At a glance the studies you’ve shared are models/guesswork.
Here are some actual observations:
An interview with Sunetra Gupta where she speaks about the virus behaving in the same fashion regardless of differing lockdown conditions: https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/
Here’s an article referring among other things to the UK death rate falling too soon for lockdown to be the cause: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown/amp
Here’s the initial Imperial College/Neil Ferguson report that scared the West into locking down in the first place (I think the final paragraph is worth drawing your attention to): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
And here’s an article listing Neil Ferguson’s past (grossly inaccurate) predictions: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked — AJJ
Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. Send a paper how lock downs don't work. — Benkei
Especially as a reply to actual studies that you dismissed as "guesswork". — Benkei
“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.
I responded with information from an Oxford epidemiologist as well as relevant comments and observations from other professionals, including the Imperial College modellers themselves.
Your get-out has been to insist on other information that you can make assertions about; assertions that you expect me to verify for you. — AJJ
EDIT: Also, as far as Sunetra is concerned, her whole paper was "guessing" as well, trying to see what models could fit the data, which in no way shape or form was a rejection of Neil Ferguson's model. — Benkei
People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success.
— baker
Fine— and people should get vaccinated for the same reasons. It’s simply irrational not to, at this point. — Xtrix
So you empathize more with anti-vaxxers and their concerns than those who are suffering and dying from COVID. Figured as much. Which is why you're a complete waste of time, and probably deserving of the contempt you so quickly project onto others while engaging in it yourself. — Xtrix
But you see no fault in Westerners eagerly buying those goods?Correct. A lot of Chinese goods are made in prisons and concentration camps. — Apollodorus
Greed can make people believe all kinds of crazy things.But for Westerners in general to be so naive as to believe that China is the benefactor of the world, seems incomprehensible to me. — Apollodorus
If these orders entail those things you say are “definitely effective” then why aren’t they associated with reduced mortality? — AJJ
Not just here at the forums. More importantly, it's being fed to us by the government. What is worse, we can not communicate with the government, the government does not discuss with us.Risk analysis is not perfect, but it's a damn sight more complex than the naïve presentation of national prevalence statistics we see posted here masquerading as serious analysis. — Isaac
You play hard to please. The data is never good enough for you. — Olivier5
We don't give a rat's ass. — Olivier5
It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt. — Xtrix
The discussion was about people refusing the vaccine out of fear of risks like stroke and death. Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so. — Xtrix
Because you brought up the fact that people are having strokes. So while you may not make this argument yourself (as I would assume, given you’re vaccinated), I assumed you were bringing it up to demonstrate how others may be reasoning about this. If that’s not true, I wonder why you brought it up at all? — Xtrix
But even if we aren’t, it’s a bit disingenuous to say “it’s not my business” and walk away. What exactly are you arguing about on here, then? You go on about “pro-vaxxers” and how bad they are at communicating, but you’re answer is: don’t communicate at all?
Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life.
— baker
It will.
You need consolation for those people?Also, what’s the consolation for the millions who have died of coronavirus?
Understanding that 150 out of 10 million is a low risk doesn’t warrant the term “expert,” true. — Xtrix
I have supported them with real data. I cited the study— and there are many more. — Xtrix
The reason you and others continue on like this is because it’s been politicized. — Xtrix
Risk analysis is done using national figures all the time. I did it myself — Xtrix
Maybe it goes slightly above or below overall numbers — but not by much. Why?
Because 150 strokes out of 10 million people, for example, is astronomically low. — Xtrix
If it turns out that 90% of those 150 people were over 65, that’s important to know — no doubt (especially if you’re over 65). Does that significantly change the overall odds? As I mentioned before: no, it doesn’t. It simply means if you’re over 65, you have a slightly greater chance of having a stroke after taking the vaccine. — Xtrix
it doesn’t change the odds much at all — perhaps by 0.00001% or something to that effect. — Xtrix
How do I support this claim? With mathematics — which can be checked by everyone. — Xtrix
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that those who would argue in favor of using government coercion to force people into getting vaccinated — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.