4000 deaths in a day in Brazil. 4000 died in one day in the USA end December. That was mid winter Northern Hemisphere. This is winter Southern Hemisphere. Is there nobody in media noticing these facts?

blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/05/the-catastr...me-against-humanity/


Yet still, lockdown isn't an option...

And yet Barney the gullibles, stupids, media and commentators refuse to notice the difference between Northern and Southern Hemispheres. I suppose, like the Emperor's New Clothes, the seasons are exactly the same in both?

Margrave wrote:
blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/05/the-catastr...me-against-humanity/


Yet still, lockdown isn't an option...

The President wishes the virus to spread un-checked to achieve herd immunity and is not quarantining/protecting the unhealthy or vulnerable. No one on here has ever argued for this; just that lockdown of the entire population is a gross and destructive over reaction. There are approaches between complete non-reaction to Covid and complete lockdown. Take Sweden, for one. Not everything is black & white Barney. In fact, nothing is except in the many human minds seeking comfort & reassurance in these times.

Wyot wrote:
There are approaches between complete non-reaction to Covid and complete lockdown.

Not everything is black & white Barney. In fact, nothing is.


Agree totally. That's why I wonder how some people can be so completely certain that one - or other - of the 'approaches' are wrong. Or 'useless'.

Margrave wrote:
Wyot wrote:
There are approaches between complete non-reaction to Covid and complete lockdown.

Not everything is black & white Barney. In fact, nothing is.


Agree totally. That's why I wonder how some people can be so completely certain that one - or other - of the 'approaches' are wrong. Or 'useless'.

This circular argument reminds me of debating with theists about the existence of God.

When I say I don't believe because I see no persuasive evidence they respond that ah you are as certain as us that God does not exist then, which is a kind of faith. No it is an absence. There is no conclusive evidence that lockdowns achieve a reduction in deaths. This does not mean I can say for sure it achieves nothing; but given the harm it causes and in the absence of evidence that the good outweighs the harm I don't support it. My position is not extreme.

Comprende?

I don't know enough about geography to work this out, but somebody else might know.

Is there a certain temperature that makes the virus spread, and is this the same temperature in every country?

Or is it when it is a low temperature for that particular country (which might be considered warm elsewhere) which indicates that it is likely to be caused by behaviour changes when people perceive it as cold, such as huddling inside more?

Honey wrote:
I don't know enough about geography to work this out, but somebody else might know.

Is there a certain temperature that makes the virus spread, and is this the same temperature in every country?

Or is it when it is a low temperature for that particular country (which might be considered warm elsewhere) which indicates that it is likely to be caused by behaviour changes when people perceive it as cold, such as huddling inside more?

I have the definitive scientific formula:

Maximum infection temperature = media focus 10 x Gov panic (factor 15) x mass testing of the healthy in order to find as much of it as possible.

This is the "temperature" at which Covid spreads the most rapidly .

Wyot wrote:
given the harm it causes and in the absence of evidence that the good outweighs the harm I don't support it


Thankfully the views of us amateur keyword warriors isn't important. Compared to those of organisations at the sharp edge - the dozens of NGO's and the World Health Organisation.

Generally the accepted stance is that lockdowns can be a highly effective short-term tactic, are liable to have negative economic consequences - and are not a long-term remedy, used on their own.

Margrave wrote:
Wyot wrote:
given the harm it causes and in the absence of evidence that the good outweighs the harm I don't support it


Thankfully the views of us amateur keyword warriors isn't important. Compared to those of organisations at the sharp edge - the dozens of NGO's and the World Health Organisation.

Generally the accepted stance is that lockdowns can be a highly effective short-term tactic, are liable to have negative economic consequences - and are not a long-term remedy, used on their own.

There are no experts on whether a lockdown should be used Barney.

There are experts on how disease spreads and what can be effective in mitigation. The decision to lockdown may or may not be effective in controlling infections or ultimately death with Covid, but even assuming it is, a case still has to be made that doing so will bring greater benefit than harm.

I don't believe the case has been made; and mine and your opinions on this are as valid as anyone's.

What, I think, you have never been able to distinguish is that expertise in epidemiology is not the same thing as "expertise" in whether responses should be utilised taking into consideration wider societal harm. This is entirely a political decision and so open to us amateur keyboard warriors...

I disagree - keyboard warriors are entitled entitled to their opinions. But operational matters are best to the experts.

Like the World Health Organisation - which has scientists and experts with years of experience in dealing with diseases and viruses.


Most would find their take on Covid matters difficult to argue with:-

www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-im...ckdowns-and-covid-19

Margrave wrote:
I disagree - keyboard warriors are entitled entitled to their opinions. But operational matters are best to the experts.

Like the World Health Organisation - which has scientists and experts with years of experience in dealing with diseases and viruses.


Most would find their take on Covid matters difficult to argue with:-

www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-im...ckdowns-and-covid-19

You only think you disagree with me Barney when actually you just don't understand the point I am making. Then you point me - for some reason - to an article on "herd immunity" and vaccines and the WHO's position on this. Lost for words really.