Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked ?

[Peter Denis]

45 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

As you well know, they're still trying to understand this virus.  No easy answers other than try to do what the medical experts say.  Mask up, social distance, and wash your hands.

...

Rather strange logic...  We still don't understand how the virus works.  What the facts tell us is that 'for some reason' Florida without lock-downs or mask-wearing, is not being hard hit.  While cases are spiking in Southern California that imposed a harsh lock-down and mask-mandates.

But hey, not allowed to ask any questions about the approach taken, just shut up and do what some (but by no means all) medical experts say .  Mask up, social distance and wash your hands.

Note: Some posts back @Poet correctly explained that this covid-19 virus is an airborne virus, so washing your hands will have close to zero effect (but hey that worked for other not-airborne viruses so why not throw it in this mix which we do not understand anyway).

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

When you all your information comes only from one source, chances are that your thinking will be heavily influenced by that one-sided intake.

This is true both for the 'fake news' adepts as well as for the mainstream followers.

Listening with an open mind to the arguments on both sides of the spectrum, and the ability to 'separate the wheat from the chaff' is essential in making up your own mind.

In that sense, censorship in whatever form is not only useless but actually counter-productive.

In the clash of ideas new insights are born.  But being confined to the bland stew of the common narrative group-think (from either side), will not provide much challenge to do your own thinking.

And so what if what later proves to have been fake news temporarily puts me on the wrong foot, such a faux pas will only strengthen my thinking in the long run, when keeping an open mind.

Note: Re your example of the easily verifiable non-truth.  If it is easily verifiable as being incorrect, why making the effort to protect people from it.  They will find out by themselves...

And in more complex matters, it is even more important that people have access to different views.  Yes, that makes it more challenging and less convenient for the 'authorities' to convince us to comply with the approach they have taken (reason why they like to crush deviations from the common narrative).

 

I said it before you are smart, seen it in your replies and other posts. However not everyone is as bright there are a lot of people who just believe these kind of things. I might not agree with you about vaccination but at least you have reasons that are not crazy. You look at it from a relatively normal point of view. While others don't they go for the most extreme things that can find and believe it as long as it confirms with their idea.

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Rather strange logic...  We still don't understand how the virus works.  What the facts tell us is that 'for some reason' Florida without lock-downs or mask-wearing, is not being hard hit.  While cases are spiking in Southern California that imposed a harsh lock-down and mask-mandates.

But hey, not allowed to ask any questions about the approach taken, just shut up and do what some (but by no means all) medical experts say .  Mask up, social distance and wash your hands.

Note: Some posts back @Poet correctly explained that this covid-19 virus is an airborne virus, so washing your hands will have close to zero effect (but hey that worked for other not-airborne viruses so why not throw it in this mix which we do not understand anyway).

Strange logic?  It's what's being recommended by the medical experts.  Everywhere.  Why don't you put up credible links that show why Florida is different from California?  I'd love to read that.

 

As you saw from my post above, this virus is mutating.  And not for the better....thus, it's not fully understood.  Got it?

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Rather strange logic...  We still don't understand how the virus works.  What the facts tell us is that 'for some reason' Florida without lock-downs or mask-wearing, is not being hard hit.  While cases are spiking in Southern California that imposed a harsh lock-down and mask-mandates.

But hey, not allowed to ask any questions about the approach taken, just shut up and do what some (but by no means all) medical experts say .  Mask up, social distance and wash your hands.

Note: Some posts back @Poet correctly explained that this covid-19 virus is an airborne virus, so washing your hands will have close to zero effect (but hey that worked for other not-airborne viruses so why not throw it in this mix which we do not understand anyway).

Even airborne viruses drop to surfaces (do you think an airborne virus floats forever defying gravity ?), so its only logical that washing your hands can work. Basic hygiene always works.

 

I think a lot of the difference between infection rates comes from how people live. How close they live how dense the population is. Its all quite logical.

 

Its hard to deny that a good lockdown works as its a VIRUS it needs human contact to spread and lockdown limits the amount of human contact. So even logic gives lockdown a thumbs up. (not saying its always economically viable)

 

Now in Thailand you see that after lockdown numbers are going down. Actually almost everywhere you see numbers going down if a lockdown is followed.

 

Now they are going to have an curfew in the Netherlands. Do you really think they make such decisions when they think there is no positive effect ?. There is an election coming soon and unpopular measures will reflect on political parties. So believe me the last thing the Dutch politicians want to do right now is be unpopular. 

 

So they would only do such things if there is need for it. (or if they think it will work). Its not some big conspiracy to get a grip on people (especially not with an ellection soon)

 

 

 

 

[1FinickyOne]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

This was in the news and readily spread on social media.

which is where he probably got the info/idea in the first place... conspiracy theories have reached epic proportions... the craziest part of it all is the certainty of their beliefs. 

 

It shows you the amazing power of the written/spoken word - especially when repeated often... propaganda works. 

[steevjee]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

Im getting more and more annoyed by the lies of the anti vaxers and covid deniers. The last bit came today when i was browsing the Dutch news during my breakfast.

 

A guy from 80 years old a "homeopathic doctor" was saying that there was no covid, that there were no people on the intensive care and that doctors were faking it all and getting 20.000 euros per patient. 

 

This was in the news and readily spread on social media. Should these kinds of nutcases that are proven wrong (take them to an IC let them see the people there) be procecuted or at least be banned from the use of internet. Its just horrible how so many of those nutcases keep creating fake news and undermining all confidence.

 

Fake news really is a problem and its becoming bigger and bigger. I dont like the alternative of censorship. But if news is proven lies there should be some consequences to it IMHO. 

Hang on a minute, easy solution...the Earth is flat so why not round them up, whack them on a big barge and push them off the edge?

 

[Peter Denis]

17 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Strange logic?  It's what's being recommended by the medical experts.  Everywhere.  Why don't you put up credible links that show why Florida is different from California?  I'd love to read that.

 

As you saw from my post above, this virus is mutating.  And not for the better....thus, it's not fully understood.  Got it?

Aaaaaaah, so it's just the mutated form of the virus that is 'not fully understood' yet.  Now I get it! ????

And of course that also explains why washing your hands is needed as a preventive measure for this new mutation of the airborne virus.

Fyi > Florida with no lock-downs or mask mandates and thus using a totally different strategy than NewYork City or Southern California, did listen to other medical experts than the Everywhere ones.

But in times when even top-experts of Harvard, Stanford and Oxford are not considered a 'credible source' you might have to do some effort to find the info on which they relied for not enforcing a lock-down or masking approach. 

 

[Jai Dee]

A couple of troll posts as well as replies have been removed.

[DavisH]

7 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

"Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked"

 

What sort of punishment did you have in mind for people with a different opinion then you Rob.....

Back up your opinions wiht FACTS - from reputable multiple sources. I don't have a problem with that. Anyone can quote an oddball scientific hack (Judy Mitkovitz springs to mind). But when 95% of scientific researchers are in agreement, that's where my opinion sways - until more evidence is produced to suggest otherwise. 

[KhaoYai]

'Should covid liars and deniers be punished or blocked ?'

 

Its an interesting question.  Many of us live in a country that enjoys true democracy, which includes freedom of speech. So if we were to start blocking people for passing fake information about Covid 19, where does that end?  Well, at least it may seem that way but when its clear that the information being spread is not just someone's opinion, when they make false claims, post official looking news reports or claims made by some so called expert - surely that is a different matter?

 

Like yourself Rob, I'm angered by the lies that are spread on the internet - and that is the problem. The internet has given everyone a platform to spout whatever they want, about almost anything they want. There are a number of exceptions but basically, the internet is not policed. 

 

'Fake News' as much of this tripe has been labelled was around pre Covid but it seems to have exploded since the pandemic took hold.  Whether we think they are gullible and naive or not, its a fact that some people are infuenced by what they read on the internet and very often don't challenge it. The posters rely on these people believing their stories in order to spread their message. Many are so influenced by it that they become a 'believer' and spread 'fake news' themselves. I have known 2 people, quite close to me that were completely taken in by 'fake news'.

 

A classic example of influence are the lies Trump spread about the US election. Thousands, if not millions believe the US election was stolen from Trump even though he failed to provide any evidence - he said it so it must be correct.

 

The Covid pandemic shows us the dangers of allowing 'fake news' to be 'published' and I think its made the case for much stronger policing of the internet. Some of the stuff out there is not just lies, its bloody dangerous.

 

Personally, I don't think we should stop freedom of speech but I do think those putting out completely made up stories which they claim to be factual, whether it be on the internet or otherwise, should be punished.  It may though, become necessary for the owners of sites where unverified news is located to be joined in with any prosecutuon if they allow such content to be posted.  That would mean an end to immediate posting as even this reply to your post would have to be checked before being allowed.  I think the situation is serious enough to require that but many would disagree.

 

Companies like Facebook don't make their sites free to use out of the goodness of their hearts - they make huge profits from advertising and data collection.  If they were made to police their own sites, surely that would be a business cost, just like any other?

 

 

[Jai Dee]

Just a reminder for members posting in the forum... from this pinned topic in the COVID-19 Forum:

 

In addition to the guidelines posted below and those detailed in the Thaivisa forum rules and following the announcement that Thai government will invoke emergency powers in order to help deal with the COVID-19 situation in the country, Thaivisa requests members posting on the forum to abide by the follow:

 

Do not post news or any form of content, including video, audio, images, social media posts that contains messages that may cause people to be afraid or intentionally distort information, causing misunderstanding during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

 

Any posts or topics which our moderation team deems to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or has been posted to deliberately distort information will be removed without warning. You may also be subject to a posting suspension or have your profile permanently suspended from the site.

[RichardColeman]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Fake news really is a problem and its becoming bigger and bigger. I dont like the alternative of censorship. But if news is proven lies there should be some consequences to it IMHO. 

The size of the department monitoring and bring charges against the posters of anything that 'may' be inacurate or untrue would be bigger than the population of any country.

[Peter Denis]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

Even airborne viruses drop to surfaces (do you think an airborne virus floats forever defying gravity ?), so its only logical that washing your hands can work. Basic hygiene always works.

 

I think a lot of the difference between infection rates comes from how people live. How close they live how dense the population is. Its all quite logical.

Of course, basic hygiene is needed.

But using desinfectant on your hands multiple times a day is madness and totally unnecessary as it will have close to zero impact on the transmission of an airborne virus.  Just using 'normal' hygiene practices is all what is needed.

= = = =

if population density and living conditions were determining factors China would be decimated by now.  But it seems that the virus is not so picky, also hitting Western countries with high hygiene standards and 'superior' living conditions.

 

56 minutes ago, robblok said:

...

Its hard to deny that a good lockdown works as its a VIRUS it needs human contact to spread and lockdown limits the amount of human contact. So even logic gives lockdown a thumbs up. (not saying its always economically viable)

 

Now in Thailand you see that after lockdown numbers are going down. Actually almost everywhere you see numbers going down if a lockdown is followed.

Here I have to strongly disagree with you.  I have seen questionnable 'models' but have not seen any 'real factual data' studies that lock-downs work.  It is not because superficial logic tells you that avoiding any human contact will prevent transmission/infection, that such conditions can be created in a social environment.  And actually, even the lock-down proponents admit this, as they only claim that lock-downs are a measure of the last resort to slowen the infection-curve, this to avoid hospitals being overwhelmed and not being able to cope.

Only studies comparing different countries using different strategies, are able to conclude whether lock-downs actually work.  And the study of prominent Stanford professor John P.A. Ioannidis comparing 10 countries, concludes that the effect of lock-downs is as good as negligible.

And this study is now available on the WHO site. 

But it tells a lot about the current desperation that in spite of solid scientific evidence (there are more studies all coming to same conclusion), that lock-downs are still being imposed by authorities at their wits' end.

 

1 hour ago, robblok said:

...

Now they are going to have an curfew in the Netherlands. Do you really think they make such decisions when they think there is no positive effect ?. There is an election coming soon and unpopular measures will reflect on political parties. So believe me the last thing the Dutch politicians want to do right now is be unpopular. 

 

So they would only do such things if there is need for it. (or if they think it will work). Its not some big conspiracy to get a grip on people (especially not with an election soon)

No, I don't think dutch authorities are convinced that lock-downs don't have any effect (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary).

But in a time of crisis authorities are expected to take Action,  If the actions do not bring the desired effect, they can say that they tried everything.  And if the actions do have effect (even because of other factors, like seasonal nature of viruses), they can praise themselves as having done the right thing.   Either way, that's a win-win, even when the measures themselves are not popular (but it is for your own good).

So even if they do not fully believe that lock-downs will curb the spread, they are forced in the Action-mode both by the public and by their political opponents.  Even if 'doing nothing' would be the correct response, it would mean political suicide if there were no results, so it takes Real Leadership to go against the stream (as Florida's governor has done).

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, RichardColeman said:

The size of the department monitoring and bring charges against the posters of anything that 'may' be inacurate or untrue would be bigger than the population of any country.

Something must be done.

 

Last night I watched a UK TV programme showing exhausted staff on a Covid ward in a UK hospital. Some were in tears. Many have been working 12 hour shifts with no days off.  Can you imagine hpw these people feel when they walk outside and find protestors claiming covid doesn't exist?  That's exactly what was going on outside the hospital and its disgraceful.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Of course, basic hygiene is needed.

But using desinfectant on your hands multiple times a day is madness and totally unnecessary as it will have close to zero impact on the transmission of an airborne virus.  Just using 'normal' hygiene practices is all what is needed.

= = = =

if population density and living conditions were determining factors China would be decimated by now.  But it seems that the virus is not so picky, also hitting Western countries with high hygiene standards and 'superior' living conditions.

 

Here I have to strongly disagree with you.  I have seen questionnable 'models' but have not seen any 'real factual data' studies that lock-downs work.  It is not because superficial logic tells you that avoiding any human contact will prevent transmission/infection, that such conditions can be created in a social environment.  And actually, even the lock-down proponents admit this, as they only claim that lock-downs are a measure of the last resort to slowen the infection-curve, this to avoid hospitals being overwhelmed and not being able to cope.

Only studies comparing different countries using different strategies, are able to conclude whether lock-downs actually work.  And the study of prominent Stanford professor John P.A. Ioannidis comparing 10 countries, concludes that the effect of lock-downs is as good as negligible.

And this study is now available on the WHO site. 

But it tells a lot about the current desperation that in spite of solid scientific evidence (there are more studies all coming to same conclusion), that lock-downs are still being imposed by authorities at their wits' end.

 

No, I don't think dutch authorities are convinced that lock-downs don't have any effect (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary).

But in a time of crisis authorities are expected to take Action,  If the actions do not bring the desired effect, they can say that they tried everything.  And if the actions do have effect (even because of other factors, like seasonal nature of viruses), they can praise themselves as having done the right thing.   Either way, that's a win-win, even when the measures themselves are not popular (but it is for your own good).

So even if they do not fully believe that lock-downs will curb the spread, they are forced in the Action-mode both by the public and by their political opponents.  Even if 'doing nothing' would be the correct response, it would mean political suicide if there were no results, so it takes Real Leadership to go against the stream (as Florida's governor has done).

Just for the record, I don't believe that lock downs can totally stop the virus. I think they work to slow the virus down. I think that has been proven. 

 

Just that there is no scientific proof (how to setup such a test) does not mean its not true. Its just that testing if it works is really hard. The fact that you see infection rates drop after a lockdown shows enough IMHO 

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Just for the record, I don't believe that lock downs can totally stop the virus. I think they work to slow the virus down. I think that has been proven. 

 

Just that there is no scientific proof (how to setup such a test) does not mean its not true. Its just that testing if it works is really hard. The fact that you see infection rates drop after a lockdown shows enough IMHO 

You wrote > I think that has been proven. 

Contrary to what you think, It has actually been proven that the effect of lock-downs is neglible.

 

Studies based on actual data are able to discern whether lock-downs had effect when you have sufficient data from different countries that used same and different strategies.  Obviously that's not a simple undertaking, as you need to take many factors into consideration when analyzing the data.  But that's exactly what prof John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford University and his colleagues did, and as I wrote they concluded from the data that the effect of lock-downs is as good as negligible.  And 'time is on their side' because as more data becomes available, the study can be repeated.

 

I will send you a copy of that study PM.  Real science - based on actual data analysis - is often contra-intuitive to what we think 'should happen',

[Pro1Expat]

The big part of all of this is the word "Cases" being implied that a case is the same as a hospitalisation or death. It isn't but it is being implied to be the same.

Of course Covid exists, the common cold and flu are types of corona viruses and it is reported at least 4 types of corona viruses make the Covid virus.

In the UK if you go to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) you can get the actual data for the virus.

 

[rumak]

5 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I've come to notice that I am educated and "they" are "brainwashed" yet "they" have a similar opinion about me.Is that a conundrum?Not making any aspersions just something I've noticed.

 

haha    yes, of course !    Maybe the only difference is that WE  can see that there are different

viewpoints possible  .    

 

[FarFlungFalang]

6 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

haha    yes, of course !    Maybe the only difference is that WE  can see that there are different

viewpoints possible  .    

 

That might be the essence of the term, of not seeing or allowing consideration of an alternative view.

[KhaoYai]

33 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I will send you a copy of that study PM.  Real science - based on actual data analysis - is often contra-intuitive to what we think 'should happen',

So the virus can spread if people don't mix?

[voulez vous]

56 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

So the virus can spread if people don't mix?

Viruses are interchanged whether we 'mix' or not. Even in very sterile environments they cannot be fully removed.

 

I'll have one last go at posting. Most of the others have been removed. I challenge anyone on TVForum to show me evidence that I am posting un-truths, lies or information that can be disproved. And I am certainly not causing alarm. Just telling the truth according to my training and research. If any poster, or other, would like to challenge me, my work, or my expertise please feel free to PM me: but be prepared for some links to scientific papers.

 

Viruses are everywhere. We have millions in our bodies and we are constantly creating and expelling them; through the skin, expiration and other means. They are not alive. They are chomped up pieces of cells. In a more scientific term; 'cell, DNA and other debris'.

 

They are tiny. It takes up to100 viruses to equal the size of a bacterium, which is very much alive. A bacterium is in itself very small. It was only when the electron microscope came along between the wars that they could be examined, observed and understood.

 

Coughs, colds, rashes and indeed the flu, is evidence that the body is fighting  off poisons and toxins that have found their way into the body. This is bacteria at work, and is mistakenly - IMV - said to be the 'result' of a virus.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by voulez vous

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

You wrote > I think that has been proven. 

Contrary to what you think, It has actually been proven that the effect of lock-downs is neglible.

 

Studies based on actual data are able to discern whether lock-downs had effect when you have sufficient data from different countries that used same and different strategies.  Obviously that's not a simple undertaking, as you need to take many factors into consideration when analyzing the data.  But that's exactly what prof John P.A. Ioannidis of Stanford University and his colleagues did, and as I wrote they concluded from the data that the effect of lock-downs is as good as negligible.  And 'time is on their side' because as more data becomes available, the study can be repeated.

 

I will send you a copy of that study PM.  Real science - based on actual data analysis - is often contra-intuitive to what we think 'should happen',

Loannidis is also famous for his 2005 essay entitled  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, although the idea goes much farther back. 

 

Now you have a conundrum ... Do you trust one opinion from one work by one guy who tells you not to trust anything just because it was published?  By making an unqualified claim that lockdowns don't work exposes you as a layman. Of course lockdowns 'work', it can be proven mathematically.  Assume pre lockdown R0 = X. Now force all people into isolated rooms with no contact. R0 = ~0. The rest is detail. 

 

I don't need to read his paper, though I have, to know he did not mean all lockdowns don't work.

 

Results While model 1 found that lockdown was the most effective measure in the original 11 countries, model 2 showed that lockdown had little or no benefit as it was typically introduced at a point when the time-varying reproductive number was already very low. Model 3 found that the simple banning of public events was beneficial, while lockdown had no consistent impact. Based on Bayesian metrics, model 2 was better supported by the data than either model 1 or model 3 for both time horizons.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3

 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by rabas

[rumak]

4 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Note: Re your example of the easily verifiable non-truth.  If it is easily verifiable as being incorrect, why making the effort to protect people from it.  They will find out by themselves...

And in more complex matters, it is even more important that people have access to different views.  Yes, that makes it more challenging and less convenient for the 'authorities' to convince us to comply with the approach they have taken (reason why they like to crush deviations from the common narrative).

 

you have the patience of a saint, my man.     posting sensible explanations to completely unchangeable followers of their programming.  

  

go have a drink.......... look at the sunset 

it might be our last look at freedom

[simon43]

The sad part of all this is that there are so many people out there who are of low intelligence/slow brain/ zero education etc, and are unable to recognise blatant lying from others.

 

I'm all for free speech - I would ban these slow-brained idiots from using the internet, social media etc, for the sake of their own mental health....

[Bob12345]

The problem with "fake news" is that opinions might change and it becomes real tomorrow.

 

Like Trump saying there would be a vaccine at the end of the year, which was obviously fake news. Until days after the election and a big pharmaceutical company announced there was a vaccine. Or when lockdowns were the way to go according to science, until a week before Biden took office and all of a sudden lockdowns were not the way to go anymore as it would kill all businesses. Or testing positive on a PCR test means you got covid, that is until this morning because now that Biden is president the covid scare needs to be gone asap so the economy can be restarted.

[rumak]

12 hours ago, voulez vous said:

I'll have one last go at posting. Most of the others have been removed.

 

i feel your pain   ????             

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

The sad part of all this is that there are so many people out there who are of low intelligence/slow brain/ zero education etc, and are unable to recognise blatant lying from others.

 

I'm all for free speech - I would ban these slow-brained idiots from using the internet, social media etc, for the sake of their own mental health....

And in the end, it's private companies who decide what's allowed on their platforms.  Time for that to change and make these companies liable for what's posted on their platforms.

 

Here's proof of what happens when you limit lies and misinformation on social media platforms.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/

 

Misinformation dropped dramatically the week after Twitter banned Trump and some allies

 

Zignal Labs charts 73 percent decline on Twitter and beyond following historic action against the president

[Peter Denis]

13 hours ago, rabas said:

Loannidis is also famous for his 2005 essay entitled  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, although the idea goes much farther back. 

 

Now you have a conundrum ... Do you trust one opinion from one work by one guy who tells you not to trust anything just because it was published?  By making an unqualified claim that lockdowns don't work exposes you as a layman. Of course lockdowns 'work', it can be proven mathematically.  Assume pre lockdown R0 = X. Now force all people into isolated rooms with no contact. R0 = ~0. The rest is detail. 

 

I don't need to read his paper, though I have, to know he did not mean all lockdowns don't work.

 

Results While model 1 found that lockdown was the most effective measure in the original 11 countries, model 2 showed that lockdown had little or no benefit as it was typically introduced at a point when the time-varying reproductive number was already very low. Model 3 found that the simple banning of public events was beneficial, while lockdown had no consistent impact. Based on Bayesian metrics, model 2 was better supported by the data than either model 1 or model 3 for both time horizons.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3

The study you are referring to (also conducted by prof Ioannidis and colleagues) was meant to test the validity of the model used by Neil Ferguson, that predicted the apocalypse.

 

The 10-country study to determine whether lock-downs are effective in curbing the spread (Assessing-Mandatory-Stay‐at‐Home-and-Business-Closure-Effects-on-the-Spread-of-COVID‐19 - published January 5), is here

> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13484

The conclusion of that study reads

> While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The study you are referring to (also conducted by prof Ioannidis and colleagues) was meant to test the validity of the model used by Neil Ferguson, that predicted the apocalypse.

 

The 10-country study to determine whether lock-downs are effective in curbing the spread (Assessing-Mandatory-Stay‐at‐Home-and-Business-Closure-Effects-on-the-Spread-of-COVID‐19 - published January 5), is here

> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13484

The conclusion of that study reads

> While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.

Its nice but all it does is compare the effort of south korea (mass testing and quarantining infected) and Sweden (that proved a faillure later on but looked good early on when the research was done) with lockdowns.

 

It does NOT compare no lockdown with lockdown. 

 

But i put question marks as the data is old, not reliable and I am of the opinion that you cannot compare a Sweden with more heavily populated area's also the culture of a country is important. Also lockdowns can be set but if they are not obeyed (see it a lot in the Netherlands) then how can you actually compare it. 

 

Statistics are murky at best when you got good data but when your data is as bad as this its hard to make any predictions.

 

Also this virus is spread by human contact (please tell me if you disagree)

So limiting movement and human contact will always have effect. 

[Bender Rodriguez]

I guess you see 

 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American lawyer, also as a dumb person spreading lies, right...