Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Fools who thought it was fake…

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/04/man- ... down-order
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/florida-m ... -infected/

[erolz66]

Week 19 ONS figures came in today. Only 3k deaths all causes over the 5 year average. This seems like a good result to me and I think it shows some support that some of those that died in 14-18 effectively died a few weeks to a month earlier because of covid-19 infection. I would guesstimate around 1-2 k deaths that did not happen in week 19 are because those people died already in weeks 14-18. Still early days but I will continue to start with the simple hard numbers and work out from there to form my opinions.

Yes, that would make sense, and/or perhaps the lockdown also had an effect in reducing the number of positive cases and death rate too?

My take on it and it is just a guess is that the number of excess deaths in week 19 is lower than would be expected (by around 1-2k) when compared to the reductions in new positives in that period, suggesting that some of the 'reduction' is people who 'died early' in the previous 5 weeks. The raw numbers are just facts. The rest is my interpretation. New infections are reducing in the UK and that will be related to lock down to some degree or other , just seems to me the total deaths in week 19 dropped by more than just this reduction in new cases. Hence my 'theory'. If the majority of deaths seen so far are 'early deaths' then as new infections comes down to near zero levels we should see weekly deaths all causes figures drop below the 5 year average. If they remain at 5 year averages then we will have some indication of how many of the previous excess deaths were 'early deaths'.

[cyprusgrump]

The only rational justification for the lockdown was to "flatten the curve", i.e. stop the health services from being overwhelmed by a surge of cases by slowing the rate of spread, but now that the health services everywhere are if anything underwhelmed, it's time to give ourselves a pat on the back for doing so well and go back to normal.

Sorry but this is patent nonsense.

SK did lock down in one region. The region that got out of control because of the church super spreader event. They suspended track and trace and locked down that region and that region only. Not because health systems were being overloaded. They locked down in order to get back control in an area that had got out of control. It worked. They got back control in that region, ended lock down and returned to their test,track and trace program that so far has kept deaths there nationally at under 300 and total positives under 11,100. Vs the UK's figures of 34,900 dead and 247,709 infected. This is all know fact against which we can measure you opinion / claim that "The only rational justification for the lock down to stop the health services from being overwhelmed by a surge of cases." Well forgive me if I think it might be considered rational to use lock down as a means to get to a position where by spread can be controlled by test, track and trace. Because we know this can be done and we know what the outcomes are if you can test track and trace as well as SK has done - they are about 100 times better outcomes.

No ErLolz, you are the one talking nonsense...

Flattening the curve, squashing the sombrero, protecting the NHS was the stated aim of Lockdown by the UK government and others followed.

That SK did something different doesn't change that basic fact...

And therefore, as Tim and I have stated there is no further justification for Lockdown...

[erolz66]

The only rational justification for the lockdown was to "flatten the curve", i.e. stop the health services from being overwhelmed by a surge of cases by slowing the rate of spread, but now that the health services everywhere are if anything underwhelmed, it's time to give ourselves a pat on the back for doing so well and go back to normal.

Sorry but this is patent nonsense.

SK did lock down in one region. The region that got out of control because of the church super spreader event. They suspended track and trace and locked down that region and that region only. Not because health systems were being overloaded. They locked down in order to get back control in an area that had got out of control. It worked. They got back control in that region, ended lock down and returned to their test,track and trace program that so far has kept deaths there nationally at under 300 and total positives under 11,100. Vs the UK's figures of 34,900 dead and 247,709 infected. This is all know fact against which we can measure you opinion / claim that "The only rational justification for the lock down to stop the health services from being overwhelmed by a surge of cases." Well forgive me if I think it might be considered rational to use lock down as a means to get to a position where by spread can be controlled by test, track and trace. Because we know this can be done and we know what the outcomes are if you can test track and trace as well as SK has done - they are about 100 times better outcomes.

No ErLolz, you are the one talking nonsense...

Flattening the curve, squashing the sombrero, protecting the NHS was the stated aim of Lockdown by the UK government and others followed.

That SK did something different doesn't change that basic fact...

And therefore, as Tim and I have stated there is no further justification for Lockdown...

What the UK's stated aims were is not the same as "The only rational justification for the lockdown"

[Paphitis]

Governments will go back to normal, regardless.
They are willing to sacrifice the less than 1% vulnerable to Covid.
When cancer, heart disease and other diseases kill more people annually, with ZERO measures.
It's a risk they ARE going to take given the barrage of statistical knowledge they have now at their disposal.

There's NO GOING BACK TO LOCKDOWN.
The stats simply don't support it.
You can quote me on it.

As long as social distancing remains in place which by all accounts the whole world is practicing it, that by itself will counter anything as getting back to normal life, which by default, it is another form of lockdown.

I don’t think anyone is practicing social distancing in Australia.

The back yard barbies are back too.

These days, it’s now taboo not to shake someone’s hand.

[Tim Drayton]

Fools who thought it was fake…

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/04/man- ... down-order
https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/florida-m ... -infected/

What is the logic here? For example, John says the probability of being killed by lightning is 1/10,000,000 per year, so it would be silly to spend your life cowering in fear at the prospect of so dying. Next day John is struck dead by lightning. So that proves him wrong? No, it doesn't. The statistics remain the same, and are objectively quantifiable. The same applies to Covid. Scientific research shows that this so-called horrific virus has an infection mortality rate of around 0.37% which makes it less deadly than the flu. This does not mean that nobody is dying of it, although the figures are being inflated by recording every death where the virus is found to be present as a Covid death regardless of whether the virus was the cause, and of course some people who can see through the alarmist, exaggerated dominant narrative virtually the entire media is pumping out 24/7 about the virus and perhaps even call it out for being the nonsense it is will number among those that die. And of course the media will be hunting these cases down so they can run headllines of the "fools who thought it was fake" kind (although neither person in those articles thought it was fake, just that the media coverage and response to the epidemic is ridiculous).

[erolz66]

We do not know what the infection mortality rate is for covid-19. We can not know this yet. Every number given for this from the range experts offer is a guess. We do know as fact how many more people have died from all cause since the virus outbreak. You want to start with the guess numbers , taking just a subset of estimates from only those experts that confirm the positron you started with, ignore those experts that come up with a number that does not confirm the position you started with and either ignore the fact numbers we do already have or cast shade at them as if they are somehow not just facts.

[Tim Drayton]

We do not know what the infection mortality rate is for covid-19. We can not know this yet. Every number given for this from the range experts offer is a guess. We do know as fact how many more people have died from all cause since the virus outbreak. You want to start with the guess numbers , taking just a subset of estimates from only those experts that confirm the positron you started with, ignore those experts that come up with a number that does not confirm the position you started with and either ignore the fact numbers we do already have or cast shade at them as if they are somehow not just facts.

No, this is the figure that has so far consistently emerged from the first large-scale studies to be conducted by qualified epidemiologists using random samples taken from a reasonable proportion of the population.

[erolz66]

We do not know what the infection mortality rate is for covid-19. We can not know this yet. Every number given for this from the range experts offer is a guess. We do know as fact how many more people have died from all cause since the virus outbreak. You want to start with the guess numbers , taking just a subset of estimates from only those experts that confirm the positron you started with, ignore those experts that come up with a number that does not confirm the position you started with and either ignore the fact numbers we do already have or cast shade at them as if they are somehow not just facts.

No, this is the figure that has so far consistently emerged from the first large-scale studies to be conducted by qualified epidemiologists using random samples taken from a reasonable proportion of the population.

It is a guess number. It can not reasonably or logically be compared with or given greater weight than numbers that are just plain know facts , like how many people have died from any cause in a given time period. That you do give your preferred chosen guess number more weight than fact numbers just shows how limited your ability is to seek reality. I will not play 'my expert is better than yours' which is all you have done for the last 6 weeks. There are countless experts of great standing and experience who have derived significantly different values to their guess for this number. The idea that there is yet any sort of majority consensus over your preferred guess number is just total fantasy. No such consensus exists. What does exist is your desire to place more weight to any guess that fits your pre chosen position and ignore those that do not, along with the numbers that are not guesses at all but just records of historical fact. Now it may turn out that this guess is close to the reality but it remains just a guess at this point in time. What is not a guess at this point in time is how many more people are dying in a given week , up to 8th March in England and Wales since this outbreak started over what would normally be expected for those weeks.

[Tim Drayton]

No, if you a take a reasonably representative sample from a given population, determine how many people in that sample have developed anitibodies against the virus and have thus contracted the virus, put this number in the denominator, then put the number of people from the same population who died of the virus into the numerator, you can determine the infection mortality rate for that population. This is science, not guessing.