Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

You haven't all the relevant evidence you have shared doesn't show this. There's correlation between locking-down and drops in relevant factors. It is completely baseless to say it hasn't saved "anyone" 

You are confusing correlation and causation again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Incorrect.
The claim is not single person has been saved from a Covid19 related death in Britain due to lockdown. It is ridiculous given what we know.:  
1. Contact = chance of transmission
2. Covid19 kills people. 
3. Millions of people in lockdown were factually in much less (or even zero) contact with other people.
It is pedantic to claim we don't know in a population of 66 million if a single person has avoided death by not being in contact with someone with the coronavirus. Of course people's lives have been saved. 


1. What are all the ways that CV19 can be transmitted?
2. Does it? Or does it suppress the immune system so that other things kill?
3. Irrelevant if you don't know the answer to 1.

Prove it. How do you know that anyone who hasn't died, would have died if the had got CV19? Just tell me about any specific one of them.

You DON'T know., that is what I am saying - about both sides of the argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are confusing correlation and causation again.

I'm not, this further validates my point on pre-held vendettas. We have three people now trying to back-up Andy's claim that zero people have been saved from dying due to lockdown lol. 

Just now, Slarti said:


 

 


1. What are all the ways that CV19 can be transmitted?

Not fully known, irrelevant to my point. 
2. Does it? Or does it suppress the immune system so that other things kill?

Also irrelevant, people not contracting covid19 because they have avoided it through lockdown is the point being made. Again you go to the pedantic. 
3. Irrelevant if you don't know the answer to 1.
It's not, I've shown that you are wrong above. 
Prove it. How do you know that anyone who hasn't died, would have died if the had got CV19? Just tell me about any specific one of them.
Again pedantic, see previous points.  
You DON'T know., that is what I am saying - about both sides of the argument.

See point to Oaky above, pre-held vendettas has got you trying to argue that zero extra people would have died linked to Covid19 if there wasn't a lockdown. 🤣

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, insaintee said:

I also refer you to the paper supplied earlier. 

A paper which doesn't explain the science behind the SG advice that jumpers and scarves are suitable masks.

A paper which doesn't test which of the masks being used by the public are safe and to what extent.

You are reading what you want to read.

Maybe you should stick to reception work or nursing or something because research doesn't appear to be your thing at all. 

I'm still laughing at your suggestion that you think people need to be injected with covid to get a randomised test. 🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, insaintee said:

Yes it is. If people have conducted Case control and cohort studies that is evidence 

Then SHOW me!

FWIW

This month's up to date issue of the Swiss Doctor that I have been linking on here is now out.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

That has a whole section devoted to the efficacy or OTHERWISE of masks.

 

Doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist...  line up to diss their use.  

It seems the WHO suggested masks might be useful, despite knowing there was no evidence, because they were pressured politically into saying it may have some impact.

 

No evidence.

 

There's plenty more in there.  I enjoyed the guy in charge of the Swedish epidemic control, Anders Tegnall, being so honest measured and frank about that country's choice of reaction to it.  He ends having to respond to a question about the use of masks.

(Last 5 minutes)

You might guess that the adoption of masks is not and would not be among the first hundred measures he would seek to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, antrin said:

Then SHOW me!

FWIW

This month's up to date issue of the Swiss Doctor that I have been linking on here is now out.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

That has a whole section devoted to the efficacy or OTHERWISE of masks.

 

Doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist...  line up to diss their use.  

It seems the WHO suggested masks might be useful, despite knowing there was no evidence, because they were pressured politically into saying it may have some impact.

 

No evidence.

 

There's plenty more in there.  I enjoyed the guy in charge of the Swedish epidemic control, Anders Tegnall, being so honest measured and frank about that country's choice of reaction to it.  He ends having to respond to a question about the use of masks.

(Last 5 minutes)

You might guess that the adoption of masks is not and would not be among the first hundred measures he would seek to implement.

I'll take "might" for something that has no impact on the overwhelming majority of the population. You're like a child not wanting to hold your mothers hand because you think the chances of running into the street are slim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, antrin said:

Doctor after doctor, scientist after scientist...  line up to diss their use.  

It seems the WHO suggested masks might be useful, despite knowing there was no evidence, because they were pressured politically into saying it may have some impact.

 

 

And this, I believe, is exactly what has happened.

In April the chief medical officer for the UK was categorical that masks have no effect. A whole host of other scientists were saying and continue to say the same thing.

Now 4 months later with no change in the science out there the same people are saying we MUST wear them.

But apparently insaintee knows best for some reason.

Mask wearing is a political decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I'm not, this further validates my point on pre-held vendettas. We have three people now trying to back-up Andy's claim that zero people have been saved from dying due to lockdown lol. 

 

Baz, if you could stop talking shite and actually listen to the views of others you'd contribute a lot more to this discussion than you are doing.

Oh and BTW, you definitely don't know the difference between causation and correlation. I wasn't asking for your opinion on that. I was educating you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Baz, if you could stop talking shite and actually listen to the views of others you'd contribute a lot more to this discussion than you are doing.

Oh and BTW, you definitely don't know the difference between causation and correlation. I wasn't asking for your opinion on that. I was educating you.

If someone has the view lockdown has saved "zero" people's lives, I'll listen and I'll quickly dismiss. I would take a similar stance if someone had the view Covid19 was caused by a god or was biologically engineered by Trump. These are unsubstantiated claims that to date can be refuted. If somehow new evidence comes out to support one of these finger in the air claims, I will listen again. I'm not holding my breath though. 

I do though, you are wrong. As such your attempt to educate, very kind but dismissed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

If someone has the view lockdown has saved "zero" people's lives, I'll listen and I'll quickly dismiss. I would take a similar stance if someone had the view Covid19 was caused by a god or was biologically engineered by Trump. These are unsubstantiated claims that to date can be refuted. If somehow new evidence comes out to support one of these finger in the air claims, I will listen again. I'm not holding my breath though. 

And yet... and yet...

... you have such an innocent, unquestioning approach to the wearing of masks. 

Sweet!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

And yet... and yet...

... you have such an innocent, unquestioning approach to the wearing of masks. 

Sweet!  :)

The mask issue is not a relevant comparison. Again there is no harm in it for the vast majority of people and if it has a positive impact on curbing this pandemic, it's a win.

Take yer maws hand, calm doon :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

If someone has the view lockdown has saved "zero" people's lives, I'll listen and I'll quickly dismiss.

Sigh!

Clearly you need breastfed through this as well.

Who exactly are these 3 people you claim are supporting Andy's view that lockdown saved zero lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

1. What are all the ways that CV19 can be transmitted?
Not fully known, irrelevant to my point. 
2. Does it? Or does it suppress the immune system so that other things kill?
Also irrelevant, people not contracting covid19 because they have avoided it through lockdown is the point being made. Again you go to the pedantic. 
3. Irrelevant if you don't know the answer to 1.
It's not, I've shown that you are wrong above. 
Prove it. How do you know that anyone who hasn't died, would have died if the had got CV19? Just tell me about any specific one of them.
Again pedantic, see previous points.  
You DON'T know., that is what I am saying - about both sides of the argument.
See point to Oaky above, pre-held vendettas has got you trying to argue that zero extra people would have died linked to Covid19 if there wasn't a lockdown. [emoji1787]



It's not irrelevant to your point. You said (paraphrasing) "less contact equals less transmission". If you don't know all the ways it can be spread then you don't know if what you said is true.

Also not irrelevant. You stated, unambiguously that CV19 kills people, that's what I was replying to. Stop trying to change the goalposts.

No, you haven't. You have, as usual, stated your opinion as fact.

Not pedantic, but even if it is, just answer the question. No? Didn't think so, because if you do answer it honestly you will prove yourself wrong.

Where did I say, or even imply, that "zero extra people would have died linked to Covid19 if there wasn't a lockdown"? I have specifically said that neither of you have enough evidence to know either way. Now, stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh!
Clearly you need breastfed through this as well.
Who exactly are these 3 people you claim are supporting Andy's view that lockdown saved zero lives?
Nobody. He's just erecting strawmen so he can keep arguing his (flawed) point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
More accurate to suggest that their deaths have simply been postponed, than that lives have been saved specifically from cv19.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
That's wonderful straw clutching antrin.

Or have you converted to the "they would all have died soon enough anyway" approach favoured by the sociopaths?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baz, if you could stop talking shite and actually listen to the views of others you'd contribute a lot more to this discussion than you are doing.
Oh and BTW, you definitely don't know the difference between causation and correlation. I wasn't asking for your opinion on that. I was educating you.
I went to my mum's today after going to the skip to dump some rubbish. I did the exact same thing on Friday. It's obvious that, due to this correlation, going to the skip was the cause of me going to my mum's.

Before he died, my dad farted. Farting must have caused his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
That's wonderful straw clutching antrin.

Or have you converted to the "they would all have died soon enough anyway" approach favoured by the sociopaths?
It's not really. Unless you can prove that none of these people will later die from CV19.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Sigh!

Clearly you need breastfed through this as well.

Who exactly are these 3 people you claim are supporting Andy's view that lockdown saved zero lives?

I imagine (hope) you meant spoon-fed but the three people are:

You

Slarti

Antrin

All three of you have used the argument between Andy and I as an excuse to argue with me, further evidencing my point of pre-held vendettas.

For clarity I don't think for a second any of you actually believe the lockdown has saved zero lives. It is simply the catalyst for you to argue with me & back up the opposing person in the argument, like there has been dozens of other catalysts before it. 

Slarti's last post to me is exhibit A through Z 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine (hope) you meant spoon-fed but the three people are:
You
Slarti
Antrin
All three of you have used the argument between Andy and I as an excuse to argue with me, further evidencing my point of pre-held vendettas.
For clarity I don't think for a second any of you actually believe the lockdown has saved zero lives. It is simply the catalyst for you to argue with me & back up the opposing person in the argument, like there has been dozens of other catalysts before it. 
Slarti's last post to me is exhibit A through Z 
What the f**k are you rabbiting about? Where have I agreed with Andy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Slarti said:

It's not irrelevant to your point. You said (paraphrasing) "less contact equals less transmission". If you don't know all the ways it can be spread then you don't know if what you said is true.

Also not irrelevant. You stated, unambiguously that CV19 kills people, that's what I was replying to. Stop trying to change the goalposts.

No, you haven't. You have, as usual, stated your opinion as fact.

Not pedantic, but even if it is, just answer the question. No? Didn't think so, because if you do answer it honestly you will prove yourself wrong.

Where did I say, or even imply, that "zero extra people would have died linked to Covid19 if there wasn't a lockdown"? I have specifically said that neither of you have enough evidence to know either way. Now, stop misrepresenting what I am saying.
 

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The point you've jump in on is the claim from Andy that "zero" lives have been saved by the lockdown regarding Covid19. let's put it at it's simpliest here. 

Do you think it's likely certain fact that more than "zero" people in Britain are still alive today that would have died linked to Covid19 had there been absolutely no lockdown? Simple yes or no will do but feel free to elaborate if you wish. 

Now to address your specifics. 

We do know that ONE of the ways Covid19 transmits is through contact, therefore it is completely accurate to say less contact equals less transmission. We have evidence of this, where if people hadn't been in contact they wouldn't have had the virus transmitted to them. Care homes, football teams, businesses, etc, etc. As such my point stands. 

Covid19 does kill people. People that would have been alive today are dead because of covid19. You are again being pedantic regarding if there are other factors linked to their deaths or if Covid19 has hastened death. It isn't a strong defence technique (it is very much your go to though)

back to first point & the running theme of pedantry, do you agree my "opinion" is likely "fact" regarding the "zero" death point? 

that's pretty much another way of saying it is pedantic. I'm about to roll a dice 10,000 times, at least one of those rolls will land on a 6. "You don't know that, that's opinion over fact" That's what you sound like to me. 

Ah great, so we are getting to the bottom of the issue here, again do you think it's likely fact that people have been saved due to lockdown? Dice rolling example is again relevant here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slarti said:
11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I imagine (hope) you meant spoon-fed but the three people are:
You
Slarti
Antrin
All three of you have used the argument between Andy and I as an excuse to argue with me, further evidencing my point of pre-held vendettas.
For clarity I don't think for a second any of you actually believe the lockdown has saved zero lives. It is simply the catalyst for you to argue with me & back up the opposing person in the argument, like there has been dozens of other catalysts before it. 
Slarti's last post to me is exhibit A through Z 

What the f**k are you rabbiting about? Where have I agreed with Andy?

You've used it as an excuse to get into an argument with me because of pre-held vendettas. I've made this very clear. 

You've jumped in with the pedantic view that we can't know for sure lockdown has saved even one life (lol). My point all along, we see the same sort of behaviour from Oaks and Antrin often as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've used it as an excuse to get into an argument with me because of pre-held vendettas. I've made this very clear. 
You've jumped in with the pedantic view that we can't know for sure lockdown has saved even one life (lol). My point all along, we see the same sort of behaviour from Oaks and Antrin often as well.  
Stop talking pish. My very first post in this stated categorically that neither of you knew. The only pre-held opinion on here is you thinking that anyone that asks for evidence of your claims holds the opposing view. I haven't stated, or implied, my view on any if it (and my view is irrelevant), all I have done is tell you that what you are claiming has no basis in fact and is only your opinion. Now, as you are claiming that I am backing up Andy, show me where I did so.

And, at risk of denting your ego, you aren't important enough to have a vendetta against, you self important child.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...