1 in 4

  • Thread starter Deleted member 221031
  • Start date
Sponsored Links
Also bad science.

Which isn't surprising really, the Telegraph is infamously bad at science reporting.

I can look for a critique of the paper but effectively they cherry picked studies that have the answers they liked and didn't follow their own published method. Literally bad science.
 
Sponsored Links
Also bad science.

Which isn't surprising really, the Telegraph is infamously bad at science reporting.

I can look for a critique of the paper but effectively they cherry picked studies that have the answers they liked and didn't follow their own published method. Literally bad science.
figures were from the government and have been discussed on various news channels and talk radio the past few days
 
figures were from the government and have been discussed on various news channels and talk radio the past few days
Not quite, if you check you'll find it was a meta study of other studies. Those are really powerful and useful studies, when done well. This one was done very badly and shouldn't have made it through peer review. Having said that I'm not sure it has.

Unfortunately reporter's often don't take the time to critically review science stories. The telegraph is one of the worst broadsheets on this.
 
Hindsight. Brilliant
There was plenty of evidence at the outset, before our first case, that showed that it was only ever a threat to very elderly and unhealthy people.

It was all a massive over-reaction by inexperienced people who cherry-picked the "science" they chose to follow. We'll probably never know why the decisions were made - possibly incompetence, or perhaps other interests. But the outcome was that their solution was probably worse than doing nothing, if the long-term health and financial effects are taken into consideration.

Many well-reported deaths were the result of deliberate stupid actions, not natural spreading. E.g. moving patients known to be infected into care homes. This sort of stupidity created a problem that caused a needless panic. Perhaps they wanted a panic, who knows really. Never underestimate the stupidity of egomaniacs in power, which appears to have been the case for Hancock and his bunch of hand-picked "scientists", among others.

Hindsight is cheap of course, but don't be blinded into thinking that nobody knew anything at the time. They definitely knew lots about it, and over-reacted massively.
 
This evidence that was available at the outset. Any links ?

Are you seriously saying there weren't special measures intended (successfully or not is a separate issue) for elderly and vulnerable people? or that the bulk of the deaths didn't comprise elderly people or people with serious health issues.
Do you really need a link?
 
Are you seriously saying there weren't special measures intended (successfully or not is a separate issue) for elderly and vulnerable people? or that the bulk of the deaths didn't comprise elderly people or people with serious health issues.
Do you really need a link?
Special measures, or evidence. Different things
 
Just the usual - you disagree with reality, so you stroppily demand evidence of the bleeding obvious.

Yawn.
You’re going to love it in here. I think Denso thought he had a new Friend the other day.

But not now you’re challenging the msm narrative. Denso and his cohort will be asking you to prove every word you say now.

Obviously they can’t, they won’t.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I remember the flapping at the time was all about how full the hospitals were. That was apparently responding to lockdowns and opening-ups.
Remember Starmer wanting a "Circuit Breaker" lockdown to help hospitals for Christmas?
I dunno who his technical adviser was. His electrician presumably.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top