Status
Not open for further replies.

IdleRich

IdleRich
Your argument seems to be that scientists overstated how infectious and dangerous the disease was or would be, then the stats all backed that up with loads of infections and deaths, but you insist (with no evidence I've seen) that actually all the stats - official and otherwise - are wrong. And this is all happening cos the government is pretending that the disease is more serious than it is to ultimately look better than it would otherwise - or something.
It seems like you are living in a parallel world where, Trumplike, you pick and choose the fact you want to believe and call everything else fake news.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Your argument seems to be that scientists overstated how infectious and dangerous the disease was or would be, then the stats all backed that up with loads of infections and deaths, but you insist (with no evidence I've seen) that actually all the stats - official and otherwise - are wrong.

The media's takes on the stats are generally misleading in the service of sensationalism, hence most people's are as well, as few people can be bothered to go to the stats themselves.

Also the stats themselves are often unreliable and/or incomplete (see above)

For instance, the NHS report that fewer than 1500 people have died exclusively from COVID in the UK and the CDC say the IFR for under-50s is 0.05% but you won't hear the papers going on about it.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah but as I explained above, I don't really care about "exclusively from Covid" just about whether they wouldn't have died if this virus hadn't come along - and to be honest I doubt they do too. I mean if you're gonna remove anyone from the stats who had any condition then of course they're gonna change I don't find that particularly revelatory or worthwhile.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Yeah but as I explained above, I don't really care about "exclusively from Covid"

Well, you should as it has a bearing on important decisions and people's states of mind.

For instance, my ma is over 70 but has no serious health problems...her IFR is 1% rather than the 20% that might apply to someone of the same age with diabetes.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Transmission has been solved

It has been proposed that the fecal-oral pathway is underrated. If given a preponderant role, it explains everything:

- handwashing has been the most effective measure (Oxford)
- mask-wearing is pretty much pointless and/or leads to worse outcomes (fiddling with masks transfers particles to face) (SAGE, PHE, UEA)
- indoor gatherings cause spikes; outdoor ones don't (the former involve shared toilets and lots of eating/drinking)
- key workers having lower incidence than stay-homers, as better hygiene (Spanish national dataset)
- closing schools helps (UEA) (children have terrible hygiene)
- care homes have lots of incontinent people, requiring superhuman hygiene standards
- government closed public toilets for that reason

Nothing fails to fit.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, I misread your earlier post as 30,000 *deaths* have been double-counted (although I think you were saying that the "true" covid-19 death toll is smaller than the "naive" excess death count by about this number).

But the thing with the excess death toll is that comparing the number of deaths this year to the average for the recent past, as crude as it is, does at least not introduce any new assumptions. It strikes me that these much lower numbers have been arrived at by making several assumptions and estimations, all of which add up in the same direction to reduce the total. I expect you could just easily, and just as rigorously, make a load of other assumptions and estimations that would all increase the estimate for the excess death total. And if you cherry-picked all of those assumptions and ignored the others instead of the reverse, you might end up with an estimate that's 30,000 higher than the crude excess deaths instead of 30,000 lower.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Re. excess deaths analysis: I think it would be more interesting to question the assumptions that ostensibly form a more nuanced analysis rather than make those assertions.

At the very least, why do they use the last five years for the excess deaths calculation rather than the last ten, twenty, fifty etc. - especially as we're lead to believe that this is a multi-generational unusual event.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Well, you should as it has a bearing on important decisions and people's states of mind.

For instance, my ma is over 70 but has no serious health problems...her IFR is 1% rather than the 20% that might apply to someone of the same age with diabetes.
I mean If someone dies who wouldn't have died otherwise but has an underlying condition it's perfectly reasonable to call that a death caused by Covid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo

Leo

Well-known member
I mean If someone dies who wouldn't have died otherwise but has an underlying condition it's perfectly reasonable to call that a death caused by Covid.

that seems like the truest measure of the impact, certainly does not need to be 100% caused by COVID.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Can you point out any leads for one to follow here? Or can I just search through databases?

Yep:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...19-restaurants-pubs-bars-takeaways-030720.pdf

"It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore facecoverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk"

https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/ppe-face-masks/face-coverings-and-face-masks.htm

"Wearing a face covering is optional in most circumstances and is generally not required in workplaces. They are not an effective way to manage the risks from coronavirus and you should not rely on them. "
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
This actually fits the oral-fecal thing...before lockdown we were told to wash our hands and avoid touching our faces...then the government instituted lockdown under political pressure and the advice changes to justify having done so...but this new advice is only believed half-heartedly eg. the official docs saying its pointless, face coverings on public transport not being enforced.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I don't think we can have proper mass adherence to precautionary measures without the anxiety

The government's psychology advisors said the same, but with reference to the small proportion of the population who would otherwise not take it seriously at all (this is in the SAGE minutes). Believe me, my mum is quite capable of being sufficiently anxious without any encouragement.

It's also immoral to change behaviour by lying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top