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

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

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
swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348381

Postby swill453 » October 16th, 2020, 9:04 pm

johnhemming wrote:
swill453 wrote:If the mechanism of the seasonality is "people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer" then to describe that as the "virus becoming more infectious" is disingenuous, as it implies a change in the virus itself.


I disagree. If people are more likely to be infected by a virus in a particular season then the virus is more infectious. That does not require the virus to be itself modified, but the process of infection is modified.

So are you confirming that you don't believe the virus itself changes with temperature or humidity?

Scott.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348384

Postby johnhemming » October 16th, 2020, 9:28 pm

Obviously at a point the virus would decompose, but it is the same virus that starts out.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348387

Postby servodude » October 16th, 2020, 9:35 pm

swill453 wrote:
johnhemming wrote:
swill453 wrote:If the mechanism of the seasonality is "people turn on the central heating in their houses therefore resulting in a lower relative humidity which means the virus hangs around in the air for longer" then to describe that as the "virus becoming more infectious" is disingenuous, as it implies a change in the virus itself.


I disagree. If people are more likely to be infected by a virus in a particular season then the virus is more infectious. That does not require the virus to be itself modified, but the process of infection is modified.

So are you confirming that you don't believe the virus itself changes with temperature or humidity?

Scott.


I think there's often talking at cross purposes here due to interpretation of English
- seems clear now that John is asserting in this case that the conditions change and the virus is transmitted more readily
- and not that the virus is changing: it is not in and of itself any different, there's just more of it being spread to more people because the seasons have changed

I'll agree with that
- and I'll also agree that presenting that as "the virus is more infectious" is likely to confuse (as the virus is exactly the same)

-sd

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348402

Postby swill453 » October 16th, 2020, 11:14 pm

servodude wrote:
swill453 wrote:
johnhemming wrote:
I disagree. If people are more likely to be infected by a virus in a particular season then the virus is more infectious. That does not require the virus to be itself modified, but the process of infection is modified.

So are you confirming that you don't believe the virus itself changes with temperature or humidity?

Scott.


I think there's often talking at cross purposes here due to interpretation of English
- seems clear now that John is asserting in this case that the conditions change and the virus is transmitted more readily
- and not that the virus is changing: it is not in and of itself any different, there's just more of it being spread to more people because the seasons have changed

I'll agree with that
- and I'll also agree that presenting that as "the virus is more infectious" is likely to confuse (as the virus is exactly the same)

I think it's quite generous of you to say that.

When johnhemming says "When we had the first wave it was gradually getting more humid (warmer) and hence the virus became less virulent" it's clear to me he is saying the virus isn't the same.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=22218&start=3820#p346759

Scott.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348404

Postby servodude » October 17th, 2020, 12:16 am

swill453 wrote:
servodude wrote:
swill453 wrote:So are you confirming that you don't believe the virus itself changes with temperature or humidity?

Scott.


I think there's often talking at cross purposes here due to interpretation of English
- seems clear now that John is asserting in this case that the conditions change and the virus is transmitted more readily
- and not that the virus is changing: it is not in and of itself any different, there's just more of it being spread to more people because the seasons have changed

I'll agree with that
- and I'll also agree that presenting that as "the virus is more infectious" is likely to confuse (as the virus is exactly the same)

I think it's quite generous of you to say that.

When johnhemming says "When we had the first wave it was gradually getting more humid (warmer) and hence the virus became less virulent" it's clear to me he is saying the virus isn't the same.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=22218&start=3820#p346759

Scott.


I trust he's using virulent in the same way he's using infectious
- which is "a bit differently" from most

There's a bit of reading between the lines sometimes between what's written and what's meant
- i'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt

-sd

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348414

Postby johnhemming » October 17th, 2020, 6:20 am

Virulent
a dictionary wrote:(of a disease or poison) extremely severe or harmful in its effects.

Infectious
a dictionary wrote:(of a disease or disease-causing organism) liable to be transmitted to people, organisms, etc. through the environment.


Seasional viruses harm people more severely in certain seasons and also infect people more easily. That relates to the season not the genetic makeup of the virus.

NeilW
Lemon Slice
Posts: 760
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:27 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348422

Postby NeilW » October 17th, 2020, 9:00 am

XFool wrote:1. From the consensus of other, appropriate, experts

2. From reality


A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th of July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.

How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hypothesis? How correct are the 'experts' really? Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver-tongued individual with good connections?

I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink are prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.

Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348424

Postby Lootman » October 17th, 2020, 9:09 am

NeilW wrote:
XFool wrote:1. From the consensus of other, appropriate, experts

2. From reality

A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.

How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hyopthesis? How correct are the 'experts' about anything. Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver tongued individual with good connections?

I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink is prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.

Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.

Nicely phrased. If anyone watched the Channel Four news last night you could add that to the body of evidence that says that if you ask ten experts you will get ten different opinions. There was a SAGE "expert" and a Barrington "expert" arguing their respectful but contrary points. Both sounded credible and plausible, but they can't both be right.

I thought the Barrington guy made more sense but then maybe that is my confirmation bias, just as others here might think the SAGE guy made more sense because of their inherent biases. As someone else noted, it may come down to whether you are a "big government" type or a "small government" type.

Opinions, huh? Everyone has one.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348466

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 1:24 pm

Lootman wrote:
NeilW wrote:
XFool wrote:1. From the consensus of other, appropriate, experts

2. From reality

A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.

How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hyopthesis? How correct are the 'experts' about anything. Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver tongued individual with good connections?

I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink is prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.

Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.

Nicely phrased. If anyone watched the Channel Four news last night you could add that to the body of evidence that says that if you ask ten experts you will get ten different opinions. There was a SAGE "expert" and a Barrington "expert" arguing their respectful but contrary points. Both sounded credible and plausible, but they can't both be right.

Exactly.


P.S. Though liked the way you used an example of TWO opposed "experts" to jump to the conclusion that if you had ten experts there would be ten differing opinions!
Last edited by XFool on October 17th, 2020, 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348467

Postby zico » October 17th, 2020, 1:30 pm

NeilW wrote:A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th of July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.



Cases have shot up since the 24th July when -
- Masks were introduced
- Schools were reopened
- Eat Out to Help Out throughout August encouraged people to pack indoors in restaurants and cafes
- Universities reopened, and students from all around the country mingled in halls of residence with tiny rooms, shared kitchens and bathrooms
- Government encouraged people to commute to offices rather than working at home.

From the above possibilities. I'm not at all sure that introducing masks is the main factor in the increase in cases.

And the "Swedish alternative" - what is that exactly? There's a lot of vague references to Sweden (which has 10 times the death rate of its neighbours). We could compare to the Vietnam alternative, or the New Zealand alternative.

The Covid outbreak hit Vietnam early on, with their first case in late-January (compared with UK's first case at end-January).

Number of Covid deaths in Vietnam - 0. Yes, zero, nada, zilch, nobody. There was a case of a foreign national who'd ignored social distancing guidelines and was very ill, but they managed to save him.

So, how did a comparatively poor country do so well? (Incidentally, if you want to say Vietnam is a freak/lucky result, take a look at Thailand - 59 deaths in total since the start of the pandemic. For context, the UK is currently experiencing more daily Covid deaths than Thailand has had all year)

Here's some highlights from the Vietnam approach, with a longer link in the quotes below.

Vietnamese leadership began waging war on COVID-19 with early, decisive action.
A national steering committee for COVID-19 control was established promptly and developed a multi-sectoral response plan.
Points of entry have been tightly controlled and suspected cases quarantined immediately.
Testing is conducted both at entry to quarantine and upon exit.
Epidemic control teams have carried out targeted testing and aggressive contact tracing.
At least 110 laboratories across the country
Local authorities are taking a four-tier approach to contact tracing and isolation.
The public is well-informed of personal protective measures.
Public compliance with precaution measures, including social distancing, is high.
The private sector has stepped up.


The SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19 (coronavirus) has led to more than 3.1 million infections and 220,000 deaths globally. With even the wealthiest countries struggling to stop the spread, how can lower middle-income countries with limited resources bring the pandemic under control? With not a single confirmed death from COVID-19 to date, Vietnam’s approach offers useful insights.

The outbreak hit Vietnam early on. In late January, a man from Wuhan passed the coronavirus to his Vietnam-based son. Vietnam was thought to be highly vulnerable, as we have a 1,400 km border with China, busy cross-border travel and trade, a large population of 97 million people, and a lower middle-income economy. However, while many nations have seen cases soar, there have been only 270 confirmed cases (or 2.8 cases per million people) so far in Vietnam.

How has Vietnam kept its case count so low?

Vietnamese leadership began waging war on COVID-19 with early, decisive action. As soon as the first cases were detected, the government recognized COVID-19 as a major threat and took precautionary measures above and beyond World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. These were implemented a week before the outbreak was recognized as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and more than a month before WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

A national steering committee for COVID-19 control was established promptly and developed a multi-sectoral response plan. While many countries were debating their health and economic choices, Vietnam’s government made an unequivocal decision to prioritize health over economic growth , “fighting the epidemic as an enemy”. This commitment from the highest level of leadership paved the way for the Ministry of Health and other relevant ministries to implement unprecedented measures for the COVID-19 response.

Points of entry have been tightly controlled and suspected cases quarantined immediately. Vietnam was one of the first countries to halt passenger flights from high-risk areas and to quarantine international travelers. Since late January, the government has required all people arriving from China to submit a health declaration and undertake quarantine in government-controlled facilities for 14 days. These requirements were gradually expanded to those arriving from the Republic of Korea, the United States, and EU countries. Quarantine is largely in military facilities and is free of charge.

Testing is conducted both at entry to quarantine and upon exit. To date, 162 imported cases have been detected, which is about 60% of COVID-19 infections. International travel restrictions and institutional quarantine interrupted the influx of cases, giving the country more time to prepare.

Epidemic control teams have carried out targeted testing and aggressive contact tracing. The National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology succeeded in culturing and cultivating the SARS-CoV-2 virus early, enabling domestic institutions to produce test kits. The Ministry of Health initially targeted only those with travel histories for testing, along with close contacts of confirmed cases and people presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Testing has recently been expanded to hot spot communities and at-risk settings such as wholesale markets in Hanoi and industrial zones in Ho Chi Minh City.

At least 110 laboratories across the country can perform real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for COVID-19 diagnosis, with a capacity of 27,000 samples per day. As of April 30, Vietnam had conducted 261,004 tests, with 967 tests per positive case or 2691 tests per million population.

Local authorities are taking a four-tier approach to contact tracing and isolation. Localized centers for disease control and preventive health facilities are closely collaborating with hospitals in case detection, isolation and treatment. Confirmed cases are considered tier one and must be isolated and treated in health facilities. Home-based isolation of confirmed cases is not allowed in Vietnam, to prevent transmission to family members. Currently, hospitals and health centers face neither overwhelming demand nor supply shortages, so sufficient resources remain available for all COVID-19 patients.

Tier two is for the close contacts of confirmed cases, who must undertake testing and government-run quarantine. Those in tier three have had close contact with tier two cases: they must self-isolate at home. The fourth tier involves isolation of entire communities. Local authorities have isolated two villages, a commune, and a hospital.

Over 134,000 people had undertaken institutional quarantine and/or isolation in Vietnam by mid-April. Vietnam’s targeted testing, aggressive contact tracing and multi-tier isolation system has greatly contributed to its success in controlling COVID-19.

The public is well-informed of personal protective measures. The Ministry of Health informs the public of positive cases and potential exposures, and has provided guidelines for disease prevention on its websites. A government-run media campaign, including a viral music video, has promoted personal protective behaviors, while public and private telecom companies have collectively sent 3 billion messages on COVID-19 prevention to mobile phone users.

Public compliance with precaution measures, including social distancing, is high. Wearing face masks is mandated in public places, and alcohol-based hand sanitizers are widely available. Religious sites and schools have been closed for three months.

The private sector has stepped up. Factories have shifted their focus to manufacturing medical supplies, helping the health system avoid shortages of personal protective equipment and ventilators. Philanthropists have installed “rice ATMs” to feed vulnerable people amid an economic slowdown.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348468

Postby johnhemming » October 17th, 2020, 1:45 pm

XFool wrote:P.S. Though liked the way you used an example of TWO opposed "experts" to jump to the conclusion that if you had ten experts there would be ten differing opinions!


There is, however, a debate about what the susceptibility of the UK/English population is to Covid-19. This is a debate were you have refused to read an article arguing that for various reasons it did not start the year at 100%.

The nature of the process is such that there are certain key uncertainties are important.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348469

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 1:50 pm

zico wrote:Here's some highlights from the Vietnam approach, with a longer link in the quotes below.

Vietnamese leadership began waging war on COVID-19 with early, decisive action.
A national steering committee for COVID-19 control was established promptly and developed a multi-sectoral response plan.
Points of entry have been tightly controlled and suspected cases quarantined immediately.
Testing is conducted both at entry to quarantine and upon exit.
Epidemic control teams have carried out targeted testing and aggressive contact tracing.
At least 110 laboratories across the country
Local authorities are taking a four-tier approach to contact tracing and isolation.
The public is well-informed of personal protective measures.
Public compliance with precaution measures, including social distancing, is high.
The private sector has stepped up.

"Public compliance with precaution measures, including social distancing, is high." - I wonder if this is the key factor?

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348473

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 2:18 pm

Lootman wrote:I thought the Barrington guy made more sense but then maybe that is my confirmation bias, just as others here might think the SAGE guy made more sense because of their inherent biases. As someone else noted, it may come down to whether you are a "big government" type or a "small government" type.

Opinions, huh? Everyone has one.

Sure! But not all "opinions" (on a technical matter) are equally worthwhile, or equally representative.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348475

Postby Lootman » October 17th, 2020, 2:21 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
NeilW wrote:A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.

How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hyopthesis? How correct are the 'experts' about anything. Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver tongued individual with good connections?

I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink is prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.

Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.

Nicely phrased. If anyone watched the Channel Four news last night you could add that to the body of evidence that says that if you ask ten experts you will get ten different opinions. There was a SAGE "expert" and a Barrington "expert" arguing their respectful but contrary points. Both sounded credible and plausible, but they can't both be right.

Exactly.

P.S. Though liked the way you used an example of TWO opposed "experts" to jump to the conclusion that if you had ten experts there would be ten differing opinions!

I'd need a reason to believe that wasn't true based on my personal experience of listening to experts (or specialists as they sometimes like to call themselves).

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348477

Postby PinkDalek » October 17th, 2020, 2:25 pm

zico wrote:Number of Covid deaths in Vietnam - 0. Yes, zero, nada, zilch, nobody. ...
Here's some highlights from the Vietnam approach, with a longer link [?] in the quotes below.


You didn't provide a link to the lengthy extracts but is this your source?:

https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/containing-coronavirus-covid-19-lessons-vietnam

If so, it may be worth noting it was dated 30 April 2020. Since then there have been reported deaths in Vietnam. Not many but I think 35 when I last looked. Even so, I hope the count continues to be extremely low.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348478

Postby johnhemming » October 17th, 2020, 2:44 pm

Much that the data on Worldometers is not that high quality it does give a deaths per million column on which their summary can be sorted.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Thailand, PNG, Sri Langar, Vietnam, Taiwan, Tanzania, Burundi, Gibraltar, Eritrea, Mongolia, Bhutan, Cambodia and Laos all seem largish countries under 1 death per million (in the order going down).

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348479

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 2:45 pm

PinkDalek wrote:You didn't provide a link to the lengthy extracts but is this your source?:

https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/containing-coronavirus-covid-19-lessons-vietnam

If so, it may be worth noting it was dated 30 April 2020. Since then there have been reported deaths in Vietnam. Not many but I think 35 when I last looked. Even so, I hope the count continues to be extremely low.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/viet-nam/

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348484

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 3:19 pm

NeilW wrote:
XFool wrote:1. From the consensus of other, appropriate, experts

2. From reality

A groupthink then, since there is little understanding of what reality actually is at the moment. Cases have shot up since the 24th of July when masks were introduced. Yet the response of the groupthink is to do it harder and longer and tell people they're not doing it right, rather than ask questions about the effectiveness of the entire approach compared to the Swedish alternative.

How correct were the experts about the Lipid Hypothesis? How correct are the 'experts' really? Why is Ferguson still in a job despite being utterly wrong several times in a row? Because he's a silver-tongued individual with good connections?

I find it very amusing that circumstantial evidence pieces published in supposed scientific journals in favour of the groupthink are prematurely extrapolated and jumped on, despite not being replicated studies in any way shape or form. Yet circumstantial evidence pieces in the other direction are dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't science. It's Scientism. A persuasion technique that started in the social sciences and, regrettably, appears to be drifting into the life sciences.

Appeal to expert is a logical fallacy. You don't know they are experts. Until validated by replicated experiment they are soothsayers.

I propose coining a neologism of my own: 'Alternativism'

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348485

Postby PinkDalek » October 17th, 2020, 3:26 pm

XFool wrote:
PinkDalek wrote:You didn't provide a link to the lengthy extracts but is this your source?:

https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/containing-coronavirus-covid-19-lessons-vietnam

If so, it may be worth noting it was dated 30 April 2020. Since then there have been reported deaths in Vietnam. Not many but I think 35 when I last looked. Even so, I hope the count continues to be extremely low.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/viet-nam/


Yes, that's where I looked but not '0. Yes, zero, nada, zilch, nobody'.

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

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#348486

Postby XFool » October 17th, 2020, 3:32 pm

XFool wrote:I propose coining a neologism of my own: 'Alternativism'

Foiled again! :(

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternativism


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests