Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

The numbers still don't justify the 'cure'...

This deadly, infectious virus has so far managed...

3.2m infected - call it 4m...

230k dead, call it 300k...

And ~1m recovered...

If they were UK figures you'd be a bit worried but they are World-wide figures... 7bn population...

And I note that the entire population of Sweden has not been infected and killed by it...

Exactly the kind of certainty that I talk about above. Also the 'cure' as far as temporarily shutting down large but by no means all sections of the economy for a period of months or even half year, does not negatively affect everyone the same way. Someone with no money, who is still able to put food in their mouths and keep a roof over their heads for the period of 'cure' is hardly affected at all. Someone with billions is affected much more by this cure. So talking about the cure being worse than the virus is relative to how much the virus might fuck up your life and how much the cure might and that is not the same for everyone. For example someone with TWO houses might consider the cure much worse if it leads to a drop in house prices and an inability to sell or rent the house for as much as pre virus, than someone who just has one house that they lived in before the virus and will live in after it as well.

[cyprusgrump]

Fair point. I accepted the chart at face value. Actually, looking at the figures for 2015 I see a spike of 16,237 for 9 Jan, which does not seem to be reflected in the chart. The point is there have been epidemics before and, sadly, deaths spike during them. Nature is cruel. We are not immortal. We will all inevitably die of something. There is nothing new about such spikes.

Your argument seems to be premised on the dual straw man that anyone who does not buy into the alarmist, exaggerated narrative the media is now devoting its entire resources to pumping out, or questions it to any degree, is denying that people are dying and believes the world is ruled by extraterrestrials.

No my argument is, choosing a 'side' and then only looking for things that support that side is not the same thing as looking for truth. I have never argued that the measures taken were NOT an over reaction. I am simply challenging the idea that the definitely are. It is certainty in the face of of so many unknowns that scares me. I do not think you challenge such certainty by just trying to be more certain the other way. Clearly however that is the impression of 'my position'. I have to wonder how much of you getting that impression of my position is down to what I have actually said, rather than a tendency for someone who has chosen a side to then 'binarize' the world in to two polar camps of 'with me' or 'against me'. I am undecided and uncertain on the issue of 'has the measure taken been an over reaction or not'. I am certain that looking at total deaths in the ONS numbers is a better place to look to try and make up my own mind from actual data than ANY single expert opinion. And I am certain anyone who touts David Icke as a source because they are currently saying things that support the side they have chosen is NOT looking for the truth.

But that is exactly what you do all the time...

You choose to use the ONS 'Total Death' stats because it fits 'your side'...If they didn't you'd be off elsewhere...

You claim to be 'the seeker of truth' but in reality you use Straw Man arguments and obscuration to portray 'your side' as the truth...

You are not better than those your criticise... You are a hypocrite....

[erolz66]

But that is exactly what you do all the time...

You choose to use the ONS 'Total Death' stats because it fits 'your side'...If they didn't you'd be off elsewhere...

You claim to be 'the seeker of truth' but in reality you use Straw Man arguments and obscuration to portray 'your side' as the truth...

You are not better than those your criticise... You are a hypocrite....

You are just wrong. I have explained why I use those figures. It is simple and common sense. I have stuck with them as my primary 'starting point' when they showed no increase and people like you were using them to 'prove' your side and others (and I pointed out) that they would not show such 'proof'. I stuck with them when they started to increase and you and others had moved else where because they started to not support your chosen side. I will stick with them next week , whatever they show.

You are the one that sees me as arguing that the lock down is definitely NOT an over reaction. Yet I have never said this. You think that is my position because you can only think and see in binaries. Do not blame me for your limitations.

[repulsewarrior]

...more on the drug, Remdesivir,

https://www.interndaily.com/reports/US_ ... s_999.html

...and on a vaccine being developed in China,

https://www.terradaily.com/reports/Dont ... n_999.html

[Kikapu]

Boys and girls, the world is gradually lifting the lockdowns, therefore, we will soon learn whether the lockdowns were necessary or not depending if the new coronavirus cases and deaths spike up after it going down because of the lockdowns. Once the results are in in the next few weeks, each camp for or against the lockdown can then either rub their arguments in others faces in the form of “I told you so” or just simply shut up.

[erolz66]

Boys and girls, the world is gradually lifting the lockdowns, therefore, we will soon learn whether the lockdowns were necessary or not depending if the new coronavirus cases and deaths spike up after it going down because of the lockdowns. Once the results are in in the next few weeks, each camp for or against the lockdown can then either rub their arguments in others faces in the form of “I told you so” or just simply shut up.

Still so 'binary' Kikapu You have decided the two 'camps'. Camp one = over reaction. Camp two = not over reaction. I do not fit in to either of those camps. If I am in a camp it is 'too early to be able to know with material / significant degree of certainty'. That is the camp I have always been in and will remain in until I can see simple evidence in data that I can understand for myself that convinces me either way.

[erolz66]

Looking at the ONS 2014/2015 data in a bit more detail, at the 'spike' there and comparing it to 2020. Specifically to 'test' the 'thesis' that what is going on now is 'similar' to what always happens periodically in terms of flu, I see the following

The first thing I note is that the 2015 flu spike peaked at 16,237 deaths in one week for week 2 - to 9th Jan. However the five year average for this week back in 2015 was 12,277. So the difference from 5 year average of this peak spike was 3,960. Looking at weeks before and after this spike from week 48 2014 through week 17 2015 and the difference between 5 year average I am seeing a sequence

2014-15.JPG

So a peak in difference from 5 year average of approx 4k at peak , followed by two weeks of of 3-4k, followed by 3 weeks of 1-2k

When I look at 2020 data we have so far we

2020.JPG

So I see an accelerating increase in difference from 5 year average of 1k then 6k, then 8k, then 12k and that is when the data currently ends.

Thus when I see experts, no matter their credentials, no matter if they are pushing a consensus view or a non consensus one, saying with certainty things like 'the number of deaths is not different from previous flu spikes' , I have to respond with - I do not see that claim backed up in the simplest and best numbers we have about this that I can easily understand.

[erolz66]

On the issue of the damage being done to the economy of the 'cure', of the 'lock down'.

Yes massive 'damage' is being done to the 'economy'. At one level and to significant degrees this 'damage' hits hardest those with the 'least'. The less wealthy, the just about managing, the poor. This is always the case. However looking at this from another perspective there is also truth in the claim that the benefits of 'the economy' have always accrued unequally across society. Not everyone benefits from the 'economy' as much as everyone else. The rich benefit from it more than the poor in absolute terms to a massive degree. Thus when the economy is damaged, at some levels and in some ways to significant degrees the 'richer' you are the more you stand to lose vs people less 'rich'. In analogy terms if the economy is a car that is shared by two people, one of which uses it 95% oft the time and the other 5% of the time, if that care is damaged, the person who uses it 95% of the time stands to lose more than the person using it 5% of the time.

Thus the personal 'equation' of 'are the benefits of lock down in terms of reducing chance of me catching the virus and dying worth the cost to me of the damage done to the economy' is NOT the same for everyone. There is a real degree to which at some levels this equation is related to personal wealth.

To look at extreme ends of the spectrum. Imagine person one. A CEO of say an Oil company, with 100's of millions in personal wealth, tied up in shares and other assets. Imagine person 2, someone who has been surviving on unemployment benefit for the last 5 years. For the first the damage done to the economy by lock down is massive. For the later it is in the short term, for a period of 3 months or 6 months, inconsequential to them at all and may actually mean they end up better off than the previous 5 years as they end up getting more state aid and support during the lock down than they did before it and after it.

I think I can 'see' this to some material degree playing out in the real world. The rich, those with most to lose from damage to the economy from an essentially short terms closure of large section of the economy, are to a material and noticeable degree more vociferous supporters of 're opening early' than those who are less rich.

[B25]

Thank you Elroz66, for that details explanation.
I have a couple of points to put to the 'other' camp, that think the lockdown is an 'overreaction' based on comments from 'experts' and are trying to rubbish the whole thing.

If i amy take as an example Tim and CG as two of the main proponents of this 'camp'.

1. You say all this speaking from a position of safety (in Cyprus), where there is a very small chance of infection especially if you are 'lockdown indoors'

2. Have either of you lost any family, close friends or aquaintences? I suspect you haven't so you cannot understand the real dangers. I have and it puts a whole new perspective on things.

3. You pose all these arguments, yet you offer no solutions, at least in the case of the opposite 'camp' their present solution is to lockdown . Those experts offer these opinions to make a name for themselves but offer no solution. I suspect your solution would be to open up and see what happens. Just today the WHO have stated to be prepared for the 2nd and 3rd wave of the virus. Perhaps it could come back more deadly who knows.

4. Isn't better to be safer than sorry? Do you have children/grandchildren, can you image any of them getting sick and dying, just because these 'experts' said it was ok. I am sure they have their own agenda, and I cannot understand why the whole planet doesn't just take their word and open everything up and to hell with it. You are making out that everyone else is so stupid and that you are the intelligent ones.

So, based on the masses of 'expert opinions' you have had, what is the way forward??

[cyprusgrump]

Thank you Elroz66, for that details explanation.
I have a couple of points to put to the 'other' camp, that think the lockdown is an 'overreaction' based on comments from 'experts' and are trying to rubbish the whole thing.

If i amy take as an example Tim and CG as two of the main proponents of this 'camp'.

1. You say all this speaking from a position of safety (in Cyprus), where there is a very small chance of infection especially if you are 'lockdown indoors'

2. Have either of you lost any family, close friends or aquaintences? I suspect you haven't so you cannot understand the real dangers. I have and it puts a whole new perspective on things.

3. You pose all these arguments, yet you offer no solutions, at least in the case of the opposite 'camp' their present solution is to lockdown . Those experts offer these opinions to make a name for themselves but offer no solution. I suspect your solution would be to open up and see what happens. Just today the WHO have stated to be prepared for the 2nd and 3rd wave of the virus. Perhaps it could come back more deadly who knows.

4. Isn't better to be safer than sorry? Do you have children/grandchildren, can you image any of them getting sick and dying, just because these 'experts' said it was ok. I am sure they have their own agenda, and I cannot understand why the whole planet doesn't just take their word and open everything up and to hell with it. You are making out that everyone else is so stupid and that you are the intelligent ones.

So, based on the masses of 'expert opinions' you have had, what is the way forward??

My position is quite simple...

The numbers simply don't add up.

Total infections, 3.3m - call it 4m.

Total deaths, 234,000 - call it 300,000.

Total recovered, ~1m.

If that was from the UK alone it might raise eyebrows but that is from the World-wide population of 7bn. The numbers are tiny.

And we have an alternative model in the results from Sweden.

And there are plenty of scientists who claim the numbers will be the same whatever we do. Okay, lockdown means that we perhaps 'flatten the curve' and don't overload the medical system but the eventual numbers of those infected are likely to be the same.

I still believe the sensible thing to do would be to protect those who are particularly vulnerable and let the rest of us take sensible precautions and get on with our lives - and probably gain herd immunity in the process.