Re: Coronavirus
 

Being wrong 100% of the time is consistent.

Not saying that you are, of course, but I doubt anyone would view consistency as a desirable quality in that regard. It indicates an inability to adapt to new knowledge, or new events. Dare I say consistent with ideological dogma.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infectious diseases are relatively cheap and easy to prevent, unlike lifestyle and aging diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The odd jab here and there and simple hygiene measures are all that is needed in general.

If you think a 2% case fatality rate is low, that is about the same as polio, cholera and measles, twice that of whooping cough, lassa fever and cutaneous anthrax and ten to twenty times that of normal influenza, malaria and chickenpox

Re: Coronavirus
 

Useful insights. What stands out to me there is:

ten to twenty times that of normal influenza

Re: Coronavirus
 

Totally agree.

Re: Coronavirus
 

if you don’t lockdown the nation, cause thousands of job losses and pay millions of peoples wages for a year. Do that and it’s not so cheap. Especially if you keep it in the lab where you’re making it.

compared to the overall cancer rate ( which isn’t just an ageing disease) it is.

However, I was pointing out that is the rate from the recorded cases (approx 5.5M) the actual figure will be 2,3,4,5 + times that. So the actual fatality rate will probably be around 0.5% or less, potentially much less.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How’s the Swedish economy going compared to say, New Zealand’s?

The evidence is clear that countries who have managed the health situation most effectively had the best economic outcomes. It doesn’t suit Pierre’s ideological opposition to state intervention, of course, and he has been consistent in not changing his view despite emerging evidence that he is incorrect.

I’m intrigued that covering wages is bad value but a track and trace system and dodgy PPE contracts aren’t worthy of a mention. Presumably because some capitalist creamed off profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Watching Judge Judy = bad, creaming off profits to the Cayman Islands despite not delivering = good.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/r...w-b950281.html

Doesn’t look like Freedom Day is working as intended.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why just focus on New Zealand? Sweden is doing just fine

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ok-at-the-data

I won’t bother responding to the rest of your diatribe, given the time, you’ve probably been drinking since Judge Judy finished.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not like you to ignore the facts Pierre, I must say.

I’m not sure the Spectator is the best source of economic data, but I think you’ll notice they even have Sweden as having negative GDP growth. “Just fine” isn’t usually what I’d call negative growth, but that’s an aside.

As ever your pathetically impotent retorts show what little insight you have to offer on this subject, that you care so little about.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can always offer your own, but don’t forget to include all the other factors that lockdown encompasses. Not just the hard economic ones.

I know you value the whole evidence and data, and not just the ones that suit your narrative.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you for your invitation to selectively misinterpret data to suit your argument. There’s been a number of academic studies on economic and health outcomes, and given their stature I hold them in far greater esteem than both you and the Spectator. By your own admission you have been consistent throughout regardless of how both evidence and circumstances change.

I’ll politely decline, I’ve got a couple more beers here and Bullseye is on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Noted, and thank you for not referring to them, I know you can, obviously, and your inability to do so, we can all agree does not mean they don’t exist. Just that you don’t feel the need present any evidence to back up your assertions. I find it very surprising as you don’t usually do that………………….hardly ever.


if you’re watching re-runs from the Bowen era, i salute you, they are truly hilarious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m unsure why you are so keen for me to present what you readily admit won’t change your view, on a topic you’re bored with and eager to move on.

But if you insist this made the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...978-8/fulltext

Will it change your mind? No. Have we achieved anything here? No. Will we be back tomorrow? Almost certainly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You had all night to trawl the internet and that is the best you can come up with? That well known economic bell weather ……..the lancet!.

Will it change my mind? ……… well no……,sorry but no.

The fact that this is the best you can come up with ………….we’ll be back tomorrow.

Try harder.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unsurprisingly. Scientific evidence dismissed with your fingers in your ears not listening because you disagree on an ideological level. No attempts to offer any critical analysis, nor any critical thinking as a result of the paper you presumably read the hyperlink, the title and dismissed out of hand.

Perhaps if you could provide an exhaustive list of economic journals you consider credible, or academics within that field then I could narrow my search. The Spectator and Toby Young don’t count.

Fundamentally your starting point is do they back up what you want to hear - lockdowns and state intervention bad, freedom good, etc. You’ve admitted you will never diverge from this point regardless.

If the emergence of vaccines cannot shift you to a position where some non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. masks, distancing) are valid until the end of the vaccination programme then nothing will.

Not a single country in the world has approached Covid in the manner you suggest. No rational capitalists out there seeking to seize the edge on all of their competitors. Simply because it doesn’t deliver the outcomes you envisage.