COVID THREAD

[Organgrinder 1,946]

Commenting is fair enough but it's insisting he's right and the scientists are wrong that's so laughable.

 

[Chekhov 488]

5 hours ago, Mkapaka said:

An armchair scientist is someone who feels justified or qualified in commenting on scientific topics for which they have no experience, precious little knowledge, and contribute no experimental results.2 Oct 2023

 

https://www.quora.com › What-is-t...

I am quoting other people's research, or are you saying the same of the ONS etc ?

 

But, as frequently stated, anyone, even an octopus or the toss of a coin, would have been more accurate than the "experts" the government were listening to over Covid suppression. Thus even an "armchair scientist" is undoubtedly going to be more accurate than them.

 

Let's take an example (and I can give you plenty of others if you wish), let's compare what was said about Omicron :

 

Omicron likely biggest threat of Covid pandemic so far, says UK health chief

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/15/omicron-probably-the-biggest-threat-of-covid-pandemic-says-health-chief

Jenny Harries (Head of UK Health Security Agency)

 

And :

 

Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists
Peak of 2,400 daily hospital admissions is most optimistic scenario if England stays in plan B, say advisers  (11 Dec 21)

 

What did an "armchair scientist" say ?

(This was on Coronaviorus part three in Dec 2021 but the thread has been deleted, fortunately I kept a copy of the post) :

 

Omicron may be the end game.

If it is far more infectious but just as deadly as Delta (but the vaccines and previous infections still prevent most serious illness) we would just have to accept we cannot do anything about it short of a full lockdown which will never fly again, so we may as just get back to normal.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be significantly less infectious then two things result

1 - People won't take any notice of those crying wolf next time, so it's over
2 - It will be a very good thing anyway, natural infection immunity (or increased immunity after a vaccine) at low risk, so it's over.

 

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Commenting is fair enough but it's insisting he's right and the scientists are wrong that's so laughable.

It is a fact that the scientists the government were listening to were wrong more often than they were right, see above.

Edited January 10 by Chekhov

[RJRB 688]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I am quoting other people's research, or are you saying the same of the ONS etc ?

 

But, as frequently stated, anyone, even an octopus or the toss of a coin, would have been more accurate than the "experts" the government were listening to over Covid suppression. Thus even an "armchair scientist" is undoubtedly going to be more accurate than them.

 

 

You are selectively quoting the comments and research of others and somehow arriving at a conclusion that your thoughts or the toss of a coin etc were more meaningful.

Its getting tedious

As at March 2020 the direction and severity of Covid was far from certain and it easy for anybody to say I called it right all long.

Its obvious that opinions were mixed amongst experts but based on some rationale on what Might or Could result..

You might as well say that you picked the winner of The Grand Nationa by sticking a pin in the race card whereas the expert punters got it wrong.

Ergo Experts are a waste of space.

I hope that you don’t apply the same logic in other areas where experts are in a certain position for good reason.

 

 

[altus 541]

2 minutes ago, RJRB said:

You are selectively quoting the comments and research of others and somehow arriving at a conclusion that your thoughts or the toss of a coin etc were more meaningful.

Its getting tedious

As at March 2020 the direction and severity of Covid was far from certain and it easy for anybody to say I called it right all long.

Its obvious that opinions were mixed amongst experts but based on some rationale on what Might or Could result..

You might as well say that you picked the winner of The Grand Nationa by sticking a pin in the race card whereas the expert punters got it wrong.

Ergo Experts are a waste of space.

I hope that you don’t apply the same logic in other areas where experts are in a certain position for good reason.

His arguments, although his selective quoting hides it, typically boil down to.

• The experts said 'If we don't to X, Y will happen'.
• Government does X, Y doesn't happen.
• Checkov says 'Y didn't happen so we didn't need to do X'.

[Organgrinder 1,946]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I am quoting other people's research, or are you saying the same of the ONS etc ?

 

But, as frequently stated, anyone, even an octopus or the toss of a coin, would have been more accurate than the "experts" the government were listening to over Covid suppression. Thus even an "armchair scientist" is undoubtedly going to be more accurate than them.

 

Let's take an example (and I can give you plenty of others if you wish), let's compare what was said about Omicron :

 

Omicron likely biggest threat of Covid pandemic so far, says UK health chief

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/15/omicron-probably-the-biggest-threat-of-covid-pandemic-says-health-chief

Jenny Harries (Head of UK Health Security Agency)

 

And :

 

Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists
Peak of 2,400 daily hospital admissions is most optimistic scenario if England stays in plan B, say advisers  (11 Dec 21)

 

What did an "armchair scientist" say ?

(This was on Coronaviorus part three in Dec 2021 but the thread has been deleted, fortunately I kept a copy of the post) :

 

Omicron may be the end game.

If it is far more infectious but just as deadly as Delta (but the vaccines and previous infections still prevent most serious illness) we would just have to accept we cannot do anything about it short of a full lockdown which will never fly again, so we may as just get back to normal.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be significantly less infectious then two things result

1 - People won't take any notice of those crying wolf next time, so it's over
2 - It will be a very good thing anyway, natural infection immunity (or increased immunity after a vaccine) at low risk, so it's over.

 

It is a fact that the scientists the government were listening to were wrong more often than they were right, see above.

Ditto for you too only more so.

[The_DADDY 3,482]

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

 

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

 

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

 

 

Covid jab gave me ruinous side effects, but Facebook is censoring me

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12942189/Covid-vaccine-effects-Facebook-censoring.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Edited January 10 by The_DADDY

[Mkapaka 220]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I am quoting other people's research, or are you saying the same of the ONS etc

Scientists don’t just quote other people’s research and/or quotes that match their own opinion on a subject.

 

armchair scientists do that. 

[Jack Grey 1,602]

1 minute ago, Mkapaka said:

Scientists don’t just quote other people’s research and/or quotes that match their own opinion on a subject.

 

armchair scientists do that. 

So how about the scientists who said lockdowns was a bad idea

 

Are they still to be ignored?

 

Even though everything they said is now fact? 

[Mkapaka 220]

1 hour ago, Jack Grey said:

So how about the scientists who said lockdowns was a bad idea

 

Are they still to be ignored?

 

Even though everything they said is now fact? 

Who said anything about ignoring scientists - I’m just ignoring Chekhov - who isn’t a scientist and just quotes and references information to suit their own opinion and states it as fact.

 

 

[The_DADDY 3,482]

18 minutes ago, Mkapaka said:

Who said anything about ignoring scientists - I’m just ignoring Chekhov - who isn’t a scientist and just quotes and references information to suit their own opinion and states it as fact.

 

 

My bold.

Which scientists advice did you follow?

The pro or anti lockdown ones? 

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, Jack Grey said:

So how about the scientists who said lockdowns was a bad idea

 

Are they still to be ignored?

 

Even though everything they said is now fact? 

Who told you that.

Have a check of your “facts”

As far as I have heard the consensus is that earlier and more targeted lockdowns would have been mor effective.

 

[Jack Grey 1,602]

33 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Who told you that.

Have a check of your “facts”

As far as I have heard the consensus is that earlier and more targeted lockdowns would have been mor effective.

 

The Great Barrington Declaration was an open letter published in October 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.[1][2] It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise took no steps to prevent infection.[3][4][5] The envisaged result was herd immunity within three months, as SARS-CoV-2 swept through the population.[1][2][4]