On 04/05/2020 00:14:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will
not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will
become corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with
other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as
long as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or
just the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

A rate implies so many a day or a month. We are talking about the final
death toll. Perhaps you're getting confused?

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a
proportion of the population simply because their death rate was
initially higher.

Nothing like in fact.

Are you saying the final death toll is independent of the current or
past death rate?

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you will
understand it is patent nonsense.

Pity about the evidence.

Quite, there is none.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we
will have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Lost argument syndrome. Your final acceptance you've been beat.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

And you seem unable to put forward coherent facts, resorting to abuse
every time you lose an argument.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

Pathetic.

Try looking in a mirror, what you see is a pathetic loser who can't
stand losing an argument, even when he knows he's wrong.

Pathetic.

Yes, it probably is.