Jump to content

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Are you kidding !

Most of my "supporting material" is from the BBC, an organisation, if anything, biased in supporting the government's suppression strategy.

 

And I object to the term "covid sceptic", it implies I think Covid is  a hoax, which I do not. I am not even an "antii vaxxer" and have been vaccinated myself, though I think vaccinating people under 30, and certainly under 20, is immoral, as is forcing people to be vaccinated.

I wasn't kidding but if you notice I pointed out that tops (top4718) had behaved badly. For what it is worth you have posted two bits of supporting evidence (the Spectator graphs recaptioned from a research paper and the Ioannidis paper) which did not support what you were saying.

 

The Ioannadis paper is (1) junk and (2) does not say what you implied it said. My junk claim is not on the basis that I, an anonymous poster, have examined his analysis and in my opinion it is flawed but rather that his main conclusion (p10) that infection fatality rates (IFRs) are much lower than generally thought at less than 0.2% for most places is off, way off. My reasoning is that quite a few places (including the UK and US) have lost greater than 0.2% of their entire population to covid and some places have lost very considerably more than 0.2% of their entire population. You yourself have suggested an (unvaccinated) IFR of 0.5-1%. Suspicious right? You're quoting a paper to establish a particular fact but if you had paid close attention you would know that the paper was simply not consistent with your own broad outlook. Secondly you had been asserting that poorer countries have had lower IFRs because of younger populations. I said we don't really know they have had lower IFRs. You said "The 1 in 450 IFR figure [from the Ioannidis paper] was for countries with young age profiles, where have you seen stats which say it is lower (i.e. worse) ?" But now, after a severe prodding, you are saying that (p7) of the paper gives a figure of approximately 1/450 ... except now it is not for poorer countries in particular. So a paper that has proved to be wrong in its conclusions, contradicts your own broad outlook on IFR also fails to do the specific job you intended for it which was to support your contention that poorer countries have had lower IFRs. Do you see why I might suspect that you had not read the paper?

 

It is of course tedious to work through a sequence of posts in the way I have just done when one could adopt the charitable explanation that you (or I) have made a minor slip. Unfortunately, its your slip and its one of a number and I am not feeling particularly charitable on account of seeing tops behave badly over a significant period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Vaccines are not that effective at stopping infection, but I thought it was pretty much accepted we were all going to catching Covid sooner or later (other than people who just don't seem to be susceptible to it poss 10% ). Once you accept that as a likelihood much of this current strategy is exposed as probably a waste of time, and certainly not worth the damage to society and/or the economy. 

 

 

Vaccines have reduced hospitalisations and deaths considerably.  Would you like hospitalisations and deaths back at January levels?  Or no doubt higher without lockdown and vaccinations.

 

You seem keen to vaccinate the thirld world .

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/999/?tab=comments#comment-8473803

 

A waste of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Masks it is again then ****ers :P

For some maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

I wasn't kidding but if you notice I pointed out that tops (top4718) had behaved badly. For what it is worth you have posted two bits of supporting evidence (the Spectator graphs recaptioned from a research paper and the Ioannidis paper) which did not support what you were saying.

 

The Ioannadis paper is (1) junk and (2) does not say what you implied it said. My junk claim is not on the basis that I, an anonymous poster, have examined his analysis and in my opinion it is flawed but rather that his main conclusion (p10) that infection fatality rates (IFRs) are much lower than generally thought at less than 0.2% for most places is off, way off. My reasoning is that quite a few places (including the UK and US) have lost greater than 0.2% of their entire population to covid and some places have lost very considerably more than 0.2% of their entire population. You yourself have suggested an (unvaccinated) IFR of 0.5-1%. Suspicious right? You're quoting a paper to establish a particular fact but if you had paid close attention you would know that the paper was simply not consistent with your own broad outlook. Secondly you had been asserting that poorer countries have had lower IFRs because of younger populations. I said we don't really know they have had lower IFRs. You said "The 1 in 450 IFR figure [from the Ioannidis paper] was for countries with young age profiles, where have you seen stats which say it is lower (i.e. worse) ?" But now, after a severe prodding, you are saying that (p7) of the paper gives a figure of approximately 1/450 ... except now it is not for poorer countries in particular. So a paper that has proved to be wrong in its conclusions, contradicts your own broad outlook on IFR also fails to do the specific job you intended for it which was to support your contention that poorer countries have had lower IFRs. Do you see why I might suspect that you had not read the paper?

 

It is of course tedious to work through a sequence of posts in the way I have just done when one could adopt the charitable explanation that you (or I) have made a minor slip. Unfortunately, its your slip and its one of a number and I am not feeling particularly charitable on account of seeing tops behave badly over a significant period.

Just remember that whatever scorn you pour on so called "evidence" against the narrative that the ones you are putting the most trust in t are Boris Johnson and the MSM, scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Meh 

like it or not, it is, i thought you were more decent than it tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, top4718 said:

Just remember that whatever scorn you pour on so called "evidence" against the narrative that the ones you are putting the most trust in t are Boris Johnson and the MSM, scary.

Same nonsense as usual. I am not particularly trusting of the MSM and Boris is a versatile liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

Meh 

I will 100% not be wearing a mask again, not a chance. I've seen a lot of social media comments that indicate many others won't be either which is good news, we need to make a stand and end this nonsense.

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Same nonsense as usual. I am not particularly trusting of the MSM and Boris is a versatile liar.

Your doing exactly what they want you to do and actually fighting their corner for them, you've done it numerous times on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, melthebell said:

like it or not, it is, i thought you were more decent than it tbh

And I thought you had a backbone. I may not agree with you on much but I've always respected your strength. Until you gave up your rights and the rights of others by bending the knee to this circus 

2 minutes ago, top4718 said:

I will 100% not be wearing a mask again, not a chance. I've seen a lot of social media comments that indicate many others won't be either which is good news, we need to make a stand and end this nonsense.

I'm 100% with you there. This damn charade needs to end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, top4718 said:

/I will 100% not be wearing a mask again, not a chance. I've seen a lot of social media comments that indicate many others won't be either  was an inside jowhich is good news, we need to make a stand and end this nonsense.

I've seen thousands of social media comments saying that 9/11 was an inside job, that the world is flat, that covid doesn't exist or was "planned". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.