Moderator: Peak Moderation
Which part of the data supports your frequent assertion that the excess deaths were people on the verge of dying anyway ?Little John wrote: There is no indication at all in that data that the spike in deaths in the first wave during the spring is likely to reappear. Doubly so given the second wave of infection now well underway is bigger than the first. This is further corroborated by all data coming out of Europe pointing to the same. Indeed, that has already been established to be the case since several countries are several weeks ahead of us.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covidCatweazle wrote:Which part of the data supports your frequent assertion that the excess deaths were people on the verge of dying anyway ?Little John wrote: There is no indication at all in that data that the spike in deaths in the first wave during the spring is likely to reappear. Doubly so given the second wave of infection now well underway is bigger than the first. This is further corroborated by all data coming out of Europe pointing to the same. Indeed, that has already been established to be the case since several countries are several weeks ahead of us.
Yes. I notice that the death rate has fallen dramatically as we have learned more about the disease and effective treatment, and educated the more vulnerable to stay safe. Exactly what the first lockdown was supposed to do.Little John wrote:Notice anything:
You might not see that in the total death figures as increases in suicides and drug overdose deaths might well exceed a later decline in elderly deaths. Even worse is that those deaths will be spread over younger working age persons that lost their jobs and businesses. So in effect the government is killing young people trying to extend the lives of old people.Little John wrote:
However, it is not even inconceivable that the predicted slight rise in total deaths for this entire year implied by the current numbers could actually disappear as the death count, for the rest of the year, falls below the average due to the vast majority of the people who were likely to die this year from any number of causes, mostly related to old age, having already done so in the spring.
Grasping-at-straws-nonsenseCatweazle wrote:Yes. I notice that the death rate has fallen dramatically as we have learned more about the disease and effective treatment, and educated the more vulnerable to stay safe. Exactly what the first lockdown was supposed to do.Little John wrote:Notice anything:
Now imagine if the initial death rate was applied to the much larger amount of cases that would have occurred without a lockdown. Many, many more would have died.
Your arguments against a second lockdown are closer to logical.
Absolute gibberish.Little John wrote:Grasping-at-straws-nonsense
Irrespective of measures taken across several countries, the pattern of infections and deaths is the same regardless.
You do know that there is a small negative correlation between severity of lock-down and reduction in Covid deaths...right?
No, of course you don't
Are you denying there are tentative signs of a small negative correlation between severity of lock-down and reduction in Covid deaths/infections across countries. There is absolutely no positive correlation whatsoever.Catweazle wrote:Absolute gibberish.Little John wrote:Grasping-at-straws-nonsense
Irrespective of measures taken across several countries, the pattern of infections and deaths is the same regardless.
You do know that there is a small negative correlation between severity of lock-down and reduction in Covid deaths...right?
No, of course you don't
I really am giving up this time.
While that maybe completely true I will continue to avoid crowded situations and wear a mask properly while in any such place or situation.Little John wrote:The virus does not care about what policies you deploy.
There is no relationship between severity of lock-downs and the infection or deaths rate of Covid19.
That is now an established fact.
Anyone who continues to support the position that lock-downs influence the CFR when those facts are now known is either:
a) ignorant of the facts.
b) is not ignorant of the facts and is lying to themselves and/or others.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-virus- ... -policies/
It is quite right and proper you should make your own decisions about your own health and risk factors. What is not right and proper is public policy forced onto populations on the basis of magical thinking and zero evidence. Especially in the context of voluminous evidence that shows the crashing of economies as has been perpetrated via these lock-downs is likely to lead to suffering and hardship for decades to come with all of the attendant effects on life expectancy that flow from that.vtsnowedin wrote:While that maybe completely true I will continue to avoid crowded situations and wear a mask properly while in any such place or situation.Little John wrote:The virus does not care about what policies you deploy.
There is no relationship between severity of lock-downs and the infection or deaths rate of Covid19.
That is now an established fact.
Anyone who continues to support the position that lock-downs influence the CFR when those facts are now known is either:
a) ignorant of the facts.
b) is not ignorant of the facts and is lying to themselves and/or others.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-virus- ... -policies/
For example I have already voted in the upcoming elections by placing my completed ballots in the towns drop box.
My age, weight, and health condition, make that a prudent decision especially as I am under no financial stress with my retirement income, modest as it is, still coming in direct deposit.
