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.
Covid Death Stats: Looking Like Us Doubters May Be Right
- Thread starter ReganAndCarter
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Learning as intently as the covid has needed will, like any learning experience, involve a few blind alleys. What would any reasonable person expect?
They could never be absolutely accurate, because a human has to interpret the cause of death for the cert...
It's nice that you agree with me.
I have not agreed with you. Your interpretation suggested a mass and deliberate exaggeration, that is not the case.
Sponsored Links
Wrong. In many respects especially initially but less as time goes by they were trying not to scare people so they would come out an play when they could. It hasn't worked out hence more and and more being dribbled out.
The current headline death counts are understated.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
More than a suggestion, an actual statement that deliberate exaggeration has taken place.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
Not at all, that is how I remember it.
India had a low level,of infection, they thought Covid was beaten.
So they stopped doing the things you are claiming don't work.
How's that working out?
You are arguing the commonly used term; "lockdown" does not mean lockdown
Which us a strawman logical fallacy.
The evidence, which the scientific community mostly agree with is: yes, lockdowns do reduce cases and deaths.
No.
The reason for the first lockdown was to lower the level of the bath water so it didn't spill over the sides.
Because infection spread grows exponentially, the sooner and harder you lockdown, the less the number of hospitalisations.
The purpose of the lockdowns was to flatten the curve, lower the deaths and repeat as necessary until a vaccine was available.
You are dishonestly claiming that lockdowns only delayed deaths and that without lockdowns the number of deaths would've been the same, just spread out....that's untrue.
Had lockdowns been imposed earlier and harder, the peak would've been lower.
No.
So, it was wrong.
Your arguments are all built by simplifying all Covid arguments to the point they are meaningless.
Nuance and detail is everything.
I have given you the explanation.
Either provide a counter argument or admit Inam correct.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 3,306
- Reaction score
- 818
- Country
@EFLImpudence
I'm still curious as to the answer you would like to find - may be it is significant at a global level, may be it could get you the Nobel Peace Prize... please share
I'm still curious as to the answer you would like to find - may be it is significant at a global level, may be it could get you the Nobel Peace Prize... please share
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Nice analogy.
It really isn't (a nice - i.e. accurate - analogy).
An accurate analogy would be turning down the tap flow so that it supplied less water than the bath overflow could cope with.
However, this has no effect on the overall future water supply.
An accurate analogy would be turning down the tap flow so that it supplied less water than the bath overflow could cope with.
However, this has no effect on the overall future water supply.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,141
- Reaction score
- 2,394
- Country
No but it has a measurable effect on the amount of water that goes down the overflow i.e. less water out of the taps equals less water lost down the overflow.
Sponsored Links
