chessman

45 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Now I understand you!

Nevertheless, your statement has absolutely nothing to do with my post. I assume you replied to someone else, and the page jumping caused by the pop up ads moved the page when you clicked.

Wow, you have no idea about sarcasm at all. Are you American?

1 minute ago, farang51 said:

The restrictions are only for show; the governments of all countries decided to grab the chance to ruin their economies

Good point. It is a well known fact that governments always win re-election when their economy is doing badly. 

I don’t know why more governments don’t do this in election years... all you have to do is sink your economy and you’d be guaranteed to win.

This proves they had the motive and we all know they had the means. 

or perhaps there is a flaw in my logic?
 

9 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

And I already answered, that the exact number does not matter.

I don't know what you impute as my position, so I try to clarify:
Why is a Covid-19 death to be avoided by all means, even disastrous lockdowns, while a Flu death seems to be no problem, and that despite the Flu death number being higher.

My position is that the humans dying from Flu (etc, also TB, cancer, Malaria) are also humans, their live should not have less value. 

Nevertheless, feel free to recalculate and correct the numbers, and update the CDC stats.

I’m not recalculating any numbers. I’m not saying the exact numbers matter. I’m asking a very simple question about how the numbers are calculated, a question that you are dodging. 
 

Try and answer it, go on... let curiosity get the better of your fixed ideological position. As William Blake said ‘the road to wisdom is crooked’.

2 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

That's an unfounded imputation

It explains a lot though. ????

it’s a simple question, either you don’t know the answer or you do and you understand that answering it truthfully takes your ‘position’ down uncomfortable paths...

3 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

The real question is not if there are 600.000 FLU deaths per year, or 599999, or 600.001, but why there is a lockdown for X Covid-19 deaths, but there was and is not much attention for Y Flu etc death, despite Y being the higher number.

So I ask you the same question, how are those numbers calculated? 

I thought it was well known, but perhaps not.
 

22 minutes ago, Bender Rodriguez said:

you can look it up on cdc and other websites

I’m not disbelieving the statistics. I’m asking you if you know how they are calculated?

26 minutes ago, Monomial said:

What is missing in the analysis is the expected additional deaths in 2020 and coming years due to the economic evisceration that governments inflicted on the population due to their lockdown restrictions.

Maybe the death rate will actually go down, as it did in the US during the Great Depression?

1 hour ago, steelepulse said:

Nice to selectively point out the spike. 

A laughable comment. You’re right though, if there was no spike then all of this would definitely be overblown!
 

You can’t dismiss the spike, the spike is the whole point. Governments needed to respond to that spike...

How far would you have been OK with letting that spike rise before you would have been OK with governments taking extreme action?

12 minutes ago, Bender Rodriguez said:

600.000 FLU deaths per year

How do you think they calculate those numbers of flu deaths?
 

will you be OK when the same researchers use the same methodology to calculate Covid deaths and the numbers increase by 200+ %?

And your point is?

here’s the graph from your link. Look at that sudden surge in March 2020 (there’s nothing like that in 2018), did it not justify extreme action? 
 

Now the number is falling quickly, time for countries in the EU to start relaxing restrictions and opening up their economies.

that’s what they are doing. So everything is perfectly logical and understandable, no?
 

a proportionate response to a potentially devastating event. 

A model says that if it rains heavily non-stop for 48 hours then if people carry on with their routine exactly as normal then 91% of people will get wet. 
 

“But” say the doubters, “if it rains then people change their behaviour patterns, people stay at home and use umbrellas, so the numbers are going to be much less”

“of course” say the people who designed the model “Our model states this explicitly”

this doesn’t stop the 91% figure being the one that is publicised most widely. But who do you blame more? The people who designed the model? The press that runs with the 91% figure? The politicians who make decisions about stopping people going outside based on a number in a report that the report itself says won’t happen?

24 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

I grow weary of the flip flopping of this whole thing....masks no.....masks...yes......surface transmission significant......surface transmission not significant....lockdown needed till vaccine....vaccine not likely for 18 months if ever......

 

It is a new virus though, so it is to be expected that advice will change as more becomes known.

14 minutes ago, tlock said:

Yeah this is huge- those numbers get added to the all important coronavirus daily scoreboard.  I think once we do large scale serology testing we'll see that the number of infections were at least an order of magnitude higher.  Adding those numbers to the daily scoreboard of new cases is incredibly misleading.  

This is actually a very minor thing, done in a few states, probably to look like they are testing more effectively. Try reading an article without trying to bend it to your own particular agenda.

and calling it a ‘coronavirus daily scoreboard’ is in really bad taste.
 

6 minutes ago, moe666 said:

The latest is the herd isn't working only 7 percent of population is infected.

It’s not even that. It’s 7% in the worst affected area of Sweden (Stockholm). In the whole of the country it’s lower.

The fastest ever vaccine developed up to now was mumps and took 4 years. Wonderful if it can be done significantly faster than that but governments should not be basing their strategies on potential vaccines In 2020 or early 2021.

Interesting results from Sweden. Just 7.3% of people at Stockholm had antibodies at end of April, less than what was expected.

we all know that there are many more Covid cases than what the official count shows but quite a few recent antibody tests have shown that the virus is not quite as widespread as some claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

Sweden has about double the population but more than 16 times the number of deaths compared to Norway. This number is increasing every week.
 

the Yearly GDP predictions from their central banks are as follows:

Sweden expecting a 6.5% drop.

Norway expecting a 7.4% drop.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200518/swedens-lack-of-lockdown-wont-be-enough-to-save-the-economy-experts-warn

So a modest but hardly earth-shattering benefit for Sweden.

2 questions though.

1- Happiness and individual freedom. Would the lack of legal restrictions placed upon Swedish people be resulting in more happiness (or less unhappiness). Not sure how you could quantify this.

2- The future. If there are further waves could Sweden be less affected than other countries? There are lots of questions about the strength of immunity and how long it lasts but it is possible. It seems unlikely that Norway will ever approach the mortality rate of Sweden (They were able to minimise their numbers of deaths when they were most vulnerable, now every country will have better tools to fight the virus) but they might be caught in a cycle of shutdowns that negatively affect their economy over a longer period.

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

interesting article from the economist. Originally projected ifr at .1 but in editor's note of April 26 revises it to .4 as in the study by the German Virologist Streeck. You need to register to read it:

All of this is encouraging. Would be interesting if this kind of research was done in countries that were harder hit. Germany has maintained a relatively low mortality rate, would the results be similar in Spain or Italy?