2020-04-17

Sourcehttps://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/04/17/latest-news-3/
Published2020-04-17T09:40:48
Last updated2020-04-17T15:27:52
Scraped2020-12-20T20:18:03
Articles0
Comments7
Users7

Articles

Comments

91 AN other lockdown sceptic, 14, #1 of 7 🔗

Many thanks Toby. Brilliant stuff.

The US exit criteria are far clearer and measurable than the woolly UK ‘tests’. As the old management adage goes, if you can’t measure something then it is worthless (or something like that). The UK criteria are so subjective and easily fudged. It’s like something a weak manager would set for themselves so that they can wriggle out of being held responsible for not achieving the target. For a number of weeks, the UK government have been taking the easy option that they believe is least likely to get them the sack, as a poor manager would. Sad that this appears to be continuing. We desperately need some rational balanced leadership taking on board the views of all the ‘experts’ from many areas then making their own decision. This is what they’re paid to do.

Please keep up the great work Toby. It is much appreciated.

110 mogg42, replying to mogg42, 5, #2 of 7 🔗

Regarding Paunio’s IFR estimate of 0.13%, this should be considered in the context of the ~11,500 COVID deaths in New York City, a population of 8m. This represents fatality of 0.144% for the entire population. Unless the entire population of NYC has been infected, and then some, Paunino’s estimate looks well off the mark. I do think incidentally, that the NYC data indicates that the infection rate is a lot higher than recognised. If for example the fatality rate of 1% is correct, admittedly a big if, then that would imply 15% infected.

136 ▶▶ Tir na nog, replying to mogg42, #3 of 7 🔗

According to Worldometer, the current NY death rate is 0.0873% of the population… therefore the estimation could still be good.

203 ▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to mogg42, #4 of 7 🔗

Also worth considering the difference between dying with and of, and of course whether excess deaths caused by the overwhelmed health systems are included in that number.

7887 ▶▶ Louis Milkse, replying to mogg42, #5 of 7 🔗

But so few die — why is higher infection rate a concern.

213 Stephen Lord, #6 of 7 🔗

Hi Toby, great website and idea but you have left no way for us to communicate with you except by making a comment. I wanted to send you a link to a story from South Dakota, I thought it worth a look. But can’t do it. Aha, I’ve found the article: https://prepforthat.com/south-dakota-gov-warns-this-is-how-we-lose-our-country/

Thanks

Steve Lord

6631 Jane in France, #7 of 7 🔗

Schools reopened in France on January 12th yesterday. I have just seen the school bus go up the road and stop as usual outside the council flats. I waited and watched till it left again. Not one single person got on. Before we were let out the government could have put out messages to the effect that school kids have nothing to fear and they don’t pass it on. You would think a government would want the country to get back to normal as soon as possible. Instead of which, between every programme, right up to last week, they bigged up the R0; one person can infect three others and each of those can infect three others and so on. So now the school bus is running, but the kids are still not going to school.
By the way, the person who runs the French covidinfos.net site says that it is doing well and has 10,000 visitors a day. Out of a population of 66 million. The school buses won’t be busy any time soon.

Users

7 users made 7 comments today.

LikesUserPostsReplies
14AN other lockdown sceptic14
5mogg425
0Jane in France0
0Louis Milkse0
0Stephen Lord0
0Thomas Pelham0
0Tir na nog0

Top