Covid Death Stats: Looking Like Us Doubters May Be Right

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.
 
Sponsored Links
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.

Learning as intently as the covid has needed will, like any learning experience, involve a few blind alleys. What would any reasonable person expect?

The numbers are not accurate and have been exaggerated for effect to frighten the people - SAGE instructions.

They could never be absolutely accurate, because a human has to interpret the cause of death for the cert...
 
Sponsored Links
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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


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.
 
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.

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.
 
:rolleyes:


So, it was wrong.
No.

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.
 
@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
 
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.
 
However, this has no effect on the overall future water supply.

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
Back
Top