapping posting to those on your chosen side ? 5 minutes to stop and actually THINK about the claims you are making and do some even cursory checking ?

Did you claim that globally the Hopkins reported deaths from Covid-19, which are NOT for a year btw but only for 3 months, 'pales insignificance compared to the 1.35 m who lose their lives in road accidents globally every year'. You did say that did you not ?

Do you think the ONS numbers for total deaths from all causes are wrong ? That there was not an increase of 11,539 deaths in that week vs 5 year average ? Do you think the DoT figures from road accident deaths are wrong ? That the weekly average in the last year we have such figures for was NOT 34 ? We are not just talking 'discrepancy' here - we are talking multiple orders of magnitude discrepancy. So what say you ? Can we agree that for the UK the idea that covid deaths so far have been less than deaths from road traffic accidents, is not just wrong , not just bollocks but bollocks of an extra ordinary and massive and exceptional degree ? Or do you think that of the 11,539 excess deaths in England and Wales 11,505 have been from 'lock down' and only 34 or less have been from covid-19 itself , which would have to be the case for your 'RTA more deadly' narrative to be true in the UK, when looking at actual hard known fact numbers ?

Well, the Hopkins (inflated) number of deaths is global, so we surely need to compare it with the number of road deaths globally so far this year, and I can't find that figure. I suspect, given the annual average is 1,350,000 that the figure for this year so far will be greater than the number of deaths attributed to Covid, so my basic question really stands. Why, oh why, is there non-stop, wall-to-wall coverage of Covid with all manner of sensational claims on the media to the extent that no other issue at all now gets any coverage, but there is a dearth of endless lurid reports of the number of deaths on the roads, using cherry-picked data and incidents to make it all look as horrific as possible? Why are Covid deaths infinitely more newsworthy than road deaths, even though there are more of the latter? Also, why, oh why, if the world must shut down due to Covid, should not the roads of the world be shut down and driving be banned as this claims more lives?

[erolz66]

Excellent discussion with Lionel Shriver about the Lockdown...

‘This is international hysteria’

Thanks for posting. That was a wonderful interview.

I have not read your link. I do not need an expert to know there is 'hysteria' out there. Nor do I need to know that it exists in support of extreme position at BOTH ends of all scales. Nor do I need one to know that people who claim 'hysteria' in others and in one direction ONLY can and do themselves personally create 'hysteria' in the other direction when they have chosen their side. Hysteria like 'RTAs cause more deaths than coivid-19'. If the problem is 'hysteria' then the solution is to not participate in promoting and propagating hysteria YOURSELF. That might actually make a difference. Or just accuse everyone else of hysteria when its against your chosen side, and not just ignore when its for your chosen side but actively indulge in such. That is unlikely to do much in solving the 'hysteria' problem imo.

[erolz66]

Well, the Hopkins (inflated) number of deaths is global, so we surely need to compare it with the number of road deaths globally so far this year, and I can't find that figure. I suspect, given the annual average is 1,350,000 that the figure for this year so far will be greater than the number of deaths attributed to Covid, so my basic question really stands. Why, oh why, is there non-stop, wall-to-wall coverage of Covid with all manner of sensational claims on the media to the extent that no other issue at all now gets any coverage, but there is a dearth of endless lurid reports of the number of deaths on the roads, using cherry-picked data and incidents to make it all look as horrific as possible? Why are Covid deaths infinitely more newsworthy than road deaths, even though there are more of the latter? Also, why, oh why, if the world must shut down due to Covid, should not the roads of the world be shut down and driving be banned as this claims more lives?

Is that it Tim? Is that what you have got on this specific issue ?

You believe that globaly RTA deaths will exceed in a year covid-19 deaths BECAUSE you do not have numbers for road deaths globally so far this year. No mention of source for you 1.35 million figure. No need to look at that at all*. And no need to look at the specific example of the UK where we DO have good hard solid know numbers. Is that it ? Is that fair ?

Why in the UK are RTA deaths not getting the same coverage as excess deaths that have occurred since the corona virus crisis started ? Maybe because RTA deaths account for around 34 per week and excess deaths since the pandemic started are currently around 11,000 per week ?

Even then you analysis is all out of wack. Before I looked I guessed that weekly deaths from RTAs was much higher than they actually are. I asked 4 other people for their guess without checking and they ALL over esitmated the number from a lot through to 2 orders of magnitude higher and more. I suspect that nearly every non expert that has not had cause to bother seeking out actual numbers overestimates such deaths to a large degree, yourself included. I put it to you that a main reason why such over estimation is so widespread is BECAUSE the media HAS historically and systematically sensationalised RTA deaths in exactly the way you now claim they have not and are not doing. Yet again something does not add up.

So I will ask you once more simply and plainly - do you believe that covid-19 has caused less weekly deaths in the UK to date than RTAs in the UK ?

* So I found your 'source' for 1.35 million Global deaths from RTA.s. It is from 'the association for safe international road travel' - so clear not an organisation with any incentive to look for 'high' figures then ! Not much obvious about how they came up with this figure. Your 'discrepancy' detector seems way off to me. A bit more digging and guess who is the source of that global RTA figure ? (pun intended). Yes its those criminals in that are in the pay and pocket of either the Chinese or bill gates or both, the WHO ! And to back off a bit the numbers DO vary massively from country to country. massively. Which is just another way in which your convenient 'back of the envelope' calculation to come up with 'rtas cause more deaths than covid-19 has so far' is seriously flawed. The greatest majorities of deaths in the Hopkins 280k figure are overwhelmingly from countries lower down the scale of rta deaths per 100k of pop. There is next to no validity therefore in using 'global' numbers in this way. This is a case where country by country makes much more sense. Though doing so may not create the right 'hysteria' for your needs as can clearly been seen in the example of the UK.

[Tim Drayton]

So I will ask you once more simply and plainly - do you believe that covid-19 has caused less weekly deaths in the UK to date than RTAs in the UK ?

No.

[erolz66]

So I will ask you once more simply and plainly - do you believe that covid-19 has caused less weekly deaths in the UK to date than RTAs in the UK ?

No.

Thank you.

But you do believe that globally there have been more weekly RTA deaths in last few weeks than covid-19 ones ? Or have I misunderstood you ?

sorry I am editing this second question - the above one is the wrong question.

But you do believe that globally over the course of a year from when pandemic started there will be more deaths from RTA's than covid-19 ?