Status
Not open for further replies.

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Then why did new cases in the UK rapidly fall in early January, immediately after the new lockdown was introduced?

Hell of a coincidence, if they were totally unconnected.
As I pointed out before re. the regional tier lockdowns, they wait for the increases to reach the point of inflection (where the rate of change starts decreasing) before implementing the measure; the lockdowns appear preventative as they precede the peak but in fact they're reactive to the inflection point's arrival.

Sweden has shown that lockdowns are not necessary to output the same trends.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
@mixed_biscuits
That's because you've made an a priori decision that lockdowns don't slow infection and have interpreted the data accordingly. Your model is unfalsifiable, because a continued increase after a lockdown would obviously disprove that lockdowns work, while a fall in infections after a lockdown is "because they were going to fall anyway" (why?).

If your model can explain both a phenomenon and the opposite of that phenomenon, it's a pretty poor model.

And it's obvious by now that we'd be even more fucked if we'd gone down the Swedish route.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
@mixed_biscuits
That's because you've made an a priori decision that lockdowns don't slow infection and have interpreted the data accordingly. Your model is unfalsifiable, because a continued increase after a lockdown would obviously disprove that lockdowns work, while a fall in infections after a lockdown is "because they were going to fall anyway" (why?).

If your model can explain both a phenomenon and the opposite of that phenomenon, it's a pretty poor model.

And it's obvious by now that we'd be even more fucked if we'd gone down the Swedish route.
You didn't quite read what I had written...they have been introducing lockdowns once the indicators' rate of increase starts slowing...ie. once we were about to peak and decline anyway.

As lockdowns have little effect (especially once the virus is widespread, as it was as the first lockdown was introduced), we pretty much did a Sweden anyway, but with massive collateral damage thrown on top.

Remember that the Tories have no interest in doing the right thing, only in staying in power.

There are countless papers saying that lockdowns are pointless and the WHO has been telling us to stop using them as a control measure. It is really important that we don't carry on incarcerating ourselves for no good reason but we are in charge of this: as long as we believe that they're important, the Tories will continue to use it in order to pander to us.
 
mRNA vaccination leaves recipients more vulnerable to infection from variants

 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
mRNA vaccination leaves recipients more vulnerable to infection from variants

 

version

Well-known member
Mick Jagger's done a COVID song.


SHOOTING THE VACCINE BILL GATES IS IN MY BLOODSTREAM
ITS MIND CONTROL
THE EARTH IS FLAT AND COLD ITS NEVER WARMING UP
THE ARCTICS TURNED TO SLUSH
THE SECOND COMINGS LATE
THERES ALIENS IN THE DEEP STATE
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
It was going to do that anyway, as happened in Sweden and pretty much all of Europe.

If Sweden's had carried on rising or flatlined, then maybe...but the trends are too similar to be able to discern a lockdown effect.

What's your explanation for Sweden's winter spike not maxxing out?

Furthermore, if deaths are preponderantly of old and sick people and transmission to them is mainly in health settings, there was no 'health-setting specific lockdown' to put the brakes on those contexts.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite

Also it doesn't say that vaccination leaves you more vulnerable to infection from variants than if you hadn't been vaccinated - just that it leaves you more vulnerable to infection from variants than you are to infection from "vanilla" covid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top