Coronavirus | Page 43 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

Sincilbanks said:
*Discredited Imperial College*

That's a fascinating statement
Click to expand...

Yes those who said 500,000 would die without lockdown . They also said Sweden would have 40,000 in view of their no lockdown policy. The death toll for Sweden stands at 5,500.
 
57harry said:
Do some research. If you want a reference point to start try Worldometers.
Click to expand...

Answer the questions I've put to you or shut the fuck up.

I've done plenty of research and quote sources.

You do the same. Or shut the fuck up.
 
NottyImp said:
Utter bollocks. Provide sources or shut up. It's a virus that spreads through human contact so the notion that lock-down- that specifically limits human contact - doesn't prevent infection is complete and utter nonsense.

Frankly, you've been wrong on every post on this thread and proven to be so time and again. You have shown no understanding of disease spread and epidemiology and just keep repeating your uninformed ignorant crap.

You're either stupid or deliberately malign.
Click to expand...

Which facts have I got wrong ?
 
Here's the first point you need to address:

How does not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
 
57harry said:
Yes those who said 500,000 would die without lockdown . They also said Sweden would have 40,000 in view of their no lockdown policy. The death toll for Sweden stands at 5,500.
Click to expand...

Sources? Looks like lies to me. And I never claimed that.
 
NottyImp said:
IFR equivalent to seasonal flu.
Click to expand...

Is that the best you have got?. To remind you I quoted a range of .05 % to 1.00 % from a Scientific journal which I copied on the post. List the points I put on my opening post and say why you don't agree with them.
 
57harry said:
Is that the best you have got?. To remind you I quoted a range of .05 % to 1.00 % from a Scientific journal which I copied on the post. List the points I put on my opening post and say why you don't agree with them.
Click to expand...

You quoted 0.05 and I hilighted you'd chosen the lowest possible value.

Anyway.

Answer the numerous questions I've put to you.

Specifically, how does not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
 
And when you've done that address the numerous sources I've quoted that illustrate that lock-down works.

Stop dodging questions.

By the way, how do you think that not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
 
NottyImp said:
Here's the first point you need to address:

How does not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
Click to expand...

I have never actually said that.

What I have said,if the alarmists are true,you would see a big spike in the death toll of Countries /States that have lockdown against those that have not.
 
57harry said:
I have never actually said that.

What I have said,if the alarmists are true,you would see a big spike in the death toll of Countries /States that have lockdown against those that have not.
Click to expand...

So, lock-down prevents infection? Yes or no?
 
NottyImp said:
And when you've done that address the numerous sources I've quoted that illustrate that lock-down works.

Stop dodging questions.

By the way, how do you think that not preventing the spread of disease improve outcomes?
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing-just a rant of alarmist forecasts not based on actuals
 
57harry said:
You have provided nothing-just a rant of alarmist forecasts not based on actuals
Click to expand...

Nope, you've lied. I've provided numerous linked sources that you have failed to address. Anyone reading this thread will see that. Why are you lying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.