On 04/05/2020 06:20:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
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.

Or per million of the population.

No.
rate: A magnitude or frequency relative to a timeÂ*unit

It' seems your whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of basic
English. Best stop now.

We are talking about the final death toll.

No that evidence of the result sweden has got isnt.

What result, the number of deaths so far, or the death rate? Have you
forgotten what it is you're trying to argue?

Perhaps you're getting confused?

Nope, you are one the word rate alone.

And you are confusing the death rate with the final death toll, thinking
they are they same.

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?

Corse not. I am saying what I said.

Which if you repeated here would show you now contradicting yourself.

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.

Corse there is evidence of the death rate per million.

Once again you go by rate and not the overall final number. The death
rate is determined by the degree of lock-down. The final death toll is
dependent on the rate x duration of epidemic.

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 ?

reams of your pathetic attempt at insults any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Usual sign of lost argument.