Coronavirus

[Slarti]

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. 

I haven't jumped in on Andy's claim. Show me where I did that?

What I think is irrelevant as I am not taking a stance one way or other on here, you are just assuming that I am.

It is not accurate to state that less contact means less transmission. It would be accurate to say that less contact POSSIBLY means less transmission. The only possibility of contact transmission is when an infected person is in contact with an uninfected person, if you have the numbers to show how often this would happen, then show them. And, before you say it, "common sense" is not the answer to something like this.

How do you know that none of these people would have been infected?

As you have been told before, accuracy is often mistaken as pedantry by the less intelligent.

Show me the undisputed evidence that anyone, anywhere that has died with cv19 would still be alive. You can't.

I'm not here to agree with you (or Andy). I have pointed out where you were wrong, and why, and asked you to provide evidence for your claims - which you have failed to do, all you have done is play the "they're all picking on me" card.

Dice? Really? You're bringing up statistics with ME? Really? :D. If you want to play that game, let's do it. :D

[bazil85]

32 minutes ago, Slarti said:

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.

So pedantic? There categorically is a basis that more than zero people are alive today because of the lockdown lol. 

You 100% hold a vendetta against me, it's very apparent. 

14 minutes ago, Slarti said:

I haven't jumped in on Andy's claim. Show me where I did that?

What I think is irrelevant as I am not taking a stance one way or other on here, you are just assuming that I am.

It is not accurate to state that less contact means less transmission. It would be accurate to say that less contact POSSIBLY means less transmission. The only possibility of contact transmission is when an infected person is in contact with an uninfected person, if you have the numbers to show how often this would happen, then show them. And, before you say it, "common sense" is not the answer to something like this.

How do you know that none of these people would have been infected?

As you have been told before, accuracy is often mistaken as pedantry by the less intelligent.

Show me the undisputed evidence that anyone, anywhere that has died with cv19 would still be alive. You can't.

I'm not here to agree with you (or Andy). I have pointed out where you were wrong, and why, and asked you to provide evidence for your claims - which you have failed to do, all you have done is play the "they're all picking on me" card.

Dice? Really? You're bringing up statistics with ME? Really? :D. If you want to play that game, let's do it.

 

You used Andy and me arguing as an excuse to jump in an argument with me and fight that there isn't evidence that more than zero people are still alive because of lockdown. You can see where you did that in your own words on this post. 

Less contact = less transmission, we have verified evidence of people that have had Covid19 due to increased contact with someone/ people that's had it. 

Pedantic

That isn't what we are seeing here, you are using an unbelievably unlikely series of events in order to try and combat my view for sake of argument. 

Pedantic

You have not shown where I was wrong, as I have told you before, yours is a very ineffective argument technique. 

Your argument technique can be used in the exact same way as the dice example, it highlights how ineffective it is. 

[antrin]

There you go again with your misplaced paranoia,  bazil.

A vendetta with me joining in with oxter (or anyone else?) is a fab fantasy!

 

It really isn't all about you.

 

It might be... if you were ever vaguely accurate or original in thought.

I just read your stuff and see the  flaws therein - and comment.  It's what forums are about.  NOT the blind acceptance of the word of paranoid bazil.

[antrin]

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You 100% hold a vendetta against me, it's very apparent. 

You used Andy and me arguing as an excuse to jump in an argument with me and fight...

Another thing about forums is that YOU don't have some sort of exclusive contract in here about who can or cannot comment on stuff intended for others.  You really need to re-assess where you stand in all this.

 

A clue.

It's not the centre.

[Sue Denim]

Scientist casts doubt on how coronavirus is spread.

He should contact @insaintee. He knows all the answers about how it’s transmitted. FFS 😂

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8182767/Scientist-casts-doubt-coronavirus-spread.html

[Sue Denim]

Paper from 2013 about how influenza is transmitted.

Opening lines:

”Remarkably little is known definitively about the modes of influenza transmission. Thus, important health policy and infection control issues remain unresolved. “

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909391/
 

They could have saved themselves the bother of writing the paper and just asked @insaintee

He has all the answers as to how respiratory viruses are transmitted. FFS 😂

[Slarti]

You used Andy and me arguing as an excuse to jump in an argument with me and fight that there isn't evidence that more than zero people are still alive because of lockdown. You can see where you did that in your own words on this post.  Less contact = less transmission, we have verified evidence of people that have had Covid19 due to increased contact with someone/ people that's had it. 

Pedantic

That isn't what we are seeing here, you are using an unbelievably unlikely series of events in order to try and combat my view for sake of argument. 

Pedantic

You have not shown where I was wrong, as I have told you before, yours is a very ineffective argument technique. 

Your argument technique can be used in the exact same way as the dice example, it highlights how ineffective it is. 

 

I stated that neither of you had enough evidence to make a valid claim either way. I DID NOT single you out, and have repeatedly stated this. As Antrin said, it's not all about you, no matter what you think. 

Show me where I said that in that post.

 

How do you know that these people caught it from the infected people they were in contact with and not from somewhere else?

 

I'm not using any unlikely series of events to do anything to you. I'm asking you for the evidence, are you going to provide it? I know you aren't, because there isn't enough evidence either way at this point to conclude anything. As I said earlier, it's all just "best guess" at the moment.

 

I told you why you were wrong to claim that these things are fact. What I never said, as far as I know, is that any of it was wrong, just that you can't know that it's right. You, as usual, have taken something that I have said and twisted it so that it is "anti-Baz", just because you won't (or, actually, can't) provide sufficient evidence to back up what is essentially just your opinion on the situation (or you parroting someone else's opinion). Or maybe it's just because your ego isn't controlling your id enough for you to realise that it isn't all about you.

 

As far as I can see, neither Oaky or Antrin has said what you were claiming was wrong, just that you can't know it's right. Just because someone asks you for the proof to back up what you are claiming does not mean that they are saying that what you are saying is wrong, just that they want evidence that what you are saying is right.

 

A christian saying that the bible is evidence for god has provided more evidence to back up their position than you have ever done on here to back up yours - now, that's got to hurt.

 

Edit: And what exactly is your dice example supposed to show? That you don't have a clue about statistics?

 

 

[Sue Denim]

I’ve put this graph together using data from the ONS and NRS.

This shows deaths by actual date of death where Covid was mentioned on the death certificate per million of population. Data only available up to 19th July. 

The graph looks remarkably similar for Scotland and England.

Why are there loonies wanting to close the border to the English?

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Sue Denim

[Sue Denim]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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

Lockdown has saved “zero” lives and killed tens of 000s.

Is a seasonal virus and lockdown began well after we were beyond the peak of infection.

See graph below and the paper explaining.

Also, see the graph at the bottom. Four countries - Peru, which locked down first, U.K. which locked down next and Sweden and Brazil which did not lockdown.

You can quite clearly see that the shape of the graphs have followed seasonality and lockdown had no effect.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

You

Slarti

Antrin

 

Not one of the three of us has said argued that lockdown saved nobody.

I'm still of the opinion that lockdown had a positive effect but that it's clear we can remove the restrictions.

You just don't listen. That's on you.

[oaksoft]

38 minutes ago, Slarti said:

As far as I can see, neither Oaky or Antrin has said what you were claiming was wrong, just that you can't know it's right. Just because someone asks you for the proof to back up what you are claiming does not mean that they are saying that what you are saying is wrong, just that they want evidence that what you are saying is right.

 

The problem is slarti that he's not actually listening to anyone now so he's missing what's going on and where people stand.

Ant and me are being accused of ganging up on him with personal vendettas. Ant and me. Seriously, the two of us couldn't sit together over a beer for two minutes without us arguing.

I'm being accused of thinking lockdown has saved NO lives despite multiple posts saying lockdown was a good thing and worked but the evidence for continuing with it has gone.

And finally, he's accusing you of having a fixed opinion on something but as far as I can tell you've done little but ask questions. Personally I don't actually know where you stand on any of this.

He's not fecking listening. He's too busy talking. That's why we're going round in circles.

[Sue Denim]

Back from 24th March, Oxford Uni reckoned that half the population had already been exposed back then

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

Herd immunity had already been reached before lockdown. The path of the virus has followed seasonality. 
 

All that lockdown has done is kill tens of thousands in the UK, destroyed the livelihoods if millions in the UK, hurt the education of our youth and condemned millions to die of starvation.

And @bazil85 and @TPAFKATS think they are morally superior for supporting this??

[Sue Denim]

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Not one of the three of us has said argued that lockdown saved nobody.

I'm still of the opinion that lockdown had a positive effect but that it's clear we can remove the restrictions.

You just don't listen. That's on you.

The only positive effects lockdown has had is on the death toll and the unemployment rate.

(and I don’t use the word positive to mean good in this instance before the smug woke virtue signallers jump in)

[antrin]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

Ant and me are being accused of ganging up on him with personal vendettas. Ant and me. Seriously, the two of us couldn't sit together over a beer for two minutes without us arguing.

I

Aye, we f**kin could!!! 

[Slarti]

Aye, we f**kin could!!! 

[Sue Denim]

Chat about whether lockdown has saved zero lives it a bit of a red herring anyway.

If lockdown has saved anyone, will these be more than the number of collateral deaths caused so far and all the deaths still to come?

Deaths caused by lockdown far far outweigh any lives saved ( and I think zero lives were saved anyway).

And another point to it is that the average age at death was beyond life expectancy and the average person had 2 illnesses which were serious enough to go in the death certificate.

NICE has a limit of £50,000 that it will pay for each quality year of life added.

We don’t spend unlimited amounts of money to extend people’s lives. And I can’t believe that anyone would seriously argue that we should.

If lockdown were to saved 10,000 quality added years of life then it will have come at a cost of £30 million for each of those years.

In other words, we would value quality years of life added for someone with Covid 600 times more than we do any other illness. And that’s not right. 

[Slarti]

The problem is slarti that he's not actually listening to anyone now so he's missing what's going on and where people stand.
Ant and me are being accused of ganging up on him with personal vendettas. Ant and me. Seriously, the two of us couldn't sit together over a beer for two minutes without us arguing.
I'm being accused of thinking lockdown has saved NO lives despite multiple posts saying lockdown was a good thing and worked but the evidence for continuing with it has gone.
And finally, he's accusing you of having a fixed opinion on something but as far as I can tell you've done little but ask questions. Personally I don't actually know where you stand on any of this.
He's not fecking listening. He's too busy talking. That's why we're going round in circles.

I have no opinion one way or other on whether lockdown (or masks/face coverings) has been, overall, a good thing. I'm willing to accept that the scientists that are advising the government are doing so honestly. Whether they are right is another matter, I have no idea as I, along with everyone else on here, don't have access to as much information as they do.

What I won't do, at least at this point, is claim that I do know if the decisions governments have taken have been correct, as even they don't 100% know.

I do know the correct usage of the word "pedantic" though, and how to correctly use statistics. Dice!!! [emoji38]

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Long John Baldy said:

Watching the Scottish news, redundancies all over the place.

Wonder what affect this'll have on people over the next year or so? 

I have a bad feeling that we're going to see historic levels of job losses which will make the late 70s under Callaghan look like nothing.

Perhaps 4 to 5 million.

I was going to produce a graph but......

[oaksoft]

34 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

NICE has a limit of £50,000 that it will pay for each quality year of life added.

We don’t spend unlimited amounts of money to extend people’s lives. And I can’t believe that anyone would seriously argue that we should.

I agree with both sentences but I think that would be a serious shock to a lot of the virtue signallers who will not accept a single death.

Real people in real jobs who actually have to make these life/death decisions will certainly be making dispassionate judgments. They can't afford to do it any other way.

[oaksoft]

18 minutes ago, Slarti said:

I have no opinion one way or other on whether lockdown (or masks/face coverings) has been, overall, a good thing. I'm willing to accept that the scientists that are advising the government are doing so honestly. Whether they are right is another matter, I have no idea as I, along with everyone else on here, don't have access to as much information as they do.

What I won't do, at least at this point, is claim that I do know if the decisions governments have taken have been correct, as even they don't 100% know.

That's pretty much where I am as well.

Anyone claiming 100% certainty over anything was probably dropped either on their heads or spoon-fed petrol for dinner as a kid (Sue) or repeatedly bullied and isolated at school (Baz).

[oaksoft]

44 minutes ago, Yflab said:

we’ve seen and laughed at your graphs before.

Yeah I'm way ahead of you Einstein. That was the point of that line in my post. FFS. 

You're not related to Baz are you?

[oaksoft]

34 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Thankfully not but I used to drive a clapped out mini.

They don't make cars as beautiful  as that anymore. 

[Slarti]

That's pretty much where I am as well.
Anyone claiming 100% certainty over anything was probably dropped either on their heads or spoon-fed petrol for dinner as a kid (Sue) or repeatedly bullied and isolated at school (Baz).

Hey, don't dis petrol for dinner. [emoji38]

[Slarti]

Thankfully not but I used to drive a clapped out mini.

FFS, that's obviously a 1967 Austin 1100 Countryman Estate. Do you know nothing?

[Slarti]

He's not fecking listening. He's too busy talking. That's why we're going round in circles.

So just his usual then.