Coronavirus

[jfman]

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.

[jonbxx]

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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

Useful insights. What stands out to me there is:

ten to twenty times that of normal influenza

[Mad Max]

We've just spent 18months throwing money hand over fist at an illness that still when all said and done is a mild infection for the vast majority of people.

A death rate of 2% (and that's from the known recorded positive tests) the death rate is probably much lower than that)

So if they don't do it for other illnesses, then why continue for COVID?

Totally agree.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Infectious diseases are relatively cheap

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.

and easy to prevent,

Especially if you keep it in the lab where you’re making it.

If you think a 2% case fatality rate is low,

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.

[jfman]

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure the Spectator is the best source of economic data.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

Bullseye is on.

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

[jfman]

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[Sephiroth]

The price of popcorn is surging.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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.