I'm not sensing the wrongness he claimed to prove. The lockdown sceptic-sceptic is vague, uses the word 'dangerous' in place of demonstrating it, presupposes lockdown's effectiveness.
+ whenever the "it killed a 25 year old" (twice, it seems) argument appears, it's obvious bunk.
+ whenever the "it killed a 25 year old" (twice, it seems) argument appears, it's obvious bunk.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1317374413004808198
His reply to the sceptic talking point of "2017/18 excess winter deaths of 50,000" is "Many of those excess deaths will have been caused by things like circulatory diseases."
Right... Co-morbidities. At ~82. Same as with covid19.
He's messing about.
Right... Co-morbidities. At ~82. Same as with covid19.
He's messing about.
"Despite a lot of snipes at [Ferguson's] modelling, his group’s projections were broadly right. We’ll never know how accurate the Imperial death predictions were because lockdown stopped things from getting that bad."
Utter, shameful, BS.
Utter, shameful, BS.
That thinking really is 'burn the village to save the village' stuff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
