11-17-2020, 10:00 AM
(11-16-2020, 04:47 PM)billybassett Wrote:
It's not a manipulation. It basically shows - as it supposed to - that even measured to the worst weeks over the last X years it's in the ballpark.
i.e it's not lethal and hence why I'm still awaiting the answer to this Q
Do you think the actions we've taken since June are net beneficial, in terms of the full package of health, wellbeing, education, business etc for the 98%+ of people, or not?
If you do then show me the equation.
If you don't then why are we doing it?
Of course it's a manipulation, it's also factually incorrect - it takes the highest figure from that week over a 5 year period, and then adds a bit to that figure "adjusting for population growth" and only then is 'in the ball bark. The actual figure was 10,152 in 2016 (I'm guessing he's using 2016 as that allows the larger population growth estimate) and inflating it by 700 for population growth - that's approximately a 7% population growth in 4 years as an estimate. We have a census every 10 years and the last one was in 2011, the growth in population in the 10 years from 2001 was 7.2%, so based on that do you think having a 7% growth in 4 years as an estimate is to be balanced or to get to the answer he wanted. The reasonable approach is to take the 5 year average for that week and measure against that, unless you want to start with the answer you want.
As for your question, 1stly since June there have been very little restrictions until recently. We're in a lockdown because hospitalisations and deaths were rising and when that starts we know the outcome. Even Sweden, the great freedom model, have realised that letting life go on as normal and everyone looking after themselves causes more people to die. Your argument is becoming more and more an isolated view because as time goes on we can see the actual results of minimal lockdown (In Sweden, a much higher death rate than comparable countries) are worse than not locking down. the problem is that you are being so stubborn with your view that you will not change it.
In balance, you have some points that appear reasonable, testing will give out excess false positive from what you say - I would rather err on the side of caution tbh and if a small proportion of those tested have to isolate unnecessarily for a couple of weeks then so be it. We are in this position mainly because of govt dithering both at the start and again now, if we had locked down earlier both times we could have had shorter lockdowns. If we had started work on an effective test and trace situation earlier instead of lining pockets we would have had a better system now.
And no, I don't have an equation, simply facts on rising hospitalisations and excess deaths which coincide with each other tell me there is a problem. Getting on with life as normal will simply mean more deaths (which are currently running at about 14% more than an average year)