Alvez_48
Well-known member
Contritium praecedit superbia, Alvez...
I don't think anyone has ever argued that those in younger age groups are at high risk of hospitalisation or death (although a small number are). The fact remains, however, that the higher the level of spread across the community, the higher the probability of people in older age groups and/or those with underlying health conditions (who are at significantly higher risk) of contracting the virus. That's the reason for the rest of us to try and suppress the virus, not because we should be personally scared of catching it.
It is still the case that the countries which have dealt with this best are the ones which recognised it as a SARS-type virus and immediately imposed measures (usually test, track and isolate) to suppress its spread, keeping numbers to manageable levels and preventing widespread community infection. Those which have dealt with it worst (including the UK), initially dealt with it as a flu-type epidemic, allowing community spread to occur and being forced to change tack (and impose lockdowns) when it became clear that things were spiralling out of control. I've said before, but I'll restate it yet again, lockdown is not the optimal policy response to the virus, it is an admittance of failure by the governments concerned.
Finally, I think you're confusing my willingness to point out factual errors as some sort of advocacy for a particular policy position. I like to think that I do that on both sides of the argument, but it's unfortunately the case that those who were anti-lockdown from the start have tended to be the ones promoting false statistics and/or statements completely unsupported by evidence.
I want us to be out of this situation as quickly as everyone does. If that means that I need to admit to being wrong about a few things, I would be delighted to do so. I am still awaiting, however, your admittance that you were wrong about more than 50% of the population having already had the virus (current evidence estimates 7%), wrong that people weren't dying of Covid-19 but simply with it (death registrations show 95% of people with Covid died as a direct consequence of the disease) and wrong that the Infection Fatality Rate was about 0.06% (current evidence shows 0.75-1% for the UK).
We have no idea what % of the population have had the disease or have natural immunity to it, so your wrong there.
You're also wrong on IFR repeatedly found to be around 0.2-0.4% please point me to where I stated 0.06 (but still much closer to actual IFR than Neil Ferguson) if I did that's incorrect my apologies.
As for your with / of comment I'd like to read about it so please show me.
Even if everyone who has died with covid has died of it and every excess death as a result of it (both statements patently not true), the response to the virus has been completely disproportionate, if you agree with that I'll happily apologize for including you in the list.