That data doesnât seem very reliable if itâs based on the premise of look at April versus these Januarys from other years.
Also, much of it comes back to the same point - is a flat death rate because itâs not a dangerous disease or because the first lockdown was successful in curbing it?
How is that hypocritical? Iâm not fucking stopping to have a lock in in a pub and drink from a cup laced with covid and then spread it around the community.
Tfk has been an incredible outlet during
This difficult period but my family are
Very Worried about me and concerned as to where I developed these far right views.
Great to see some different perspectives logically laid out rather than the âye are all so boring and repetitive and Iâm better than youâ gunk typed out from the few âalternativeâ viewpoints being typed here. Couple of points- could you share those HIQA findings please? Also, when you say the last lockdown worked from a public health point of view do you mean from a Covid point of view or a public health point of view? I would say itâs far too early to say with any confidence what it has done from a public health point of view.
As youâll see if you read it, there was a 33% spike and then a decrease. Some will argue the 33% spike was a blip. Others will argue the 33% spike was people dying earlier than normal. The decrease afterwards was that trend ending, those people not dying (because they were already dead) and the numbers levelling out. But that second point itself is an argument for the lockdown as I see it. In other words it may be a choice between a continued 33% increase or a short spike and then a regression to norms afterwards.
Yeah fair point on public health success. I donât even mean a Covid success either because I think there are still question marks over it as a strategy. But I think from a pure Covid cases number it was a success (which is not surprising and isnât, on its own, a justification to repeat the process).