Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

False and misleading claims about Covid

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378089

Postby XFool » January 17th, 2021, 4:18 pm

Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:
XFool wrote:Totally missing the point. I apply the brakes of my car all the time when I'm driving - haven't killed anyone yet. Should I give up bothering?

I'm going to find a pub, pull over and wait till they've finished building the road.

Now you are both just being silly.

So have either of you EVER opposed a lockdown because you thought it was too strict?

I am guessing not. Just curious.

Err... Missing something here, surely?

I would have thought the whole point of "a lockdown" was to be "strict"!

Must fess up here: I've never complained to the authorities over circles being "too round" either. Still, there's always a first time...

[Please excuse my adventitious editing of my original post.]

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378090

Postby Lootman » January 17th, 2021, 4:25 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:I'm going to find a pub, pull over and wait till they've finished building the road.

Now you are both just being silly.

So have either of you EVER opposed a lockdown because you thought it was too strict?

I am guessing not. Just curious.

Err... Missing something here, surely?

I would have thought the whole point of "a lockdown" was to be "strict"!

Must fess up here: I've never complained to the authorities over circles being "too round" either. Still, there's always a first time...

Remembering my philosophy classes from 45 years ago, the statement that "circles are round" is known as a tautology i.e. something that is true by definition. It is necessarily true. Whereas "this lockdown is too strict" is an empirical claim which may or may not be true, subject to examination rather than definition. So the two are not the same at all.

Clearly there is a spectrum of opinions about lockdowns and, for that matter, any Covid restriction. Excluding Covid deniers there is still a range of opinions from supporting moderate, targeted restrictions on the one hand, to all-out lockdown enforced by police and the military on the other hand.

And if you are a member of the class of people who basically never met a restriction you did not support, then that is something people should take into account when considering your views.

Backache
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 220
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378102

Postby Backache » January 17th, 2021, 5:10 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Backache wrote:The R nought cannot have been measured as it is the number in a population that is naive to the virus the Rt I doubt has been measured and will vary considerably with the time of year and how recent the most recent infections were.

Is there any published research as to the level of such infections in the UK?

I don't know

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378112

Postby XFool » January 17th, 2021, 5:35 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:I would have thought the whole point of "a lockdown" was to be "strict"!

Clearly there is a spectrum of opinions about lockdowns and, for that matter, any Covid restriction. Excluding Covid deniers there is still a range of opinions from supporting moderate, targeted restrictions on the one hand, to all-out lockdown enforced by police and the military on the other hand.

lockdown
noun [ C or U ]
UK /ˈlɒk.daʊn/ US /ˈlɑːk.daʊn/

an emergency situation in which people are not allowed to freely enter, leave, or move around in a building or area because of danger:
Police imposed a lockdown in the building until the shooter could be stopped.
The entire city was in lockdown.

a period of time in which people are not allowed to leave their homes or travel freely, because of a dangerous disease:


Still sounds sounds pretty strict to me!

Lootman wrote:And if you are a member of the class of people who basically never met a restriction you did not support, then that is something people should take into account when considering your views.

Is that known as a "strawman"?

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378121

Postby Lootman » January 17th, 2021, 6:11 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:I would have thought the whole point of "a lockdown" was to be "strict"!

Clearly there is a spectrum of opinions about lockdowns and, for that matter, any Covid restriction. Excluding Covid deniers there is still a range of opinions from supporting moderate, targeted restrictions on the one hand, to all-out lockdown enforced by police and the military on the other hand.

lockdown
noun [ C or U ]
UK /ˈlɒk.daʊn/ US /ˈlɑːk.daʊn/

an emergency situation in which people are not allowed to freely enter, leave, or move around in a building or area because of danger:
Police imposed a lockdown in the building until the shooter could be stopped.
The entire city was in lockdown.

a period of time in which people are not allowed to leave their homes or travel freely, because of a dangerous disease:


Still sounds sounds pretty strict to me!

Yes but even so there are degrees of lockdown as we have seen. China took drastic steps to ensure nobody left their home. In Spain for a while you had to book permission to go food shopping and were escorted there and back. New Zealand didn't let anyone in or out of the country. Many different flavours of lockdown.

The questions remain: What is too little, what is too much and what is "just right"? And that depends on the country and its culture, its remoteness, climate and population density, what the infection rate is there and what the voters will tolerate.

So it is a valid topic that reasonable people can disagree about. Otherwise we would not have topics here that run to hundreds of posts about it.

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:And if you are a member of the class of people who basically never met a restriction you did not support, then that is something people should take into account when considering your views.

Is that known as a "strawman"?

If it is one then it is one that you yourself have used in the past when you talk about which sources are "plausible" or "reliable", which tells us as much about you as it does about those sources.

It is useful to see where people sit on the scale from "I deny Covid exists" through "Every person should use their judgement" to "No lockdown is ever strict enough". to decide how much weight to attach to their offerings. If someone always advocates stricter restrictions regardless then that informs how one assesses any specific claim, just as with the opposite extreme: the Covid denier.

And I am not picking on you and servo here. Well, I am a bit. But it applies to everyone. People arrive with their baggage and their prejudices, and have different values. It's not all just about "science", even if the "experts" could agree on it.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378138

Postby XFool » January 17th, 2021, 6:58 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:And if you are a member of the class of people who basically never met a restriction you did not support, then that is something people should take into account when considering your views.

Is that known as a "strawman"?

If it is one then it is one that you yourself have used in the past when you talk about which sources are "plausible" or "reliable", which tells us as much about you as it does about those sources.

I hope it does! Especially in cases where I have proved to be, in the course of time, correct about "those sources".

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with a "strawman" argument. Other than perhaps when the "strawman" has turned out to be as suspected.

Lootman wrote:And I am not picking on you and servo here. Well, I am a bit. But it applies to everyone. People arrive with their baggage and their prejudices, and have different values. It's not all just about "science", even if the "experts" could agree on it.

What it certainly is not "all just about", in cases like this, is politics.

It is though about discrimination. In these matters not all the "science" out there, on the web, is equal. IMO one needs to be discriminating.
Unfortunately (that word again) these days, so called(!) "scepticism" is all the rage. Genuine scepticism may be a hallmark of genuine science, but there is, in my experience, another kind of "scepticism". It is usually practised by those keen to self-describe as "sceptical".

What is the difference? Possibly hard to tell, but I'd try to explain it this way:

Genuine Sceptic: Somebody who remains to be convinced

Ersatz Sceptic: Somebody who NEVER WILL BE convinced - Or in other words, A Denier

I've never been a betting man, but perhaps a racing metaphor will suffice: You always need to back the right horse.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378152

Postby dealtn » January 17th, 2021, 7:38 pm

XFool wrote:
Genuine Sceptic: Somebody who remains to be convinced

Ersatz Sceptic: Somebody who NEVER WILL BE convinced - Or in other words, A Denier

I've never been a betting man, but perhaps a racing metaphor will suffice: You always need to back the right horse.


Not all genuine sceptics will be convinced. The level of proof might never get sufficient, or might be replaced with evidence that disputes the original thesis.

I hope that's just a poor metaphor. Before the finish you won't know the right horse. Horses of all capabilities, and more importantly in this example, odds win and beat others.

supremetwo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1007
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:20 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378164

Postby supremetwo » January 17th, 2021, 8:45 pm

The misleaders are now mass robot spamming web sites to message via contact forms.

One received here, supposedly from a Deanne Barreto, about extreme adverse reactions to vaccination with Youtube links.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378166

Postby XFool » January 17th, 2021, 8:50 pm

Uh-huh.

I’d love to ignore ‘Covid sceptics’ and their tall tales. But they make a splash and have no shame
Neil O'Brien

The Guardian

The Tory MP on the fantasies of those in the media, and beyond, who oppose lockdown

"Powerful Covid-sceptics in the media have got it wrong at every stage."

Yeah. I think that is the take-away message here.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378180

Postby servodude » January 17th, 2021, 9:52 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:I'm going to find a pub, pull over and wait till they've finished building the road.

Now you are both just being silly.

So have either of you EVER opposed a lockdown because you thought it was too strict?

I am guessing not. Just curious.

Err... Missing something here, surely?

I would have thought the whole point of "a lockdown" was to be "strict"!

Must fess up here: I've never complained to the authorities over circles being "too round" either. Still, there's always a first time...



I've only ever seen a perfect circle in concert
- seen plenty of approximate ones in books, posters, screens etc
- I can tell when one is better than another

And seeing as Lootie's post is visible
There's been several lockdown directives that I have disagreed with and opposed
- lets start with the welding of doors in Wuhan - that was a very poor show

I've been subject to restrictions that required me to wear masks on my cycling commute;18k on a river path in the middle of winter? (so I confess it wasn't on my face much)
- I didn't see the point of being constrained to a 5k radius for exercise (I sympathise with Bojo on that one - though if you're driving to a park to cycle during a pandemic you deserve a bit of stick)
- making us as a family wear masks outside when with no-one else; highly unlikely to have made a difference (and like most we'd put them on when approach someone)

I think I opined a long time back on this pandemic that you can never know if you've done enough and if you get your response right it will look like an over reaction (search fails me at the moment - words too common)

Half hearted efforts to look like you're doing something are just lip service
- and while lip service from Bojo might be on the bucket list of some it's not going to stop people dying

I'd suggest that it might be better to stop the people dying, do what you can to keep the virus out and then open the pubs while you wait for the vaccine to be rolled out
- and at the same time to not give deplorables a platform for spreading misleading and dangerous disinformation

- sd

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378188

Postby Mike4 » January 17th, 2021, 10:11 pm

Lootman wrote:The questions remain: What is too little, what is too much and what is "just right"? And that depends on the country and its culture, its remoteness, climate and population density, what the infection rate is there and what the voters will tolerate.

It is useful to see where people sit on the scale from "I deny Covid exists" through "Every person should use their judgement" to "No lockdown is ever strict enough". to decide how much weight to attach to their offerings. If someone always advocates stricter restrictions regardless then that informs how one assesses any specific claim, just as with the opposite extreme: the Covid denier.

And I am not picking on you and servo here. Well, I am a bit. But it applies to everyone. People arrive with their baggage and their prejudices, and have different values. It's not all just about "science", even if the "experts" could agree on it.


You seem determined to ignore the factor of timing.

The lockdowns we had were all fundamentally flawed in my opinion because they were all too late. Had they been executed in a timely manner when the experts called for them, the same lockdowns would in my opinion have been far more effective with many fewer deaths and a good deal less damage to the economy.

But nobody knows really. We only get one chance to make each decision.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378193

Postby servodude » January 17th, 2021, 10:30 pm

Mike4 wrote:But nobody knows really. We only get one chance to make each decision.


One per wave, Shirley!

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378196

Postby Mike4 » January 17th, 2021, 10:42 pm

servodude wrote:
Mike4 wrote:But nobody knows really. We only get one chance to make each decision.


One per wave, Shirley!


One of the things our nice Mr Hemming here says is (if I understood him correctly) the stats show if you get your lockdown right and have a small wave, the next wave you get will be correspondingly bigger. If he is right I very much doubt this will ever penetrate the consciousness of the politicians who make the decisions about lockdowns. And don't call him Shirley!

Way back near the beginning, ISTR reading there was a country that handed over decisions about managing the pandemic to their scientists and kept the politicians out of it. Do you remember which country that was? How did that work out?

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378202

Postby Lootman » January 17th, 2021, 11:22 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Lootman wrote:The questions remain: What is too little, what is too much and what is "just right"? And that depends on the country and its culture, its remoteness, climate and population density, what the infection rate is there and what the voters will tolerate.

It is useful to see where people sit on the scale from "I deny Covid exists" through "Every person should use their judgement" to "No lockdown is ever strict enough". to decide how much weight to attach to their offerings. If someone always advocates stricter restrictions regardless then that informs how one assesses any specific claim, just as with the opposite extreme: the Covid denier.

And I am not picking on you and servo here. Well, I am a bit. But it applies to everyone. People arrive with their baggage and their prejudices, and have different values. It's not all just about "science", even if the "experts" could agree on it.

You seem determined to ignore the factor of timing.

The lockdowns we had were all fundamentally flawed in my opinion because they were all too late. Had they been executed in a timely manner when the experts called for them, the same lockdowns would in my opinion have been far more effective with many fewer deaths and a good deal less damage to the economy.

That may be true but it is hard to implement a lockdown until the numbers are already looking bad, because the people will not support it. But when they see the hospital wards full and the mortuaries filling up, they can then support the restrictions, at least for a reasonable period. There is always a political element to these matters and when the UK eased in July, I think it had to for social reasons even if some knew that the virus would come back.

I do not know which country that you were referring to that listened to its scientists and not its politicians, but it would surprise me if it was a democracy.

Mike4 wrote:One of the things our nice Mr Hemming here says is (if I understood him correctly) the stats show if you get your lockdown right and have a small wave, the next wave you get will be correspondingly bigger. If he is right I very much doubt this will ever penetrate the consciousness of the politicians who make the decisions about lockdowns.

I think he is correct in that lockdowns really just slow the infection rate and delay the time when people catch it. That can be useful if it keeps the healthcare system coping. But it is only a real solution if you have a vaccine, which we now do. Absent that there is a sense in which we might as well just get it now and get it over with - the rationale behind Covid parties as I understand it.

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:And I am not picking on you and servo here. Well, I am a bit. But it applies to everyone. People arrive with their baggage and their prejudices, and have different values. It's not all just about "science", even if the "experts" could agree on it.

What it certainly is not "all just about", in cases like this, is politics.

It is though about discrimination. In these matters not all the "science" out there, on the web, is equal. IMO one needs to be discriminating.
Unfortunately (that word again) these days, so called(!) "scepticism" is all the rage. Genuine scepticism may be a hallmark of genuine science, but there is, in my experience, another kind of "scepticism". It is usually practised by those keen to self-describe as "sceptical".

I don't really include Covid deniers in the"reasonableness" spectrum. They are just an easy target for the lockdown lovers to pick on to deflect.

You could make the same criticism of me. To digress briefly, if you have seen my posts on the subject of taxes, you will have noticed that I always support tax cuts. You might reasonably respond to me advocating for a tax cut in any given situation with a Mandy Rice Davies exclamation that "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

The same can be said of anyone who always supports more lockdown. WHWSTWH?

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378205

Postby jfgw » January 18th, 2021, 12:01 am

Mike4 wrote:One of the things our nice Mr Hemming here says is (if I understood him correctly) the stats show if you get your lockdown right and have a small wave, the next wave you get will be correspondingly bigger. If he is right I very much doubt this will ever penetrate the consciousness of the politicians who make the decisions about lockdowns. And don't call him Shirley!


That would make sense. If you look at admissions since the beginning of October, you will see that areas with higher peaks in October and November mostly have lower January peaks,
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

The South West is an exception.

If you look at admissions since March, however, it is not so easy to find the desired pattern,
Image
My graph. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. : https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

If you pick the right statistics...

FWIW, I do think that herd immunity (even if it is short of the HIT) is a major contributory factor in the falls in infections. I am not convinced that the second lockdown (flouted by many, and with schools open) had much effect at all.

To avoid any question of doubt, I wholeheartedly support this third lockdown and consider it essential to help to reduce hospital admissions.


Julian F. G. W.

77ss
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1271
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:42 am
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378217

Postby 77ss » January 18th, 2021, 7:38 am

Lootman wrote:.....
I do not know which country that you were referring to that listened to its scientists and not its politicians, but it would surprise me if it was a democracy.....


Sweden, actually.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378241

Postby johnhemming » January 18th, 2021, 9:39 am

jfgw wrote:FWIW, I do think that herd immunity (even if it is short of the HIT) is a major contributory factor in the falls in infections. I am not convinced that the second lockdown (flouted by many, and with schools open) had much effect at all.

To avoid any question of doubt, I wholeheartedly support this third lockdown and consider it essential to help to reduce hospital admissions.


When we talk about comparisons between earlier last year (March/April etc) and the seasonal period I find it useful to look at other North European Countries where you see countries with no real first wave and a really big second wave (sufficient to put them in the upper part of the chart for deaths per million people).

It is also useful to look at individual trusts.

I have been giving the question of what impact lockdown per se has. It does appear to me (not just based upon Cornwall, but other areas) that lockdown per se increases the transmission of the virus in more rural areas.

I think this may relate to public transport. The tube is probably the best system for spreading infection. In rural areas when people are asked to stay mainly at home this will not really have that much of an effect on public transport as there isn't really that much that is available. In urban areas, however, it keeps people off public transport to a greater extent.

Shutting schools (which I really don't like as a policy) is probably something that does reduce the spread of the virus between households quite significantly.

It does, however, appear that the process of concentrating people on going to the supermarket and otherwise sitting together at home increases the ability of the virus to spread.

I think we all agree with the objective of avoiding an overwhelming impact on the NHS and also keep the number of deaths down as well. It is probably too late now anyway to do much about this as the mistakes have been made. That is not to say the intentions were bad.

There have been a number of key questions which were initially uncertain, but became more certain.

The first one was susceptibility
The second was the level of infection.

If the government had correctly analysed the hospital admissions in March/April then they would have known that their assumptions were wrong.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10691
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378272

Postby UncleEbenezer » January 18th, 2021, 10:43 am

jfgw wrote:The South West is an exception.


Perhaps we'll go big in the next wave?

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378281

Postby PinkDalek » January 18th, 2021, 11:10 am

"False and misleading claims about Covid"?

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10691
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378286

Postby UncleEbenezer » January 18th, 2021, 11:29 am

PinkDalek wrote:"False and misleading claims about Covid"?

Usenet[1] 101: Threads will drift. This is a Good Thing, provided the drift doesn't take them to Bad Places.

[1] And its privatised upstart alternatives such as web fora.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests