So - the point you were making was - exaggerate the danger to the public so that they will not do something which would not lead to the thing the exaggerating was done to prevent.FA to do with the point I was making.
So - the point you were making was - exaggerate the danger to the public so that they will not do something which would not lead to the thing the exaggerating was done to prevent.FA to do with the point I was making.
There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions.
I know they are learning all the time but that then does mean that previously they were wrong.
The numbers are not accurate and have been exaggerated for effect to frighten the people - SAGE instructions.
It's nice that you agree with me.
So - the point you were making was - exaggerate the danger to the public so that they will not do something which would not lead to the thing the exaggerating was done to prevent.
Your interpretation suggested a mass and deliberate exaggeration, that is not the case.
The numbers are not accurate and have been exaggerated for effect to frighten the people
Of course, you both seem to be forgetting that the reason for (the first) lockdown was to 'flatten the curve'
So - the point you were making was - exaggerate the danger to the public so that they will not do something which would not lead to the thing the exaggerating was done to prevent.
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
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
No.
So, it was wrong.
Nice analogy.The reason for the first lockdown was to lower the level of the bath water so it didn't spill over the sides.
However, this has no effect on the overall future water supply.