How long can this website carry on with misinformation?

[fon]

Absolutely no government wanted lockdown. But many of them resorted to it because they believed they had no choice.

a tiny amount of simple arithmetic from pre-vaccine days shows why they filled their pants.

pop 68000000
susceptible 90% 0.9
susceptibles 61200000
case rate 80% 0.8
cases 48960000
case fatality rate 1% 0.01
DEATHS 489600

So there you have a simple spreadsheet that tells the story of Neil Ferguson, and how 1/2 a million might have wound up dead. But it did not happen. Reality differed from the model.When a model bumps into the hard wall of reality, the model has to give, not the wall.

OK, so you disagree with the statistics. But they believe them and frankly, so do most people.

Except that it did not happen, 118k wound up dead so far.

It's not a bizarre attitude, it's a majority opinion - whether it's right or wrong.

Sooner or later, it always gets real. Like I said. It did not happen. So it is a bizarre attitude to stick with a prediction that failed to materialise. A majority backing one horse does not matter a fig, if the other horse wins.

[Fingal]

Sooner or later, it always gets real. Like I said. It did not happen. So it is a bizarre attitude to stick with a prediction that failed to materialise.

I was answering in relation to politics and accusations of authoritarian power grab, rather than the facts of covid.

For the sake of the argument, it doesn't matter if they're right about lockdown - only, that they do it because they believe they have to, not because they want more power.

There's a difference!

[Speedstick]

Therefore what you appear to be saying Fingal is that it is acceptable to destroy ever child in the country's future as long as it was just incompetence and not deliberate malevolence!
In my book either is wholly unforgivable.
I am so so proud of being a sceptic, because when the truth eventually comes out regards this whole sorry saga, l will at least be able to look my granddaughter in the eyes and honestly say l did everything in my power to try and stop this utter utter nonsense.

[fon]

Sooner or later, it always gets real

it doesn't matter if they're right about lockdown - only, that they do it because they believe they have to, not because they want more power.

The gang of 7 (Johnson,Gove,Hancock,Sunak,Patel, Raab, schapps) i.e. and the rest of us are grouped around one of these:

pb3.jpeg (67.45 KiB) Viewed 86 times

Where the silver ball is the virus and where the flippers, inexpertly worked by Boris and Hancock are the vaccine and the lockdowns respectively, while advised by SAGE.

They think they have to keep working the flippers, vaccine and the lockdowns, because they don't believe a single flipper can do it. The idiots have completely forgotten that we just want to quit the game now and just go home!

[jmc]

The conspiracy by the governments in a whole bunch of countries to defer any way they can the day of reckoning for their utterly criminal behavior....

All lockdowns were politically motivated, there was zero actual science behind them.....

The cover up is the conspiracy. Thats about it.

There's a huge variety of responses by different governments. But to generalise horribly, some already-autocratic governments (eg China) used authoritarian methods to control the virus. It worked.

Other governments with a liberal reputation (eg NZ) also used strong methods such as lockdown, but not as strong as China. It worked.

A variety of other liberal governments in Europe tried the full gamut of responses from lockdown to 'herd immunity'. All of them failed to some degree.

And finally, you have a category of governments which although nominally democratic, were dominated by a populist figure (eg Bolsinaro and Trump). They went for a laissez faire response. It failed - badly.

You have an interesting definition of "worked". Mostly based on what you seem to have read in the MSM by the look of it.

First, none of the official government Chinese statistics are true. None. Just like in 2003 with SARs Cov 1. How can the lock-down have "worked" in China if there was a massive cover up of what actually happened. The various leaked official documents published in the ex-pat Chinese media tell a very different story of just what happened in China last year. And just how wide the official cover up has been. Exactly the same as in 2003. There have been several books that have document exactly what happened in 2003.

What happened in 2020 was a lot worse. The lock down in Hubei province only started when widespread political unrest and demonstrations started and the central government started to panic. Nothing to do with public health. The massive New Year migration a few weeks before was allowed to happen unhindered even though senior government officials knew exactly what was going on with SARs at the time.

Same goes for several other provinces. How many died in China? Try multiplying the low end IFR by 1.4 billion by around 15% general population infection rate for the first wave. Those are the numbers that started showing up in government ministry document by May last year. Which fits pretty closely the epidemic spread model published by Hong Kong Univ Med School guys in January 2020. The first guys to blow the whistle on the Chinese government cover-up.

Your understanding of what has happened in other countries is equally facile I am afraid. Bears little relation to what happened and why. The range of result in the US for example ranges from the catastrophic in NY, and NJ, terrible in CA and MA and not that bad in FL and TX. The laissez faire states did OK, the massive intervention and lock-down states have done very badly. To give just one example. Over 10% of all jobs in the Greater Los Angeles area are gone. Completely. The equivalent area of Florida is about 4%.

The governors of Texas and Florida who had the most laissez faire policies are among the most popular in the country. The Governor of Californian is being recalled and will probably be thrown out of office and as for the Governor of New York, with a bit of luck criminal charges will be filed against him pretty soon. His position is so bad even the Guardian is writing stories like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sing-homes

So I stand by what I said originally - the conspiracy is the cover up of the criminal incompetent of the political leadership in a whole bunch of countries. In Europe the worst countries are Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, UK, Germany, and Ireland. With the Netherlands not far behind. The Nordics did pretty well as did Switzerland. And in the rest of the anglophone world Australia and NZ are completely bat sh*t crazy with Canada at the federal level not far behind.

Remember we are only in year one of what will be a three to five year event. Talking about "success" at this point is a futile as talking about winning a football match after 15 mins in the first half. The science is simple. Every country will end up sooner or later with the same kind of general infection rate for SARs CoV 2. Just like with Influenza. Some regional variations, but not much.

So it is just a matter of how long it takes individual countries to get there and how much self inflicted damage they do to themselves along the way. So far, for far too many countries, all the current indications of future policy are not very encouraging.

[miahoneybee]

Well said speedstick..I will " look them in the eye" and wont spout any of of the government propoganda to them but tell them how their future is being destroyed and I too fought this as did many others...

[Atlas]

The OP is just making all of his arguments based on the virus itself, and not anything else. I have no idea what lockdowns do to the virus, I do know economics though.

Please look into the Weimar Republic of the 1920s which lead to the rise of Hitler. We are going to have inflation that will make the 1970s look like a picnic.

So basically the OP is saying he doesn't consider a hyperinflation crisis to be worse than Covid 19 (I do by a country mile)... or he just doesn't think its going to happen and thay everything is going back to normal economically.

[thinksaboutit]

Absolutely no government wanted lockdown. But many of them resorted to it because they believed they had no choice.

a tiny amount of simple arithmetic from pre-vaccine days shows why they filled their pants.

pop 68000000
susceptible 90% 0.9
susceptibles 61200000
case rate 80% 0.8
cases 48960000
case fatality rate 1% 0.01
DEATHS 489600

So there you have a simple spreadsheet that tells the story of Neil Ferguson, and how 1/2 a million might have wound up dead. But it did not happen. Reality differed from the model.When a model bumps into the hard wall of reality, the model has to give, not the wall.

OK, so you disagree with the statistics. But they believe them and frankly, so do most people.

Except that it did not happen, 118k wound up dead so far.

It's not a bizarre attitude, it's a majority opinion - whether it's right or wrong.

Sooner or later, it always gets real. Like I said. It did not happen. So it is a bizarre attitude to stick with a prediction that failed to materialise. A majority backing one horse does not matter a fig, if the other horse wins.

Your maths above is reasonable as a first approximation.

The fact that it hasn't happened proves nothing. You don't know what would have happened without restrictions.

[Fingal]

Therefore what you appear to be saying Fingal is that it is acceptable to destroy ever child in the country's future as long as it was just incompetence and not deliberate malevolence!

No, my reply is about the false notion of a conspiracy.

The UK government, like most others, resorted to lockdown because they felt they had no choice. You may disagree with their analysis - that's fine. But there is zero reason to suspect that they did it out of some ludicrous secret plot to take over the world.

[Fingal]

You have an interesting definition of "worked". Mostly based on what you seem to have read in the MSM by the look of it.

Your use of the term 'MSM' is a red flag for Conspiracy Land.

There are 1000s of professional media outlets round the world. None are perfect, and many of them don't even try to be objective. But at least you can see where they're coming from, they have professional training and networks, and - crucially - they are subject to laws of libel etc.

Whereas 'stuff you read on the internet' is not.

There are a few non-professional media outlets that contribute plenty - notably Bellingcat. Wikileaks has also done a job although their model is too easy to exploit. And the spontaneous reports by large numbers of ordinary people in social media can be useful.

But overall, a sweeping rejection of 'MSM' is almost bound to end up in Conspiracy Land.