Corona

[foreignfield]

I initiially suspected that hunters might be inflated. For example what about all those people that died from pneumonia before, sousing they still die during Covid times and be pronounced to be killed from Covid ?
But my research to that thought led me to understand you can only be a coronavirus statistic if you have been tested positive for the virus.

Indications from excess mortality monitoring in Europe are that at the height of the epidemic a lot of cases went undetected, i.e. deaths tested positive for the virus in some areas--those most heavily hit--only accounted for half the actual excess mortality. Numbers for the UK are more likely around 50,000. The only European country taking part in EUROMOMO (European Mortality Monitoring) where deaths from coronavirus closely mirror the excess mortality is Belgium, incidently the country with the highest death-rate in Europe and the only country that has counted deaths even without testing all suspect cases.

Undoubtably a small number of people die with the virus rather than of it; but many more die of it undetected and uncounted--and that is before you start to look at countries where governments are actively "encouraging" their doctors not to record coronavirus-related deaths. There are also strong indications that the lockdown and better hygiene plus social distancing has reduced deaths from other infectious diseases as well. If you can keep nursing homes free from viruses whatever their name, fewer people will die. In Germany the flu season immediately collapsed with the first lockdown measures, a month earlier than normal.

All that is not to say that the effects of the various lockdowns should be beyond scientific scrutiny; and of course they are not. As everything else in this epidemic it's unprecedented and an ongoing situation. We learn something new every day. There are studies from Norway and Denmark which suggest that the effect of lockdown measures has been overestimated; yet both countries are also very aware of the situation in Sweden where the situation is on the one hand far from spiralling out of control but the death toll is much higher. Btw, the economic consequences in Sweden are expected to be on par with the European average because a) Sweden depends as much on trade as everyone else in Europe and b) business has slowed down within the country as well as people keep their distance.

...

But hunters can indeed be inflated if you put too much oxygen into them ...

[Jemisi]

Sure, Bob, Jennifer, Phil, I have heard lots of people say bombastic things in one breath and then your doctrinally correct line the next.

You've never heard it? That surprises me. People make all sorts of claims arguing from authority. It is in the logic textbooks as a fallacy for a reason.

Speaking of disease have you not read of Semmelweis?

Also a guy called Geoff, my geology lecturer at uni.

But Mark, Tom, and Eric told me that Bob, Jennifer, Phil have never said they were 100% correct. And I know Mark, Tom, and Eric personally. Besides, all real scientists have surnames leading me to believe Bob, Jennifer, and Phil are just random names from a hat.

Geoff what. Whats his surname? Was he an actual professor (Phd degree holder) or merely a lecturer? Lecturers are often just graduate students, ie merely scientists in training.

Never heard of Semelweis but just read about him. Tragic story. But I will say that he was posthumously credited after Pasteur's work proved Simmelweis hunch correct. Again, this proves the importance of evidence based approaches in the scientific community. Simmelweis was rejected because he didn't have any hard evidence to support his theory, which turned out to be correct.

People - and scietists are people too - certainly make all sorts of claims. But I have yet to come across a scientist who has claimed to be 100% on anything. Even Einstein famously quipped that if it was based on empirical evidence than even "1 reason would be enough" to refute his theories in response to a Nazi sponsored article titled "100 reasons why Einstein is wrong." Einstein didn't say he was 100% correct, he just mentioned that all it would take to defeat his theories was 1 verifiable experiment proving it wrong.

Yeah, and all it takes to refute your falsifiable claim is 1 scientist that has overstepped. Do you really think none have?

Changing your statement to "no Real scientist would make such a claim" doesn't help. Real scientists who have done real research are capable of contradicting themselves. I am mystified as to why you would question that? Especially since I am on your side covid-wise.

I was being facetious because you were being strident. I doubt your Mark, Tom and Eric exist since I am recalling people from my past and you have only begun this conversation from a foreign country today. My Bob is real, he taught me geology. He also taught me that sometimes scientists don't practice what they preach.

Evidence based approaches are great! But the evidence suggests that sometimes people who have done science also overstep when making claims about their own knowledge. Why would you not be prepared to be more measured?

Glad you have found Semmelweis. But his posthumous recognition does not affect my point. It was the blokes opposing him at the time that matter for this discussion.

[Kriterion_BD]

Yeah, and all it takes to refute your falsifiable claim is 1 scientist that has overstepped. Do you really think none have?

There is a difference between a scientist overstepping or making a mistake and claiming to be infallible (ie 100% correct is effectively God mode). No scientist would claim to be infallible.

Changing your statement to "no Real scientist would make such a claim" doesn't help. Real scientists who have done real research are capable of contradicting themselves. I am mystified as to why you would question that? Especially since I am on your side covid-wise.

Contradicting oneself is not the same thing as proclaiming oneself to be 100% correct. Thats shifting the goalpost and changing the parameters of the debate.

I was being facetious because you were being strident.

I disagree with that characterization.

He also taught me that sometimes scientists don't practice what they preach.

There's a difference in not practicing what you preach (academic ethics, morals, etc) and claiming omniscence. I am sure scientists have engaged in the former, but that is a far cry from the latter.

Evidence based approaches are great! But the evidence suggests that sometimes people who have done science also overstep when making claims about their own knowledge. Why would you not be prepared to be more measured?

What is more measured than suggesting we heed the advice of health officials (CDC, WHO, Dr Fauci), enforce as strict a lockdown as we can, assess the data continuously, and revise our actions based on what we learn from that data?

Glad you have found Semmelweis. But his posthumous recognition does not affect my point. It was the blokes opposing him at the time that matter for this discussion.

It does affect your point because the blokes at his time still didn't claim to be all-knowing! They were merely arrogant pricks and lo and behold, no one remembers their names today, but you remember Semelweis.

[Kriterion_BD]

Jemisi, put it another way.

There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the modern world (1850 to present). There are only a few hundred Test cricket captains. Based on those numbers, being a Test cricket captain is much rarer feat. Is that a fair assumption you can agree with?

How many Test cricket captains will claim to have made 100% correct decisions on the field? If scientists can have big egos, its safe to assume professional athletes can too. If Test captains wouldn't make such a claim (we'd know if any did), why would scientists who are a) far less special due to their sheer numbers) and b) far more enlightened than the average Test cricket captain.

"Scientists have made mistakes in the past, therefor scientists claim to be infallible" is a non sequitur. The two are unrelated, and further there is no evidence to suggest its true.

Its akin to saying "Brian Chari is a poor cricketer, therefore Brian Chari is arrogant".

[Jemisi]

I thought you were shifting goalposts.

You said no scientist would claim to be 100% correct.

I didn't think you meant infallible which you now seem to be saying. I think you meant 100% correct on a point of fact.

The Semmelweis example was exactly a case of the powerful believing themselves to be Correct on the issue of postnatal death, whilst also being able to stick with the line that 'no scientist claims to be 100% correct'.

The contradiction I am talking about is the person who makes a claim to accuracy and then in the next breath quotes the same doctrine as you have.

Scientists are easily capable of this. I can't see what would lead you to disbelieve this.

The test captain example looks like apples and oranges. It isn't that someone is claiming all of their decisions to be 100% correct but that they often claim to be 100% correct about the point of issue. I have heard people make such a claim and then, as I have said, repeat your claim in the next breath. And I have always found it amusingly lacking in self-awareness.

[Kriterion_BD]

The Semmelweis example was exactly a case of the powerful believing themselves to be Correct on the issue of postnatal death, whilst also being able to stick with the line that 'no scientist claims to be 100% correct'.

Nuance. The scientiests opposing Semmelweis weren't making any claims regarding postnatal infections. They were skeptical of Semmelweis' claims and ignored the data that hand washing reduced postanal deaths by 90% in the Vienna General Hospital after Semelweis. But the scientists were making a claim themselves.

I didn't think you meant infallible which you now seem to be saying. I think you meant 100% correct on a point of fact.

100% correct on a point of fact is to be infallible on that point of fact. Can we agree on that?

Scientists never claim 100% correction or infallibility on any fact. Definitely not on COVID. Name a scientist or doctor who has given a 100% guarantee that lockdowns will end the pandemic. They havent. They have suggested that the fields of virology and infectious disease indicate that quarantine and isolation is the most effective way to reduce transmission until a vaccine has been found. Even if that is not 100% correct there is currently no evidence it is even 1% wrong.

[eugene]

Sweden has had a higher death toll than its Nordic neighbours but notice its curve is going down also. The fact that they are following the same downwards trajectory as everyone else is certainly interesting given they achieved this without imposing the same stringent policies.

[Jemisi]

Kriterion, I would think your claim was stronger if it said, "scientists ought never".

And I haven't heard any do it in relation to covid so we don't need to argue about that.

[zimbos_05]

What science has the hysteria-driven lockdown crowd followed? A couple of projections that have proven to be way off?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 2U6zTVwCoA

If you are going to use a clearly biased source as your back up, then don't make it so obvious.

This is the perfect example of "do something well and people think you overreacted". A job well done is that deaths are lower than they could have been, eg, New Zealand, Taiwan, Vietnam...

At this point it is now just dangerous disagreement rhetoric. Because the people you disagree with want a lockdown, you have to take the opposite stance regardless of how silly it sounds.

Sweden has had a higher death toll than its Nordic neighbours but notice its curve is going down also. The fact that they are following the same downwards trajectory as everyone else is certainly interesting given they achieved this without imposing the same stringent policies.

Imagine how quicker that curve would have been killed and the number of deaths that could have been prevented had they instituted a lock down.

There is this continual push to look at Sweden by Republicans, but when people say look at them with social health care and proper incomes, then Republicans want to ignore all that. If the shoe fits. In the case of Covid, it's not a well fitting shoe.

[Kriterion_BD]

Sweden has had a higher death toll than its Nordic neighbours but notice its curve is going down also. The fact that they are following the same downwards trajectory as everyone else is certainly interesting given they achieved this without imposing the same stringent policies.

That’s like saying Zimbabwe don’t lose as many Test matches these days than in 2000 so they must be a far improved side.

The curve will eventually flatten everywhere. That’s why it’s called a curve.

Sweden has double the population of its Nordic neighbors and similar socioeconomic development. Therefore it’s reasonable to expect Sweden to have double the deaths, if lockdowns had no significant benefit at saving lives. Instead, we see Sweden has between 8x and 16x the deaths as it’s neighbors meaning their lockdown has effectively caused 4x to 8x the number of deaths per capita.