insaintee

It's a top end estimate. of a range of predictions. The working assumptions are based on more than one paper. I'm really not sure what your trying to prove? That we had an intervention and avoided worse case scenarios is surely a good thing.

You would first vaccinate the likely vectors of spread. people that have the most contacts with other people

I get every thing right. You mean this paper I assume. If you read it you will see there is a range of predictions and also we did not have an uncontrolled outbreak. In view of the deaths we've had, an assumption of 250,000 and middle estimate is not an unreasonable guess for what would have happened https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

The experts predicted up to 250,000 deaths if we did nothing with the lower end of that range being between 100,000 and up . The flaw in your argument is that we did something. We still had @50,000 deaths. In a year we normally get @500,000 deaths. And the possibility of a further wave of deaths can't be ruled out.

That's not an Afro, that is a haystack

Think Baird could have done fine for us. However I think it is significant that he has not played for us since a certain league cup game. In which case better for all if he moves on. Goody did single him out as a player he wanted to work with at the start of the season.

Yes please thought Parkin was decent

You can learn something

Forunately it is not you that needs convinced, it public health officials and experts. Not wish to dis your *ahem* scientific credentuals

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

I'll just leave this here 😎

In that case there are no facts. In fact there are no facts in science hence you get climate change deniers and the like

Still hurting from being made to look an ass. My suggestion is stop acting like an ass.

It implys causatiion. https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/life-sciences/ecology-and-conservation/cause-and-correlation-biology-users-guide-path-analysis-structural-equations-and-causal-inference-r-2nd-edition?format=PB Either 1. It's a statistical artifact (which should not be the case if statisical tests are applied) 2 There is a spurious relationship. A third factor is controling both factors (should not be the case if a proper controls are included in design e,g. in a multi-variate regression model. 3. There is a indirect relationship. Which means that a third variable sits between to the two others in the system and that variance in the control variable influences the intermediate variable which in turn influences the output varible. (in effect this is just the same as a direct relationship) 4, A direct relationship. Good too see you recognising the limits of the scientific method

I also refer you to the paper supplied earlier.