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

#378294

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 11:51 am

Lootman wrote:
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.

No comment! ;)

Lootman wrote:I think he is correct in that lockdowns really just slow the infection rate and delay the time when people catch it.

But, but... we have always known this, from the start! Haven't we?

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote: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.

No, no, no, no, no! Now that really IS a strawman.

I am not commenting in these threads on full-blown, hard, COVID-19 denier nutters. Apart from initially on the original thread (look it up!), that has not been an issue here. Of course, they are all over the Internet. But there is something else - soft COVID-19 deniers? - which is found both on social media and in the mainstream media.

I speak of self-styled "sceptics". They are always "sceptical" of the seriousness of COVID ('just a bad cold'). They are always "sceptical" of the figures ('exaggerated', 'mistaken'). They are always "sceptical" of the science ('incompetent', 'should listen to somebody else', 'wrong kind of science'). They are always "sceptical" of the pandemic ('is it really a pandemic?', 'it's all over now', 'there will be no second wave'). They were, of course, "sceptical" of the tactics adopted to tackle the crisis. i.e. lockdowns (I give you Lockdown Sceptics - Exhibit 1). They always know better than 'mainstream opinion', the 'establishment view', the 'conventional consensus' - at least that's what they tell us!

These "soft sceptics" could also be called 'minimisers', 'contrarians', 'anti-establishment', 'libertarians' - but now we risk straying into the TLF forbidden 'p-zone'! :o

For many such, if asked the question, what are you "sceptical" about? The answer could well be: "What have you got?"

This is what I mean when I speak of "deniers". I reckon you either recognise this "denier" phenomenon, or you don't. (Global Warming 'debate', anyone?)

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8272
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3565 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378298

Postby servodude » January 18th, 2021, 12:00 pm

johnhemming wrote: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


But isn't that just confessing to cherry picking?
why only choose data that agrees with your preformed ideas?

It's better than making it up I'll agree - but why not look at all the data?

-sd

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

#378301

Postby dealtn » January 18th, 2021, 12:07 pm

XFool wrote:
No, no, no, no, no! Now that really IS a strawman.

I am not commenting in these threads on full-blown, hard, COVID-19 denier nutters. Apart from initially on the original thread (look it up!), that has not been an issue here. Of course, they are all over the Internet. But there is something else - soft COVID-19 deniers? - which is found both on social media and in the mainstream media.

I speak of self-styled "sceptics". They are always "sceptical" of the seriousness of COVID ('just a bad cold'). They are always "sceptical" of the figures ('exaggerated', 'mistaken'). They are always "sceptical" of the science ('incompetent', 'should listen to somebody else', 'wrong kind of science'). They are always "sceptical" of the pandemic ('is it really a pandemic?', 'it's all over now', 'there will be no second wave'). They were, of course, "sceptical" of the tactics adopted to tackle the crisis. i.e. lockdowns (I give you Lockdown Sceptics - Exhibit 1). They always know better than 'mainstream opinion', the 'establishment view', the 'conventional consensus' - at least that's what they tell us!

These "soft sceptics" could also be called 'minimisers', 'contrarians', 'anti-establishment', 'libertarians' - but now we risk straying into the TLF forbidden 'p-zone'! :o

For many such, if asked the question, what are you "sceptical" about? The answer could well be: "What have you got?"

This is what I mean when I speak of "deniers". I reckon you either recognise this "denier" phenomenon, or you don't. (Global Warming 'debate', anyone?)


How do you distinguish, and differentiate between "genuine sceptics" and this category you label "soft sceptics"?

Or is there only a single legitimate category of 100% believers, or acceptors, of the authority position. I can't believe that is your belief as you have admitted, and praised, a divergent view on Sage for instance, that helps form the "general consensus". It would be difficult to have divergence of thought and opinion, yet simultaneously 100% belief.

It appears to me you have a confirmation bias issue and that everyone that shares your view is ok, anyone not is a "soft sceptic". Can you convince me otherwise and that a genuine, legitimate camp of "genuine sceptics" exist, and be allowed to continue to question. (They don't sound too different to SAGE members in that respect to me).

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

#378330

Postby johnhemming » January 18th, 2021, 1:05 pm

dealtn wrote:How do you distinguish, and differentiate between "genuine sceptics" and this category you label "soft sceptics"?

What worries me is a growing religious approach to issues. On scientific questions there is a genuine debate about for example what the cross immunity is, to what extent that affects susceptibility and when immunity holds back infection. However, there is a tendency to treat those people who do not agree with the conclusions of SAGE as being heretics.

As people know I am particularly unhappy about the abusive and defamatory way some of the posters behave, but have taken the view to simply block those people who find it impossible to argue about science without also being rude and abusive.

I take the view that there are a range of issues which do not need to be approached in a tribal manner, but instead can be considered on the basis of evidence.

Hence for example although I am a "Remainer" I do recognise that some people have valid concerns about Freedom of Movement.

On the issue of Covid I find a lot of the campaigners against lockdown to be people with whom I probably agree less than people who support lockdown.

The words "sceptic" or "denier" do not really add to the debate. They are words that drive discussions on issues that should have a spectrum of views into a monochromatic tribal debate.

In a sense that can be seen more widely in society and as people consume media that is more polarised (that can be seen more in the USA perhaps) debate and discussion is going in a negative direction.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378360

Postby Lootman » January 18th, 2021, 3:24 pm

77ss wrote:
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.

Wait, I thought Sweden was considered guilty of not listening to its scientists and therefore adopting a relatively lax lockdown? At least that is what some hard lockdowners have claimed.

Or maybe their scientists disagree with our scientists?

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378364

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 3:39 pm

dealtn wrote:How do you distinguish, and differentiate between "genuine sceptics" and this category you label "soft sceptics"?

That's a good question! I'm not sure I can always tell you. I'm not sure the matter can be formulated precisely, possibly it is a matter of feel, instinct, intuition - reading the signs. But there are surely some obvious cautions.

As an example, take Climate Change (Yes! It IS very relevant). Should I believe those scientists and scientific bodies who research and describe the phenomenon? Or should I have been 'informed' about it by the likes of anti-establishment, controvertionalist journalist James Delingpole (many were), then writing for The Telegraph?

When it is something happening in the physical world, AFAIAC it is always down to the relevant experts in the field to inform us, and me, as to the facts of the matter. There are always those in the media waiting, with their ideological axes at hand, ready to get down to some serious grinding.

There also usually seems to be a sprinkling of maverick scientists - for some reason they often seem to be "retired".

dealtn wrote:Or is there only a single legitimate category of 100% believers, or acceptors, of the authority position. I can't believe that is your belief as you have admitted, and praised, a divergent view on Sage for instance, that helps form the "general consensus". It would be difficult to have divergence of thought and opinion, yet simultaneously 100% belief.

The "general consensus", if of relevant experts, would recommend itself to me.

dealtn wrote:It appears to me you have a confirmation bias issue and that everyone that shares your view is ok, anyone not is a "soft sceptic".

You may say "confirmation bias", I may say "naïveté".

One should also remember the old saying: "It's good to have an open mind. But not so open your brains fall out."

dealtn wrote:Can you convince me otherwise and that a genuine, legitimate camp of "genuine sceptics" exist, and be allowed to continue to question. (They don't sound too different to SAGE members in that respect to me).

Ah! If they "don't sound too different to SAGE members" to you, maybe that is because they aren't? Or to the various scientists and groups working behind the scenes who contribute to the science and to SAGE. Maybe that is who they are? But we don't see them do we? That doesn't mean they don't exist. What we do see, all over the place, are loads self-appointed "sceptics". Are they contributing to SAGE? Um...

Now we are no longer at the start of this (it remains to be seen if we are at the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning) so we can look back and get some idea of who was right and who was wrong. The mavericks and "sceptics", or the boring old traditionalists.

Shall we look and see?

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378365

Postby tjh290633 » January 18th, 2021, 3:42 pm

XFool wrote:The "general consensus", if of relevant experts, would recommend itself to me.

So, in the days of Galileo and Copernicus, you would have been a "Flat earth" believer?

TJH

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378368

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 3:50 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
XFool wrote:The "general consensus", if of relevant experts, would recommend itself to me.

So, in the days of Galileo and Copernicus, you would have been a "Flat earth" believer?

Why? I assume practically nobody was. Nobody educated, anyway!

People have known the Earth is round for millennia.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378370

Postby Lootman » January 18th, 2021, 3:55 pm

XFool wrote:Now we are no longer at the start of this (it remains to be seen if we are at the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning) so we can look back and get some idea of who was right and who was wrong. The mavericks and "sceptics", or the boring old traditionalists.

Before deciding who was right and who was wrong, you would have to define those terms in this context, and ensure there was general consensus on that.

So for example did country X get it "right" because their Covid deaths were lower, because that is the only factor that matters here? A scientist might say so because they typically have a narrow focus. But an ordinary person takes other factors into account and might consider that same country got it "wrong".

It is easy to slip into a state of mind that fixates only upon the daily cases/hospitalisations/deaths stats and then miss the bigger picture.

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

#378373

Postby dealtn » January 18th, 2021, 4:04 pm

XFool wrote:
dealtn wrote:How do you distinguish, and differentiate between "genuine sceptics" and this category you label "soft sceptics"?

That's a good question! I'm not sure I can always tell you. I'm not sure the matter can be formulated precisely, possibly it is a matter of feel, instinct, intuition - reading the signs. But there are surely some obvious cautions.



That's fine. You are admitting that there can be some genuine sceptics. That hasn't been obvious to me from you before.

There are clearly some "ludicrous" sceptics, deniers if you will. On this we (all?) agree.

There are some legitimate unknowns which scientists, be they SAGE advisers or not, have clear differences and debate about, due to incomplete knowledge, or data, or models (and no doubt other reasons too). In the main these viewpoints are considered, and consensus for bodies such as SAGE is formed. There might be, say 8 people, 4 strongly believe X, 2 believe Y and 2 are unpersuaded by either. The SAGE position might be close to X as a result. There are 4 "sceptics", 2 stronger than others. Does that mean those 4 (or 2) can't continue to articulate their individual positions? I would hope not.

There can be a consensus view of the 8, but 4 (or 2) wouldn't be considered "soft sceptics" or would they, by your earlier definition?

I think that is all most here who don't conform to the "absolutist authority view" are saying. It is ok to have "sensible" disagreement on what after all is science, on which it is normal to have a spectrum of views and theories about. It is frustrating, and insulting, to be led to believe it isn't allowable to have anything that isn't "consensus" as an opinion or theory.

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378375

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 4:07 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Now we are no longer at the start of this (it remains to be seen if we are at the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning) so we can look back and get some idea of who was right and who was wrong. The mavericks and "sceptics", or the boring old traditionalists.

Before deciding who was right and who was wrong, you would have to define those terms in this context, and ensure there was general consensus on that.

I had in mind some pretty simple tests! More, "Who said what, when?"

e.g.
"The pandemic is over, as everyone has herd immunity now" - RIGHT/WRONG?
"There will be no second wave" - RIGHT/WRONG?
etc.

Get it?

Lootman wrote:So for example did country X get it "right" because their Covid deaths were lower, because that is the only factor that matters here?

That is a much more complicated and therefore difficult comparison, IMO.

Lootman wrote:A scientist might say so because they typically have a narrow focus. But an ordinary person takes other factors into account and might consider that same country got it "wrong".

You would say that, wouldn't you? :lol:

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378376

Postby Lootman » January 18th, 2021, 4:14 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Now we are no longer at the start of this (it remains to be seen if we are at the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning) so we can look back and get some idea of who was right and who was wrong. The mavericks and "sceptics", or the boring old traditionalists.

Before deciding who was right and who was wrong, you would have to define those terms in this context, and ensure there was general consensus on that.

I had in mind some pretty simple tests! More, "Who said what, when?"

e.g.
"The pandemic is over, as everyone has herd immunity now" - RIGHT/WRONG?
"There will be no second wave" - RIGHT/WRONG?
etc.

Yes but most of the debate is about what to do about the pandemic. And people and nations have different views on that, and take different actions. Even lockdowns come in many flavours as noted yesterday.

So if I asked you whether, say, Australia or Canada had the "right" response to the pandemic, how would you answer that? What criteria would you use to determine that?

"Right" and "wrong" can be remarkably subjective terms, often equating to little more than "I like this" or "I don't personally agree with that".

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378379

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 4:22 pm

Lootman wrote:Yes but most of the debate is about what to do about the pandemic. And people and nations have different views on that, and take different actions. Even lockdowns come in many flavours as noted yesterday.

So if I asked you whether, say, Australia or Canada had the "right" response to the pandemic, how would you answer that? What criteria would you use to determine that?

I am mostly commenting on the situation in the UK, as that is what I am immediately aware of. I am not researching this on a worldwide basis. Generally, success would be keeping a lid on the epidemic as much as possible and getting back to 'normal' as soon as possible. But it isn't over until it's over.

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

#378381

Postby johnhemming » January 18th, 2021, 4:24 pm

The pandemic is over, as everyone has herd immunity now" - RIGHT/WRONG?

The problem with this phrase is that the threshold for herd immunity will be different in different places and for different circumstances. Although you can consider the country as a whole. That would not mean either that everyone has had it or every area within the jurisdiction has hit herd immunity (which does not mean that the disease does not spread, but means it replicates at an initial constant rate and then reducing).

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378383

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 4:32 pm

johnhemming wrote:The pandemic is over, as everyone has herd immunity now" - RIGHT/WRONG?

The problem with this phrase is that the threshold for herd immunity will be different in different places and for different circumstances. Although you can consider the country as a whole. That would not mean either that everyone has had it or every area within the jurisdiction has hit herd immunity (which does not mean that the disease does not spread, but means it replicates at an initial constant rate and then reducing).

Yes, but the salient point was in the first part of the statement: "The pandemic is over...". Said in Summer, by more than one of these public "sceptics". Both some scientists and by journalists enthusiastically echoing that line, likely because it fitted their own agenda.

I am still not sure that some here recognise this as a 'thing'.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378393

Postby Lootman » January 18th, 2021, 4:52 pm

XFool wrote:Generally, success would be keeping a lid on the epidemic as much as possible and . .

But continuing my theme how would you define "keeping a lid on the epidemic"? I could argue that with UK deaths only just over 1 in 1,000 there is still a lid on it in statistical terms because 99.9% of Brits have not died. And the healthcare system has coped, albeit only just. For most people the biggest impact of the virus so far is the lockdown and the travel bans, not being sick.

Of course you would also have to define "as much as possible" there. I would change it to "as much as practically and politically possible". We could have totally locked down the UK and sealed the borders a year ago, when we first heard of this bug, and probably had close to zero cases. But that was not "practically and politically possible".

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2540
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378394

Postby jfgw » January 18th, 2021, 4:55 pm

johnhemming wrote:The pandemic is over, as everyone has herd immunity now" - RIGHT/WRONG?


Clearly "WRONG" as everyONE cannot have HERD immunity.


Julian F. G. W.

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378396

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 4:56 pm

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Generally, success would be keeping a lid on the epidemic as much as possible and . .

But continuing my theme how would you define "keeping a lid on the epidemic"? I could argue that with UK deaths only just over 1 in 1,000 there is still a lid on it in statistical terms because 99.9% of Brits have not died. And the healthcare system has coped, albeit only just. For most people the biggest impact of the virus so far is the lockdown and the travel bans, not being sick.

Of course you would also have to define "as much as possible" there. I would change it to "as much as practically and politically possible". We could have totally locked down the UK and sealed the borders a year ago, when we first heard of this bug, and probably had close to zero cases. But that was not "practically and politically possible".

Essentially, I think we are now discussing, and are interested in, different things here.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378397

Postby Lootman » January 18th, 2021, 4:59 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Generally, success would be keeping a lid on the epidemic as much as possible and . .

But continuing my theme how would you define "keeping a lid on the epidemic"? I could argue that with UK deaths only just over 1 in 1,000 there is still a lid on it in statistical terms because 99.9% of Brits have not died. And the healthcare system has coped, albeit only just. For most people the biggest impact of the virus so far is the lockdown and the travel bans, not being sick.

Of course you would also have to define "as much as possible" there. I would change it to "as much as practically and politically possible". We could have totally locked down the UK and sealed the borders a year ago, when we first heard of this bug, and probably had close to zero cases. But that was not "practically and politically possible".

Essentially, I think we discussing, and are interested in, different things here.

Perhaps but it looks to me more like we just have different views on the same thing. Which goes to the idea that notions of "right" and "wrong" on this topic are very tricky, and certainly not obvious.

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

Re: False and misleading claims about Covid

#378403

Postby XFool » January 18th, 2021, 5:11 pm

Anyway, (as an alleged "lockdown lover") I have decided to 'refresh' my own Pandemic slogan. Bringing it more into line with current trends in message branding:

"SOONER, SHARPER, SHORTER. SORTED!"

:)


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests