Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

In my opinion all this is, is a piece from someone who decided weeks ago that "it's not as bad as "everyone else" thinks" pushed here by someone who did the same. Basically people who weeks ago divided the world up into two binary opposing camps of 'those who think its bad' and those who think 'its all over hyped' and having done that they then chose their 'side' and have since proceeded to look for and promote anything they perceive supports their chosen side and ignore or dismiss or diminish anything that does not and pretty much abandoned thinking as a result.

I prefer to try and think for myself, understanding and admitting and distinguishing what is genuinely known and knowable from what is 'best guess' that are the lifeblood of those who 'chose their side' weeks ago and now will never be shifted from it.

In thinking for myself I do not start with media reports. I start with numbers. With the cold hard numbers that are not related to covid-19 at all. Thus I start with the ONS numbers of total deaths in England and Wales from all causes. These numbers really ARE 'fact' or as close as any number can be. Any number about 'lethality of covid-19' or things like R and pretty much all others are right now just 'guesses'. Can only BE guesses. They are the lifeblood of those who 'chose their side' weeks ago and now have only the single objective of trying to prove their side right and the other side wrong.

The ONS total deaths all causes for England and Wales numbers show that in the last two weeks we have data for, over double the numbers of people died in those weeks than would 'typically' do so (five year average for those weeks). They both show a higher peak than any previous weekly peak for the previous 25 odd years that such stats have collected in this manner from flu outbreaks. These genuinely are FACTS in a way that no guess at covid-19 fatality rate can currently be called a fact. They do not tell us the fatality rate of covid-19 but they do tell us categorically that the scale of this event in terms of total deaths from all causes is already greater than anything previous in the UK in last 25 years and with massively high certainty (95% plus is my estimate) that they are higher than any previous event for the last 100 years. That is fact. Those are the facts that I when, when trying to think for myself and resist 'choosing a side' as much as I can start with and measure everything else against, no matter how 'qualified' a given expert or source may or may not be or appear to be.

It is just obvious to me that there will inevitably be 'exaggeration' of the scale of this event, in the media. You can not have a media without this happening imo. Which is why my defence is not to just pick the side 'this is all over hyped exaggeration' and then just look for and only hear anything and everything that supports that side. My defence is to try and start NOT with media reports but with numbers. With numbers that are not guesses. With the numbers that have been collected in the same way for decades and then work out from there and measure everything else I hear and is being pushed against those number. When I do that this this given individuals list of 'facts' I can only come to the conclusion that the entire piece is less about genuinely trying to sift fact from fiction and gain better impartial understanding and much more about trying to support the chosen side of 'its all over hyped'.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 8:14 am

In my opinion all this is, is a piece from someone who decided weeks ago that "it's not as bad as "everyone else" thinks" pushed here by someone who did the same. Basically people who weeks ago divided the world up into two binary opposing camps of 'those who think its bad' and those who think 'its all over hyped' and having done that they then chose their 'side' and have since proceeded to look for and promote anything they perceive supports their chosen side and ignore or dismiss or diminish anything that does not and pretty much abandoned thinking as a result.

I prefer to try and think for myself, understanding and admitting and distinguishing what is genuinely known and knowable from what is 'best guess' that are the lifeblood of those who 'chose their side' weeks ago and now will never be shifted from it.

In thinking for myself I do not start with media reports. I start with numbers. With the cold hard numbers that are not related to covid-19 at all. Thus I start with the ONS numbers of total deaths in England and Wales from all causes. These numbers really ARE 'fact' or as close as any number can be. Any number about 'lethality of covid-19' or things like R and pretty much all others are right now just 'guesses'. Can only BE guesses. They are the lifeblood of those who 'chose their side' weeks ago and now have only the single objective of trying to prove their side right and the other side wrong.

The ONS total deaths all causes for England and Wales numbers show that in the last two weeks we have data for, over double the numbers of people died in those weeks than would 'typically' do so (five year average for those weeks). They both show a higher peak than any previous weekly peak for the previous 25 odd years that such stats have collected in this manner from flu outbreaks. These genuinely are FACTS in a way that no guess at covid-19 fatality rate can currently be called a fact. They do not tell us the fatality rate of covid-19 but they do tell us categorically that the scale of this event in terms of total deaths from all causes is already greater than anything previous in the UK in last 25 years and with massively high certainty (95% plus is my estimate) that they are higher than any previous event for the last 100 years. That is fact. Those are the facts that I when, when trying to think for myself and resist 'choosing a side' as much as I can start with and measure everything else against, no matter how 'qualified' a given expert or source may or may not be or appear to be.

It is just obvious to me that there will inevitably be 'exaggeration' of the scale of this event, in the media. You can not have a media without this happening imo. Which is why my defence is not to just pick the side 'this is all over hyped exaggeration' and then just look for and only hear anything and everything that supports that side. My defence is to try and start NOT with media reports but with numbers. With numbers that are not guesses. With the numbers that have been collected in the same way for decades and then work out from there and measure everything else I hear and is being pushed against those number. When I do that this this given individuals list of 'facts' I can only come to the conclusion that the entire piece is less about genuinely trying to sift fact from fiction and gain better impartial understanding and much more about trying to support the chosen side of 'its all over hyped'.

Sadly I am not able to argue the facts with several professionals in their fields of work, but you are, my post is about others research and not my beliefs, but I do think they have very interesting logical opinions on the matter.

I cannot argue with the guys below, after all, I'm only a dyslexic wine merchant Nice to read and observe though

Stanford professor John Ioannidis

Stanford professor Scott Atlas

Epidemiologist Dr Knut Wittkowski

German virologist Hendrik Streeck

Biology professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt

The emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi

The Swiss chief physician for infectiology, Dr. Pietro Vernazza

It's not about arguing with them. It is about recognising that the 'numbers' they talk about are 'best guesses' , can only BE best guesses right now and accepting the truth that for every expert that guesses such numbers low another guesses it high. Which is why the ONS numbers on total deaths all causes are different and can be used to measure any and all experts 'best guess' against.

If you want to play 'my expert is better than yours' based on pre chosen binary 'sides' , go right ahead. Personally I have little interest in such and am doing my utmost to avoid doing it myself.

I try to read as many differently sourced articles as I can find, and try to assess which one(s) are most likely to reflect reality.

I've read the link posted below, and the one posted by steveodp, and as they both appear to have plausible credentials, it is difficult (for me, at least) to determine which one I should give the greater weight to, as they seem to offer opposing views...

So, how do I decide?

It's the old game of 'Risk vs Probability' (I may have got the name wrong!)

If I go with steveodp's article, the worst that can happen if I'm wrong, is that I waste some time and money, and suffer some inconvenience.

If I go with the article posted on msg 1 and I'm wrong, I could end up ill or dead.

So no matter what the probability is, of one or the other being correct, I'm inclined to choose the one where if I have made the wrong choice, I suffer the least severe outcome.

Just my opinion of course - you lot can make your own minds up!

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 9:12 am

It's not about arguing with them. It is about recognising that the 'numbers' they talk about are 'best guesses' , can only BE best guesses right now and accepting the truth that for every expert that guesses such numbers low another guesses it high. Which is why the ONS numbers on total deaths all causes are different and can be used to measure any and all experts 'best guess' against.

If you want to play 'my expert is better than yours' based on pre chosen binary 'sides' , go right ahead. Personally I have little interest in such and am doing my utmost to avoid doing it myself.

Its not about playing but numbers. I do not think the experts are guessing.

But of the 280 000+ - deaths, how many are really due to the so-called virus COVID-19 without other issues

Im wondering how many deaths would of been recorded in the last 110 days if we had not of had coronavirus outbreak!

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

Being a person well aware of how statistics can be made to "Prove" anything to the advantage of the user, I have not - so far - tried to make any sense at all of the different "numbers" produced by so many different body's. To my mind, and due to the subtle differences in the quantities used in providing the statistics, there is no definitive measuring rod by which you can prove - beyond doubt - that X = Y or that Y = Z. Regarding the views and conclusions of the "Experts" in their chosen fields it is quite often rare to find two of these "Experts" agreeing with each other on every part of their conclusions and the methods used to gain them. People are people after all and everyone wants to be the "Expert of Experts" regardless, so there will always be anomalies in any given theory.

Just what is it we want to find out? Do we want to know the 100% accurate number of deaths due to Covid 19? Do we want to know just how long will Covid 19 effect of daily lives? Do we want to know what are our chances of catching Covid 19? Do we want to know if we can survive Covid 19? Do we want to know how we can avoid catching Covid 19? Well, simply put, the answer is YES!

Now ask yourself if those same questions apply to other things, like "Cancer", "Heart Attack", "The Flu", "RTA" or any other life threatening thing? YES!!!

Remember when Health & Safety became a big thing in the UK? We had to abide by the rules - always - but to do it was life changing and difficult at times. I was, at that time, in a meeting to come up with solutions to the problems, it was known as a "BOGRATS" (Bags Of Guys Round A Table Speaking) and the one thing that made any sense at all was a statement made by a young manager who only had two staff to look after. He said the solution was simple - "No Dickheads"!

Recently I watch interviews of Doctors who were speaking about the cause of death placed on the death certificates, to a person they all agreed the same thing - Unless it is a catastrophic death, blown up by a mine or run over by a train or fell out of the sky in (or not) an aircraft etc, then the cause of death was simply a BEST GUESS by the doctor. That simple agreement and statement kind of blows all the statistics out of the window for me!

Just my opinion of course and feel free to tear holes in it if you wish but in doing so remember that the holes are built on statistics, so be careful which ones you trust! The whole world is waiting for the cure to Covid 19 - just another Flu variant - but ask yourself how long the world has waited for a Common Cold Cure, then decide if you think the Covid 19 cure will be available and work! Just saying - lol.

So, the answer for me, given all the so called "Facts" available to me regarding Covid 19 and all the other diseases threatening my life is fairly simple. I will ignore the politically driven "Good News" comments by any Government until proven, I will use my common sense and avoid any "Dickhead" at all costs and I will stay out of the way and safe until "I" feel it is safe for me to return to a new "normal" life.

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 9:46 am

Its not about playing but numbers. I do not think the experts are guessing.

Well you are just wrong I am afraid. Let's look at the first item on your list posted in OP.

According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.

The only way to know definitively what the 'lethality' of covid-19 is, is to first know exactly how many people have had it to date. We just do not know this and currently can not know it. All we can do is take tiny subset numbers and extrapolate up from that. Quote above explicitly makes my point. It says that their 'best guesses' are better than the WHO's ones, which is also packed with countless experts of high standing and experience. This is an example of 'my expert is better than yours'. No more and no less. It invites us to chose to believe the experts that support or appear to support the side we have already chosen. It is not different from any argument over 'economics' , where you can find any 'expert' that supports a given 'claim' and ones that refute it.

Or to take the example of Stanford professor John Ioannidis. He is an expert there is no doubt about that. It is also a fact that he has made a series of historic claims, based on his best guesses at any given time, that have subsequently just been shown to be plain wrong. That does not mean he is a bad person, or stupid or does not know what he is talking about. It is just a recognition that he is working with 'best guesses'. On the 17 March for example, based on his best guesses then, he predicted only 10K deaths from covid-19 in the US. On the 10th April he predicted in Washington post article 40k total deaths in US.

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 9:46 am

Im wondering how many deaths would of been recorded in the last 110 days if we had not of had coronavirus outbreak!

We do not have hard numbers for this globally but we DO HAVE hard, indisputable fact numbers for this in the UK on a weekly basis. For week 17 - week up to 24 April 2020 it is just a fact that 21,997 people dies in the UK and it is a fact that the average for this exact same week in the 5 years previous to covid-19 outbreak the number was 10,458 deaths. These are fact numbers. They are not guess numbers.

Figures for week 18 have just come in in the last hour or so and 'thankfully' the figure is 17.953 for week 18, 'only' around 8K higher than would be expect for this week had covd-19 not happened, compared with 11-12k higher in the two weeks previous to that.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

waddo wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 10:22 am

Recently I watch interviews of Doctors who were speaking about the cause of death placed on the death certificates, to a person they all agreed the same thing - Unless it is a catastrophic death, blown up by a mine or run over by a train or fell out of the sky in (or not) an aircraft etc, then the cause of death was simply a BEST GUESS by the doctor. That simple agreement and statement kind of blows all the statistics out of the window for me!

Exactly which is why 'total deaths from any / all cause' is a fundamentally different kind of number than ones to do with cause of death. Dead or not is simple binary and unarguable in any way. Anything to do with 'cause of death' is not. So start with the simple hard unarguable numbers I say and work out from there. Measure any number that is NOT simple and binary and unarguable against those that are.

What ever side of the fence you are on there is little doubt that Covid-19 will accelerate someone’s demise. I have read of cases where someone suffering from terminal lung cancer has had their cause of death put down to Covid-19 which might be accurate to a point but probabilities tell me that the person probably wouldn’t have seen out the year but has died in March as opposed to in the Autumn sometime. With that in mind comparing figures on a month by month or week by week case will skew the figures somewhat. It is like trying to guess the ultimate winner of the World Cup after their first game. It may be an indicator that they are a good side but there is a long way to go. After a year of figures we will know where we are which is why I am more than willing to speculate on 2020’s figures as a whole rather than weeks 6-12.
There is no doubt this virus is a serious one but I don’t think it is Spanish flu.
What there hasn’t been a lot of speculation on, is the potential deaths from the inevitable economic crash due to the lockdown. To consistently forward that 120,000 have died from austerity in 10 years, as some do, while ignoring the potential cost in lives from the lockdown is having your cake and eating it. Add to that the lives that have been lost by people not visiting the doctors or hospitals in time to head off life shortening illnesses. Who is to say those deaths aren’t being added to the total.
Knowing that the government are pouring resources into tackling this problem it might be in a hospital’s interests to artificially inflate the deaths in their hospital from Covid-19? All hospital trusts fight for funds so deaths from Covid-19 might be more lucrative to them than deaths from something else?

Starting with the hard known fact numbers in the UK (yes OK for England and Wales, I will just use UK for brevity) for 'total deaths from all causes'

We know from these that in the UK the 'scale' of this event in terms of total numbers of people dying for all causes vs averages, that

The 'scale' is already bigger than any previous flu epidemics in the UK for as long as numbers have been collect in this way (around 25 years). Bigger in terms of 'peaks' and in terms of 'number of weeks exceptional excess deaths have lasted'. Going back further than 25 years means 'guessing' to some degree as number before that are not directly comparable. My guess is that it is 95%+ certain that the scale of this current 'event' (which is still ongoing) is bigger than 1968 flu epidemic in UK and is already the biggest for 100 years (1917/8 so called spanish flu outbreak).

This is my 'starting point' for trying to get a grip on what is really going on in the face of the constant barrage of numbers, opinions and experts in the media and everywhere (social media etc etc ).

Having accepted these facts then of course countless other questions are then 'begged'. How many of these FACT excess deaths are from covid-19 directly ? How many are down to 'lock down' and countless other questions that can and will only have 'guess' answers.

So looking at some aspects of these kinds of questions and seeing if there are any 'hard fact' numbers to guide best guesses.

On the issue of RTA deaths and how they contribute, positively or negatively to the known excess deaths we have seen, again if you stick to hard known numbers we do have the simple answer is 'not at all'. If you go to DoT site and get latest figures (to year ending june 2018)for RTA fatalities (across Britain) and work out the number per week it comes to 34 per week. So given the scale of excess deaths we looking at this is just insignificant as to if any increase or decrease explains some of those excess death numbers.

On the issue of 'how many of the excess deaths are down to 'lock down' (really degree or severity of such) measures rather than covid-19 again there is good hard number comparison we can make to get best best guesses. Sweden has locked down much less serverly than the UK. If the degree of lock down is a significant factor in the number of excess deaths seen to date, then you would expect to see a difference in Sweden's hard total death numbers from all causes vs previous highest flu epidemics there. You do not see this if you look. In the UK figures the highest weekly covid-19 death totals is 10% higher than the highest spikes in last 25 years from flu. In sweden numbers it is 9% higher than theri previous highest flu spike. This indicates strongly that 'degree of lock down' is not major factor in explaining the excess death numbers in UK figures.

This is not to say that all the excess deaths in UK numbers is therefore directly 'covid-19' related. I personally have little doubt that some of these numbers, possibly a significant number, are the result of people who did not have covid-19 but delayed seeking treatment for other things because of 'fear of covid-19' dying in these weeks. The point is this seems to be equally true in both Sweden and the UK when looking ONLY at the hard total death numbers in each respectively. So yes some people are dying because of covid-19 but not of it. However it does not appear to be the case that the more lock down the more such excess deaths you get.

Finally I have come to understand that talk of 'saving lives' is counter productive to searching for understanding and resisting just splitting in to binary camps and defending those binary camps. The commonality of meaning and understanding that the phrase 'saving lives' use to have between those using it has broken down and within that break down of meaning and understanding some (all to some degree but not all to same degree) are exploiting that lack of common meaning, knowingly or not, as just another way to 'support their chosen side'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 does not 'save lives'
Delaying the spread of covid-19 can does and has 'extended lifespans'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:04 am

With that in mind comparing figures on a month by month or week by week case will skew the figures somewhat.

Not when you look at 'total deaths ALL causes' numbers, which is my whole point. START with those BECAUSE they are not 'vague' or 'wooly' in any way. They are as hard as you can get. Why someone died is and will always and can only ever be subject to 'opinion'. If they are dead or not is clear cut, simple and not subject to any argument.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:04 am

There is no doubt this virus is a serious one but I don’t think it is Spanish flu.

The HARD numbers in the UK, the ones that are not opinion, that can not be argued with show as plain fact this current ongoing event is already bigger than anything in previous 25 years or so and probably with high certainty bigger than any SINCE Spanish flu. So no not bigger than Spanish flu but biggest since Spanish flu.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:04 am

What there hasn’t been a lot of speculation on, is the potential deaths from the inevitable economic crash due to the lockdown. To consistently forward that 120,000 have died from austerity in 10 years, as some do, while ignoring the potential cost in lives from the lockdown is having your cake and eating it. Add to that the lives that have been lost by people not visiting the doctors or hospitals in time to head off life shortening illnesses. Who is to say those deaths aren’t being added to the total.

I do not think anyone is saying that, certainly not me. I think absolutely some of the UK excess deaths figures will be down to people not seeking treatment for other things. I am just saying start with the know and work from there. Do not confuse things like deaths from severity of lock down vs deaths from fear of seeking treatment which happens regardless of lock down. Having established that some deaths will be from things other than covid19 directly, then next stage would be to try and investigate 'how many. I am suspicious of people who just point this out and then make no effort to try and guess 'how many'

It does also make me suspicious when people who have spent the last 10 - 20 years poo pooing any analysis on how much death 'austerity' has resulted in now start using the very same kind of analysis to show that 'lock down is bad'. It makes me suspicious that they are more just defending their pre chosen 'side' than seeking best possible understanding where ever that might lead.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:04 am

Knowing that the government are pouring resources into tackling this problem it might be in a hospital’s interests to artificially inflate the deaths in their hospital from Covid-19? All hospital trusts fight for funds so deaths from Covid-19 might be more lucrative to them than deaths from something else?

Again you are just back to the 'uncertainty' of cause of death numbers. So just use total deaths all causes as the starting point. Unless you are suggesting hospitals are claiming more people have died from any cause in their hospitals than actually have ?

duplicate - used quote rather than edit - sorry

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:37 am

duplicate - used quote rather than edit - sorry

So easily done...

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 10:23 am

Or to take the example of Stanford professor John Ioannidis. He is an expert there is no doubt about that. It is also a fact that he has made a series of historic claims, based on his best guesses at any given time, that have subsequently just been shown to be plain wrong.

Or to throw up Neil Ferguson who it appears was one of the main driving forces behind the UK changing tack on herd immunity to the lockdown has form being tremendously inaccurate with previous predictions on swine flu and BSE.

I guess if I predict someone will have a car crash before every journey I have a decent chance of being right one of these years.
I guess if someone opens their door in Lemar car park and scratches your door while you are shopping I might be able to show horn that in as a positive as well.
I am always a little cynical of scientists with doomsday predictions. They are obviously very clever people who probably don’t attract the fame they should but one ‘1 million people will die’ prediction will get them column inches and a few tv appearances and in the public eye enough to guarantee future calls whenever the media needs a talking head.
I always think a diet book that says eat as many chocolate biscuits as you like will sell a lot better than one that says fruit and vegetables is the way to go.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:41 am

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 10:23 am

Or to take the example of Stanford professor John Ioannidis. He is an expert there is no doubt about that. It is also a fact that he has made a series of historic claims, based on his best guesses at any given time, that have subsequently just been shown to be plain wrong.

Or to throw up Neil Ferguson who it appears was one of the main driving forces behind the UK changing tack on herd immunity to the lockdown has form being tremendously inaccurate with previous predictions on swine flu and BSE.

I guess if I predict someone will have a car crash before every journey I have a decent chance of being right one of these years.
I guess if someone opens their door in Lemar car park and scratches your door while you are shopping I might be able to show horn that in as a positive as well.
I am always a little cynical of scientists with doomsday predictions. They are obviously very clever people who probably don’t attract the fame they should but one ‘1 million people will die’ prediction will get them column inches and a few tv appearances and in the public eye enough to guarantee future calls whenever the media needs a talking head.
I always think a diet book that says eat as many chocolate biscuits as you like will sell a lot better than one that says fruit and vegetables is the way to go.

My point is I am trying to not just use 'my expert is better than your expert' arguments that lead to no where other than hardening of polarised binary 'camping' and not much else. I do not succeed but I am making conscious effort. Hence why I 'start' with the hard simple fact numbers (total death all causes) and try and measure everything else against those regardless of if it supports the 'camp' I am in or the 'camp' people chose to place me in for no other reason than they have themselves chosen a 'camp' and this requires them to place anyone not also in same camp as in the other one.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:34 am

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:04 am

With that in mind comparing figures on a month by month or week by week case will skew the figures somewhat.

Not when you look at 'total deaths ALL causes' numbers, which is my whole point. START with those BECAUSE they are not 'vague' or 'wooly' in any way. They are as hard as you can get. Why someone died is and will always and can only ever be subject to 'opinion'. If they are dead or not is clear cut, simple and not subject to any argument.

Maybe I didn't explain my point so i'll have a go from another angle. Let's say that 30,000 were receiving chemotherapy for cancer. It's a very harsh treatment and let's say that statically over the next year 12,000 will die. Now they may generally die in a pretty much linear fashion at roughly 1000 per month. It is a fact that those that have pre-existing conditions are dying of the virus whereas healthier people are generally not. I'm saying that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that rather than die in a linear fashion those 12,000 die in the first 3 months but that only those 12,000 will die.
So if we look at the first 3 months in isolation and assume that 4000 are dying a month then all the 30,000 will be dead before the end of August which wont actually be the case. So looking at the figures on anything other than over a longer term will skew the figures.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:34 am

Do not confuse things like deaths from severity of lock down vs deaths from fear of seeking treatment which happens regardless of lock down.

It does but how many who would normally seek treatment aren't because of the fear of visiting the petri dish that is a hospital?

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:34 am

Having established that some deaths will be from things other than covid19 directly, then next stage would be to try and investigate 'how many. I am suspicious of people who just point this out and then make no effort to try and guess 'how many'

I have stated that based on the estimate that 640,000 will die normally in the UK for 2020 I would estimate the figure will be a lot nearer to 675,000 than 740,000 best case scenario.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:34 am

It does also make me suspicious when people who have spent the last 10 - 20 years poo pooing any analysis on how much death 'austerity' has resulted in now start using the very same kind of analysis to show that 'lock down is bad'. It makes me suspicious that they are more just defending their pre chosen 'side' than seeking best possible understanding where ever that might lead.

How many deaths austerity has caused is finger in the air guessing but even faux fact has debunked the 120,000 figure.
I accept there have been deaths but I have seen little evidence that it is 120,000.

My point is you can't have it both ways and actions have consequences. You can't in good conscience demand a lockdown and ignore the consequences of the subsequent economic fallout, then in 3 years time say 100,000 have died due to cutbacks. What did you think was going to happen. It's a numbers game if you think that 10,000 die per year due to austerity, you must acknowledge that in all likelihood more will die from the economic fallout from the lockdown. If the fallout lasts 3 years and 100,000 die due to the fallout then pointing out that only 10,000 actually died from the virus so was the lockdown a good move isn't unfair.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:34 am

Again you are just back to the 'uncertainty' of cause of death numbers. So just use total deaths all causes as the starting point. Unless you are suggesting hospitals are claiming more people have died from any cause in their hospitals than actually have ?

I've covered the problem of guessing the final score after 15 minutes and as I said before hospitals have put down the cause of death of terminal lung cancer sufferers as covid-19 and we could speculate as to their reasons why.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

Maybe I didn't explain my point so i'll have a go from another angle

This why i think we have to get away from talking about 'saving lives' and move to talk of 'extending lifespans'. Doing so simplifies and clarifies what we are talking about. In the week 18 figures of 8K excess deaths, some of number will represent people who simply died a week or 2 earlier than they would of had covid-19 not happened. They will be in the week 16 or 17 figures and therefore not be in week 18's. They will be examples of people who died from covid-19 but who would have died within weeks anyway without it. It makes no sense to talk of measures that delay spread having saved their life. It does however make some sense to talk about how such measures could have extended their lifespans. In their case by days or a couple of weeks. Even a week of extra life has some value.

Yes in a years time we will have a better handle on how many peoples lifespans were or were not extended and by what degree. Right now I am working with the figures we do have not those we do not yet have. Right now if a vast majority of the excess deaths we have seen in week 16,17 and 18 are deaths that would have occurred anyway within weeks then we should expect to see the weekly numbers going forward being LOWER than previous 5 year averages. I doubt we will see that myself but if that is what the fact numbers come to show I will not deny them. It may be that some of the drop from week 17 to 18 is down to this but if it is then the degree of drop is minimal given that the weekly figures is still massively over the normal 5 year average.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

It does but how many who would normally seek treatment aren't because of the fear of visiting the petri dish that is a hospital?

I suspect (guess) that a significant number of people have had their lifespans shorten because of this single factor. It is something I think we need to 'think hard' about and seek best guesses about because understanding this better means we can potentially reduce these numbers to significant degree. What worries me is that the 'hard thinking / guessing' gets buried in conflation with 'lock down caused these deaths' from those more interested in supporting their pre chosen camp. I think the hard fact numbers show that these kind of deaths exist in both the UK and in Sweden to almost exactly same degree and thus are not 'lock down' related.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

I have stated that based on the estimate that 640,000 will die normally in the UK for 2020 I would estimate the figure will be a lot nearer to 675,000 than 740,000 best case scenario.

Again I see this as working with numbers we do not yet have. Lets work with the ones we do have I say. It feels , and I know this is unfair, that your objective is setting a 'this will prove I am right' point so you can declare down the line 'see I was right'. Nor is there anything 'special' about a year as a time frame per se. If after a year the number of excess deaths over the whole year is higher than average, then it can still be argued 'yeah but next year they will be lower because those that died this year just died early and would have died next year in any case'.Hence my belief that talking not about 'saving lives' but about 'extending lifespans' is more useful.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

My point is you can't have it both ways and actions have consequences.

Is someone who has spent 10 years arguing that 'you can not calculate how many deaths have come from austerity' who now argues 'lock down is worse than the virus because of the deaths that will be caused by economic slow down will be greater than those killed by virus' not an example of 'wanting it both ways' ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

You can't in good conscience demand a lockdown and ignore the consequences of the subsequent economic fallout, then in 3 years time say 100,000 have died due to cutbacks.

I personally do not know if the economic damage from efforts to slow the spread of the virus in its initial stage will result in a net gain or loss in terms of extending peoples lifespans. I have never claimed any certainty on this and never promoted such. What I DO know however is that no one else knows this either, can know this at this stage with any degree of certainty. What I oppose is people who claim with certainty that measures to slow the spread have been are and will be net negative. I am not in the 'pro lock down camp'. The reality is however that for those who are in the 'anti lock down camp', those who first chose their camp before there were any hard numbers on anything, I am seen as being in such a 'pro lock down' camp regardless of anything I might say or suggest. That is the way the mechanics of this tendency to simplify and polarise in to back and white polar opposites works. Not only will such people see me as being in the other opposite camp, the very fact they do creates a degree of self fulfilling prophecy. They will force me to a degree to behave as if I am in the opposite camp. This is a real problem, not just with covid but with just about anything where people disagree (Brexit, Cyprus problem possibly all human conflict)

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 12:29 pm

What did you think was going to happen. It's a numbers game if you think that 10,000 die per year due to austerity, you must acknowledge that in all likelihood more will die from the economic fallout from the lockdown.

I would suggest if you look at my history of what I have personally actually said myself, you will find scant evidence of me having used such 'stats' like - we know austerity has killed X number of people. I think you will find that actually you have regularly accused me of using such because you have put me in the camp of 'lefitist' vastly more often than you doing so as a reaction to me having actually used such arguments. it's the same 'camp' problem I try and outline above. I t just does not matter if I have actually used such arguments. I am in the 'leftist' camp and therefore by such definition I have used them.

I wonder just how many people , elderly people actually passed with the worry of this pandemic and being alone and isolated and not seeing loved ones etc

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 11:41 am

I am always a little cynical of scientists with doomsday predictions.

Been wanting to say something about this for a while.

I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. I get ti and I think there is value in saying it. However I also think there is another angle / perspective / level to this has also has significant degrees of value in 'understanding'.

I know you know about roulette gambling strategies - like "The D’Alembert System". These can give you an odds 'edge' per given 'sitting'. They ultimately fail because when they go wrong (hit table limits, run out of funds because of exception rare run of consecutive outcomes) they go wrong BIG , big enough to wipe out any and all gains from the previous session, 5 sessions, 30 sessions etc where they went right.

I think there is an analogy here with the argument that 'doomsday predictions' are statistically highly likely, even almost certainly, going to be wrong on the 'bad side'. In each individual case this is undoubtedly true. However such truth can distract from the other truth that sooner or later (once every hundred years ?) one of them will turn out to be essentially right and when that happens the loss from ignoring it wipes out all the gains from having ignored previous wrong predictions.

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:35 pm

I wonder just how many people , elderly people actually passed with the worry of this pandemic and being alone and isolated and not seeing loved ones etc

I wonder why you only seem to wonder about scenarios that could mean the massive excess deaths we know have happened are made up of 'non covid-19 deaths' but you never seem to wonder how many deaths might not have occurred because of it. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that someone who would have committed suicide if there had been no covid-19. has now not done because 'lock down' has given them a chance to 'stop their life' to see and consider other alternative futures that were impossible for them to see if covid-19 had not happen. Or the person who was on the verge of 'going postal' at work who is now not on such a verge.

All I am saying is , if the objective is to try and understand as best we can the hard fact numbers, rather than just see them through the lens of the camp we have already chosen, should we not look at 'both sides' of such scales ? Is it not 'fair' to wonder what is going on when someone seems to only ever consider the one side of the scale that matches their pre chosen camp ?

There will be some who have suffered and even had liefspans shortened as a result of 'domestic abuse' scenarios from lock down. Undoubtedly imo. Just as there may be some who have new strength to escape such situations as a result of lock down, that they would not have found had the 'intensity' not been artificially increased by lock down. Reduced suffering and even potential increased lifespans.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

Even a week of extra life has some value.

Yes of course and its a virtuous thing to say and it comes over as harsh to say ok what value?
But here's a scenario which isn't that outlandish and I will use as a comparison. A person has terminal cancer and has been given 3 months to live. He is offered a treatment in Switzerland that cannot cure him but will extend that 3 months to 6 months. The catch is to fund the treatment it will require all his children and grandchildren to sell their homes and all property to fund the treatment.
I can't speak for everyone but I can say hand on heart that I'd say keep your money kids. An extra 3 months would be nice but the cost is too high.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

Right now if a vast majority of the excess deaths we have seen in week 16,17 and 18 are deaths that would have occurred anyway within weeks then we should expect to see the weekly numbers going forward being LOWER than previous 5 year averages. I doubt we will see that myself but if that is what the fact numbers come to show I will not deny them.

That is my belief so we will have to wait and see. Also with any data you can take a snap shot of it and run with it. Weeks 1-16 in 2018 were over 20,000 above the previous years 5 year average. The same period in 2019 was over 3000 below that 2013 to 2017 average.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

What worries me is that the 'hard thinking / guessing' gets buried in conflation with 'lock down caused these deaths' from those more interested in supporting their pre chosen camp.

Not the lockdown but the scaremongering that let to the lockdown

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

that your objective is setting a 'this will prove I am right' point so you can declare down the line 'see I was right'. Nor is there anything 'special' about a year as a time frame per se. If after a year the number of excess deaths over the whole year is higher than average, then it can still be argued 'yeah but next year they will be lower because those that died this year just died early and would have died next year

No my objective was to pin down those who have pushed the doomsday scenario into coming up with a number. If they are right then I tip my hat to them but I'm getting heartily sick of the climate change proponents move the we will be under water by the year 2006, no 2009, no 2012, no 2020, err how old are you, ok by 2050 is my final offer.
With Dr Ferguson who seems to often be the first port of call for a prediction which seems to always be spectacularly wrong my feeling is if we do the opposite of what he says we will generally not go far wrong.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

Is someone who has spent 10 years arguing that 'you can not calculate how many deaths have come from austerity' who now argues 'lock down is worse than the virus because of the deaths that will be caused by economic slow down will be greater than those killed by virus' not an example of 'wanting it both ways' ?

What highlighting hypocrisy or a disconnect between two identical events? Nope I'd say it's more a case of heading that argument off at the pass tbh. When cuts are made and they will have to be made then I don't think it is unfair to ask are you sure lockdown was a victimless choice. You always say there might be a greater harm doing nothing, I'm just pointing out that maybe doing nothing might have been the sensible choice.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

What I oppose is people who claim with certainty that measures to slow the spread have been are and will be net negative.

have never said it will be a net negative but what I am saying is that if say 20,000 people died in total as a result of this virus then if in a few years I see another 120,000 sound bite don't forget to pop that in your calculator.

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

The reality is however that for those who are in the 'anti lock down camp', those who first chose their camp before there were any hard numbers on anything,

I didn't choose my camp before the hard numbers were in because imo the hard numbers are still not clear. What I said which wasn't popular when everyone was calling for the lockdown was to point out that there are severe consequences to this and whilst I don't know the mortality rate for coronavirus I do know the mortality rate for starvation is around 100%

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

I would suggest if you look at my history of what I have personally actually said myself, you will find scant evidence of me having used such 'stats' like - we know austerity has killed X number of people. I think you will find that actually you have regularly accused me of using such because you have put me in the camp of 'lefitist' vastly more often than you doing so as a reaction to me having actually used such arguments. it's the same 'camp' problem I try and outline above. I t just does not matter if I have actually used such arguments. I am in the 'leftist' camp and therefore by such definition I have used them.

When I say you it isn't always directly at you it is me saying you in general can't say this but then....

What I do find amusing is you are obviously a very well read person but when I do say this is a common line you act as if you have never seen this theory forwarded in The Guardian on a regular basis.

fully referenced?
7 or 8 weeks ago, Christian Drosten, a virologist from germany and government adviser (and not mentioned from swprs) , gave in a talkshow ( do you think is will be 2 or maybe 5 %?.... answer... no.. no.. much much lower) a lethality estimate of, by this time, 0,3 - 0,4 %.
provided.... the health system works!
as the health system does not work everywhere as good as in eg, germany, the WHO estimated much higher. logical, or? so, from the beginning (overview 1. cont... ) this "research" starts with rubbish.

later on, eg, the virologist Hendrik Streeck is not a "hidden source". no. he is very well known.. and respected as well. Since weeks he is active in german TV, as eg, in talkshows "within the mainstream media" .
there is also no need to mention "watch quickly this video, before it gets deleted from "zuckerberg and co".
his study was partly paid by the government and was "officially published".
one of these "study targets to find out" was the herdimmunisation after a "superspreader event".
from the results we learned that nation wide (germany) approx approx the real infections are 10 times higher as the registered ones (so, germany: 170 k registered, 1,7 million in reality = say 2 % of the population). also the death rate of 7,5 k and a mortality of say 0,3-0,5% show into that region.
but still, herdimmunisation is low... therefore we are still at the beginning of the pandemia. many death to go.
so, it could be that with 32k death in the UK to date and 0,3% mortality, 10 million are or have been already infected. say 15%.
this data is somewhat same as H. Streecks findings.... basically a UK nation wide superspreader event. and also a lot of death to go. i wonder for how long this "with or from covid 19 death" will continue.

there are definitely some point which needs to be taken in consideration... but for that i do not need swprs.

at first i would suggest that swprs publishes an imprint!

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 2:01 pm

I think there is an analogy here with the argument that 'doomsday predictions' are statistically highly likely, even almost certainly, going to be wrong on the 'bad side'. In each individual case this is undoubtedly true. However such truth can distract from the other truth that sooner or later (once every hundred years ?) one of them will turn out to be essentially right and when that happens the loss from ignoring it wipes out all the gains from having ignored previous wrong predictions.

It's like tossing a coin, statistically at some point the coin would land on its side and be neither head nor tail but betting on that is the way to the poor house.
It is why casinos have mug bets on all the games. The pay offs look inviting but in all probability you'll run out of money long before they hit.
I see the same with the whole climate change bit. I think the world will run out of money long before the climate change lobby admit that they were perhaps a little creative with their modelling.

I can categorically agree that at some point in the future planet Earth will be uninhabitable for the human race.
Now I don't buy into that it is going to happen in the next 1000 years but 250,000 or a million years, who knows?
But playing the odds there is more chance that we have been wiped out by a meteor before how often I run my car or fly becomes an issue.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 2:36 pm

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:31 pm

Even a week of extra life has some value.

Yes of course and its a virtuous thing to say and it comes over as harsh to say ok what value?

My point has nothing to do with virtue signalling what so ever. FWIW I would put one weeks extension of anyone's life , my own included at next to zero.

My point is that most of the time when someone talks about 'saving a life or lives' all parties know what that means. They all understand the same thing whatever their position is. In the current situation that is not the case and it matters to recognise that. So much argument about if something is 'saving lives' or not is actually derived from opposing parties have a different understanding of what 'saving a life' means and not the substance of their underlying disagreement. Time is wasted. Polarised positions are hardened and more deeply entrenched. A vast amount of which could be avoided simply by talking not about saving lives but about 'extending lifespans'. That is my point.

It is two different scenarios and we have to recognise that all governments have had to make some very hard calls.
People are going to die from this and that is the hard truth.

It is similar to some of the decisions that governments have to make in wartime.
Details are still sketchy but it has been floated that the government knew in advance about the bombing of Coventry during World War Two. This gave them the horrendous decision as to make preparations for that bombing would tip the Germans off that they had cracked Enigma. Once the Germans knew that then they would change their method of coding messages and the allies would be blind again. So it is a decision of what decision will ultimately cost the least amount of lives.
Ditto the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
So it is very easy to be a Monday morning quarter back on the validity of decisions that have or will be made. Either way lives will be lost.

120,000 people die prematurely due to smoking in the UK every year.
Nobody seems to panick about this.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 4:50 pm

So it is very easy to be a Monday morning quarter back on the validity of decisions that have or will be made. Either way lives will be lost.

Why are you saying this in reply to me ? I have said nothing about how well or bad the government has responded ? All I am trying to do is find the best understanding I can on things like , what is the actual scale of this 'event' and the like, in the tsunami of numbers, opinions ans experts that we are all being constantly barraged with and in the face of some who clearly HAVE just made up their minds, assigned and chosen which camp they are in and just want to place me and everyone else in one of those chosen camps and promote and push anything that supports or appears to support their chosen side and dismiss anything and everything that does not. My attempts are focused on starting with the 'fact numbers' we do have so far (total deaths all causes) and working out from there and using these facts to measure and judge everything else by.

MVP wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 5:21 pm

120,000 people die prematurely due to smoking in the UK every year.
Nobody seems to panick about this.

I do not understand your point ? Is the difference not that smoking or not is a personal choice made with lots of good data about what the risks are but catching covid-19 is not a choice and with next to no real solid data yet on what the risks are, short medium or long term ?

MVP wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 5:21 pm

120,000 people die prematurely due to smoking in the UK every year.
Nobody seems to panick about this.

A lot of people die of various things everyday.
A fact that always sticks in my mind is from Bill Bryson, who imo should be compulsory reading, is more than a dozen people a year die in New Hampshire by crashing their cars into a moose.
The amount of people who die in Africa each year by things such as a lack of clean water and decent sanitation, things we take for granted, is a horrifying figure

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 5:35 pm

Why are you saying this in reply to me ? I have said nothing about how well or bad the government has responded ?

Not everything I post even in reply to you is pointedly directed at you Erol and it is going to get a bit wearing if as well as having to explain every comma I have to keep saying many but not Erol
I am simply pointing out that many have used this crisis as an excuse to stick the boot into the government.
As you pointed out there are different experts saying different things and I’m sure Johnson hasn’t ignored them and done his own thing.
Some might accuse him of originally picking the one that places the economy over lives but harking back to the 120,000 deaths through austerity theory anyone must see choosing the least sensible economic solution still costs lives.
No matter what your opinion of Tories in general surely no one thinks they would have chosen a path that deliberately leads to deaths.
The advantage of being unelectable is that you never have to make a decision and can remain a protest movement

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 5:38 pm

MVP wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 5:21 pm

120,000 people die prematurely due to smoking in the UK every year.
Nobody seems to panick about this.

I do not understand your point ? Is the difference not that smoking or not is a personal choice made with lots of good data about what the risks are but catching covid-19 is not a choice and with next to no real solid data yet on what the risks are, short medium or long term ?

Everything in life has a risk and smoking is one of the biggest ones you can take.

The personal choice of being able to leave your home and go about your business should be yours as long as you take reasonable care of others.

If you are worried about catching a disease stay home and protect yourself.

Should everyone be stopped from smoking in case a non smoker is harmed?

That's fine except you are putting others at risk by unknowingly spreading the disease. As regards your last question, why do you think there is a smoking ban in public areas?

erol wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 2:14 pm

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 1:35 pm

I wonder just how many people , elderly people actually passed with the worry of this pandemic and being alone and isolated and not seeing loved ones etc

I wonder why you only seem to wonder about scenarios that could mean the massive excess deaths we know have happened are made up of 'non covid-19 deaths' but you never seem to wonder how many deaths might not have occurred because of it. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that someone who would have committed suicide if there had been no covid-19. has now not done because 'lock down' has given them a chance to 'stop their life' to see and consider other alternative futures that were impossible for them to see if covid-19 had not happen. Or the person who was on the verge of 'going postal' at work who is now not on such a verge.

All I am saying is , if the objective is to try and understand as best we can the hard fact numbers, rather than just see them through the lens of the camp we have already chosen, should we not look at 'both sides' of such scales ? Is it not 'fair' to wonder what is going on when someone seems to only ever consider the one side of the scale that matches their pre chosen camp ?

There will be some who have suffered and even had liefspans shortened as a result of 'domestic abuse' scenarios from lock down. Undoubtedly imo. Just as there may be some who have new strength to escape such situations as a result of lock down, that they would not have found had the 'intensity' not been artificially increased by lock down. Reduced suffering and even potential increased lifespans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ss-factors

Japan suicides decline as Covid-19 lockdown causes shift in stress factors
April’s 20% drop compared with a year earlier may be the result of delays to start of school year, less commuting and more time with family

frontalman wrote: ↑

Wed 13 May 2020 6:12 am

As regards your last question, why do you think there is a smoking ban in public areas?

Because it was made EU law based on some very iffy scientific evidence?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 10:42 am

frontalman wrote: ↑

Wed 13 May 2020 6:12 am

As regards your last question, why do you think there is a smoking ban in public areas?

Because it was made EU law based on some very iffy scientific evidence?

Do you seriously believe that had the UK not joined the EU then it would never have implemented bans on smoking in public spaces ? If you do really believe that then I think you are delusional to a degree that you should consider seeking professional clinical help for quite honestly.

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 12:14 pm

Do you seriously believe that had the UK not joined the EU then it would never have implemented bans on smoking in public spaces ? If you do really believe that then I think you are delusional to a degree that you should consider seeking professional clinical help for quite honestly.

So it wasn’t us following an EU law and was just a coincidence that France, Germany etc all enforced the same laws within a year of each other?
But as usual you zero in on the irrelevant part.
Look forward to seeing the statistics for non smokers who have died of lung cancer since 2007, it must surely be zero as near as dammit?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 1:57 pm

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 12:14 pm

Do you seriously believe that had the UK not joined the EU then it would never have implemented bans on smoking in public spaces ? If you do really believe that then I think you are delusional to a degree that you should consider seeking professional clinical help for quite honestly.

So it wasn’t us following an EU law and was just a coincidence that France, Germany etc all enforced the same laws within a year of each other?
But as usual you zero in on the irrelevant part.
Look forward to seeing the statistics for non smokers who have died of lung cancer since 2007, it must surely be zero as near as dammit?

France actually enforced the law after the Uk!

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 1:57 pm

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 12:14 pm

Do you seriously believe that had the UK not joined the EU then it would never have implemented bans on smoking in public spaces ? If you do really believe that then I think you are delusional to a degree that you should consider seeking professional clinical help for quite honestly.

So it wasn’t us following an EU law and was just a coincidence that France, Germany etc all enforced the same laws within a year of each other?
But as usual you zero in on the irrelevant part.
Look forward to seeing the statistics for non smokers who have died of lung cancer since 2007, it must surely be zero as near as dammit?

No as ever you connect two things that are not connected driven by and to suit your political prejudices. How many countries in the world have such bans ? I will give you a clue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

Of the 125 odd countries that have introduced such bans, guess what ? The vast overwhelming majority of them are NOT in the EU. Connecting the introduction of the ban in the UK to us being in the EU is nonsense. It is a false connection and you must know that on some level or other. Your great man in the street common sense must tell you that if the EU had never even existed the 125 odd countries that have such bans would STILL have such bans anyway. If the UK had never joined it would STILL have such a ban. The UK has a ban because it believes, like the vast majority of countries around the world, that smoking is harmful to those who smoke and those exposed to secondary smoke. Now all these countries may be wrong as you claim but the idea that the UK thought as you do that such bans were unnecessary, did not want to impose such a ban and only introduce them because the EU forced it to, is for the birds my friend.

Brazen wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 2:34 pm

France actually enforced the law after the Uk!

If memory serves one was around 6 months before the UK and one was around 6 months after.

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 3:13 pm

The UK has a ban because it believes, like the vast majority of countries around the world, that smoking is harmful to those who smoke and those exposed to secondary smoke. Now all these countries may be wrong as you claim but the idea that the UK thought as you do that such bans were unnecessary, did not want to impose such a ban and only introduce them because the EU forced it to, is for the birds my friend.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... g-ban.html

https://www.treated.com/blog/smoking-ba ... -was-first

I'm sure the EU had no influence on it whatsoever and the rather large block of EU countries who all bought in the ban 2006 to 2008 was entirely coincidental. These ideas can leap into everyone's head at the same time I guess.

But anyhow if these 125 countries around the world have all had such a ban for 10 to 15 years there must be one hell of a drop in lung cancer deaths that can be directly attributed to the success of the bans? Thirteen years would be long enough to see the improvements I'm sure?
I can't remember seeing any such banner headlines and I'm sure we would have done. But I'm sure the science was right even if we never get any clear data that confirms it was.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 3:30 pm

I'm sure the EU had no influence on it whatsoever and the rather large block of EU countries who all bought in the ban 2006 to 2008 was entirely coincidental. These ideas can leap into everyone's head at the same time I guess.

No speculation is required, just a mind that is not set on blaming the EU for everything, those things it is responsible for AND those things it is not.

We know what the statistical chance is that any given country will impose such a ban regardless of EU membership. By looking at all the countries that are not in the EU, never have been and never will be. That then tells us what the chance is a given country that is in the EU would have imposed such a ban anyway if it were not in the EU. DO the maths and you can see that the idea that the EU drove such bans, against the 'national will' of the populations of EU member countries, is for the birds. Simples. All you need it to be able to see through a lens that is not determined to blame the EU for everything and anything. Which may not be easy in your case.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 3:30 pm

But anyhow if these .....

Different topic entirely and maybe this is another of those times when you reply to me on a favourite rant subject of yours but are not actually replying to me or anything I ma saying or talking about. In any case with regard to this topic , you will need to find someone else to 'play' I am afraid. I have little interest.

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 4:08 pm

We know what the statistical chance is that any given country will impose such a ban regardless of EU membership. By looking at all the countries that are not in the EU, never have been and never will be. That then tells us what the chance is a given country that is in the EU would have imposed such a ban anyway if it were not in the EU. DO the maths and you can see that the idea that the EU drove such bans, against the 'national will' of the populations of EU member countries, is for the birds.

No you've convinced me Erol it was a complete coincidence

erol wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 4:08 pm

Different topic entirely and maybe this is another of those times when you reply to me on a favourite rant subject of yours but are not actually replying to me or anything I ma saying or talking about. In any case with regard to this topic , you will need to find someone else to 'play' I am afraid. I have little interest.

Errr no it was the main part of the comment actually but you leapt in on the EU part which was actually a throwaway comment.
I can only assume that after a good old google that you didn't manage to find any figures that point to the ban making an iota of difference and so are body swerving the point.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 4:39 pm

I can only assume that after a good old google that you didn't manage to find any figures that point to the ban making an iota of difference and so are body swerving the point.

Sorry still not willing to play. Does not interest me. My interest is in understanding the mechanics of how people fit evidence to what they want to believe rather than form beliefs based on what evidence shows. I want to understand to what degree I do this and as part of trying to understand that I am fascinated by examples of others doing it. Or possible examples if that is less harsh. Happy to play that game.

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 7:20 am

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

The first point;
“According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO”.

So when was the last time that the Uk had 40,000 deaths and the USA 90,000 deaths from flu, in a period of 3 months? This large number of deaths is in spite of severe lockdowns and restrictions in both countries. How great would the number of deaths be if these restrictions had not been applied?

This assumption flies in the face of historical data.

Don’t know anything about the credentials of this group but it seems to me that they have an axe to grind somewhere. Perhaps they own a lot of shares!

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 3:14 pm

Brazen wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 2:34 pm

France actually enforced the law after the Uk!

If memory serves one was around 6 months before the UK and one was around 6 months after.

Germany allowed smoking at the bar in pubs in 2016, not sure whether they still do.

Brazen wrote: ↑

Fri 15 May 2020 2:06 pm

Wines Of The World wrote: ↑

Tue 12 May 2020 7:20 am

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

The first point;
“According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO”.

So when was the last time that the Uk had 40,000 deaths and the USA 90,000 deaths from flu, in a period of 3 months? This large number of deaths is in spite of severe lockdowns and restrictions in both countries. How great would the number of deaths be if these restrictions had not been applied?

This assumption flies in the face of historical data.

Don’t know anything about the credentials of this group but it seems to me that they have an axe to grind somewhere. Perhaps they own a lot of shares!

This goes on constantly. People using 'guess numbers' , numbers that can not be know by anyone with any real certainty right now, like the 'lethality' of covid-19, whilst ignoring the numbers that are just hard solid indisputable fact - like how many people have died from any cause in a given week. The only rational explanation I can see for this phenomenon which is extremely common, are things like self delusion and confirmation bias to a mammoth degree. I say judge every 'best guess' from every source, no matter how 'distinguished the expert may be against the simple indisputable facts on deaths from all causes in a given time period. Or alternatively just spend all your time and energy searching out experts that confirm what you want to believe and call that 'evidence'.

Brazen wrote: ↑

Fri 15 May 2020 2:16 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 3:14 pm

Brazen wrote: ↑

Thu 14 May 2020 2:34 pm

France actually enforced the law after the Uk!

If memory serves one was around 6 months before the UK and one was around 6 months after.

Germany allowed smoking at the bar in pubs in 2016, not sure whether they still do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_i ... n_by_state

I note that the covid virus is causing long term side effects such as thickening of the blood thereby causing thrombosis, as well as causing problems in very young children. With this in mind, are there really people that still believe that it’s no more dangerous than influenza?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52662065

Brazen wrote: ↑

Sat 16 May 2020 2:11 pm

I note that the covid virus is causing long term side effects such as thickening of the blood thereby causing thrombosis, as well as causing problems in very young children. With this in mind, are there really people that still believe that it’s no more dangerous than influenza?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52662065

What strikes me is that is that one of things that makes it dangerous compared to other things is that there is still so much we do not know about it and will not be able to know for a considerable period of time, that we do know about other things. To me this makes it more more dangerous right now relative to these other things regardless of what its fatality rate may end up being vs other things ?