Status
Not open for further replies.

IdleRich

IdleRich
But I'm really confused by what you're saying.
You say that there was no explosion in cases when Flordia relaxed its lockdown and then you're shown the explosion in cases and you don't miss a beat but (I think) are claiming that's a good thing or something. Where's the consistency?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Correct: if the health service is not at risk of being overwhelmed, lockdown is a clear net negative.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You think there would have been *fewer* hospital admissions back in the spring if there had *not* been a lockdown?

Your statement about Florida a few posts ago, and its immediate debunking as total bollocks, is characteristic of your entire contribution in this thread. Absolutely everything you've said is easily exploded, when it isn't flatly contradicted by something else you've said. Do you have a fetish for public humiliation?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I get you're claiming that the area under the graph will be the same (presumably that would be true for case graph or deaths) if you lockdown or not.
But here
Florida lifted restrictions to much consternation; nothing much has happened as a result...try it, we might like it?
And here
You seem to be claiming that lockdowns don't even change the shape of the curve.
And what is damming about the fact that they eased the lockdown when infections were at a low level? Surely that's the aim as we all understood it.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
@IdleRich Lockdown changes the shape of the initial curve if it's early enough; if too late, it won't do much cos the virus has already spread everywhere.

But if early and then relaxed, you get a substantial resurgence whereby the area under the graph is the same. Even the scientific villains of the piece - Whitty, Vallance, Ferguson - all said this.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
No uptick in Florida deaths. Two days of an increase in cases...so what?
You may not have heard this but apparently it's a potentially serious disease that kills some sufferers and permanently harms others.
An increase in cases will almost certainly lead to an increase in deaths - at a slight time lag. It might even take us to over 200k for the year... although I've been assured that won't happen.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Well you said that nothing much had happened so I took that to mean "no increase in cases" if you weren't including cases in your nothing much you should have said "Nothing much has happened except that more people than ever before have caught it".

Are you aware of all of the problems with the testing that produces 'cases'?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
@IdleRich Lockdown changes the shape of the initial curve if it's early enough; if too late, it won't do much cos the virus has already spread everywhere.
But if early and then relaxed, you get a substantial resurgence whereby the area under the graph is the same. Even the scientific villains of the piece - Whitty, Vallance, Ferguson - all said this.
Hmm that sounds like a good theory but in Florida there was a late lockdown and it still changed the shape.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
No uptick in Florida deaths. Two days of an increase in cases...so what?

Read that linked paper rather than swallowing Tory propaganda.
Tory propaganda? I get most of my information on what's going on from the "MD" column in Private Eye. Honestly had no idea it was being ghostwritten by Bozza's spin team.

Seriously though, that's pretty special. I've spent most of this thread saying the government has fucked up just about everything it could possibly fuck up, and you can turn that into "swallowing Tory propaganda."
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
But Sweden just admitted they had lately been under-counting deaths so death curve is probably closer to case curve than you think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top