Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lankeela. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nailit's personal account isn't verifiable to anybody else (at least on AB) and is presumably not based on any active scientific research, so it is more or less exactly the textbook definition of "anecdotal evidence".
The claim that the virus is impossible to control is also clearly not true, depending perhaps on your definition of control. But the graph of positive cases has very clear points where it suddenly rises sharply, and then just as suddenly dips again, and the dips almost always correspond to increased restrictions being introduced. Prime example: over September and into October, the number of positive cases began to show exponential increase. Then the entire country was put into Tier 4 for November, and that increase slowed, stopped, and then started to reverse again at the end of the month. Those restrictions were then relaxed at the end of November, and to nobody's surprise the exponential increase started again very soon afterwards. But, since full(er) lockdown measures were reintroduced at the start of January, that increase has rapidly been reversed, and new cases are declining sharply.
It will take time, and perhaps stronger measures still, to reduce the spread down to a few hundred new cases per day, but the suggestion that the virus cannot be controlled is, at the very least, far too stringent. To eliminate it altogether may be a forlorn hope, or at least beyond the will of the present Government to introduce and enforce the required measures -- but to bring it under control? That's doable. There's no need to be defeatist.
The claim that the virus is impossible to control is also clearly not true, depending perhaps on your definition of control. But the graph of positive cases has very clear points where it suddenly rises sharply, and then just as suddenly dips again, and the dips almost always correspond to increased restrictions being introduced. Prime example: over September and into October, the number of positive cases began to show exponential increase. Then the entire country was put into Tier 4 for November, and that increase slowed, stopped, and then started to reverse again at the end of the month. Those restrictions were then relaxed at the end of November, and to nobody's surprise the exponential increase started again very soon afterwards. But, since full(er) lockdown measures were reintroduced at the start of January, that increase has rapidly been reversed, and new cases are declining sharply.
It will take time, and perhaps stronger measures still, to reduce the spread down to a few hundred new cases per day, but the suggestion that the virus cannot be controlled is, at the very least, far too stringent. To eliminate it altogether may be a forlorn hope, or at least beyond the will of the present Government to introduce and enforce the required measures -- but to bring it under control? That's doable. There's no need to be defeatist.
I'm sure you could carry it off, gness
https:/
https:/
"Why have they? "
Lockdown "skeptics" like laurence fox have encouraged people to ignore the restrictions and repeated the falsehood that the virus "cannot be controlled" when transmission obviously can be reduced... especially at times like Christmas these people have encouraged the spread of the virus whether they understand it or not.
Lockdown "skeptics" like laurence fox have encouraged people to ignore the restrictions and repeated the falsehood that the virus "cannot be controlled" when transmission obviously can be reduced... especially at times like Christmas these people have encouraged the spread of the virus whether they understand it or not.
//Nailit's personal account isn't verifiable to anybody else (at least on AB) and is presumably not based on any active scientific research, so it is more or less exactly the textbook definition of "anecdotal evidence".//
I’ll not argue over “anecdotal evidence” only to say that I know what it is. I’ll not quibble over semantics.
//To eliminate it altogether may be a forlorn hope, or at least beyond the will of the present Government to introduce and enforce the required measures…//
It’s not beyond the will of the present government. It’s beyond the tolerance of the current population. So I’ll moderate my statement a little. It is impossible to prevent a virus spreading without implementing measures which would clearly be impractical and intolerable to the population. The current strategy of “lock/unlock” is unsustainable. In fact, if examined objectively, it has already exceeded its sustainability. It’s impractical because the nation will soon run out of borrowing power. It’s intolerable because many people are becoming mentally and physically ill because of its effects. Having closed shops that sell “unnecessary” goods, the government will soon find many of those goods become necessary in the long term (try seeing how long the feet of a child of five will fit into his shoes).
It’s quite clear that everybody is not staying apart from everybody else as directed. They can’t be or the growth in infections would not continue as it has. That behaviour will only worsen because the population’s tolerance will eventually wane. The government can continue to open and close “unnecessary” businesses if it likes – until there’s none left to close. But they will not stop people mixing. This is not being a "lockdown sceptic." It's simply accepting reality.
I’ll not argue over “anecdotal evidence” only to say that I know what it is. I’ll not quibble over semantics.
//To eliminate it altogether may be a forlorn hope, or at least beyond the will of the present Government to introduce and enforce the required measures…//
It’s not beyond the will of the present government. It’s beyond the tolerance of the current population. So I’ll moderate my statement a little. It is impossible to prevent a virus spreading without implementing measures which would clearly be impractical and intolerable to the population. The current strategy of “lock/unlock” is unsustainable. In fact, if examined objectively, it has already exceeded its sustainability. It’s impractical because the nation will soon run out of borrowing power. It’s intolerable because many people are becoming mentally and physically ill because of its effects. Having closed shops that sell “unnecessary” goods, the government will soon find many of those goods become necessary in the long term (try seeing how long the feet of a child of five will fit into his shoes).
It’s quite clear that everybody is not staying apart from everybody else as directed. They can’t be or the growth in infections would not continue as it has. That behaviour will only worsen because the population’s tolerance will eventually wane. The government can continue to open and close “unnecessary” businesses if it likes – until there’s none left to close. But they will not stop people mixing. This is not being a "lockdown sceptic." It's simply accepting reality.
// It’s quite clear that everybody is not staying apart from everybody else as directed. //
I should imagine so as well, but I am not convinced that this (alone) is the cause for the "continued growth in infections". As far as I can tell, the data show that if the Government introduces tough restrictions then the lack of perfect compliance merely reduces slightly the effect of a lockdown, rather than renders it pointless. As long as the majority of the population takes the threat seriously, abides by the law and respects the Government enough to heed its advice, then the control measures will have an effect. This also applies to the discussion about Christmas. It was monumentally stupid for the Government to obsess about "saving Christmas" -- not just the day itself, but the run-up to it. At least in pure Covid terms, it was essential to maintain the November restrictions for several weeks, as they were clearly working; all key health indicators were showing reductions. As it is, I'd estimate that the refusal to extend those restrictions has been responsible for at the very least an extra 10,000 Covid-related deaths already, and probably closer to 15,000.
I should imagine so as well, but I am not convinced that this (alone) is the cause for the "continued growth in infections". As far as I can tell, the data show that if the Government introduces tough restrictions then the lack of perfect compliance merely reduces slightly the effect of a lockdown, rather than renders it pointless. As long as the majority of the population takes the threat seriously, abides by the law and respects the Government enough to heed its advice, then the control measures will have an effect. This also applies to the discussion about Christmas. It was monumentally stupid for the Government to obsess about "saving Christmas" -- not just the day itself, but the run-up to it. At least in pure Covid terms, it was essential to maintain the November restrictions for several weeks, as they were clearly working; all key health indicators were showing reductions. As it is, I'd estimate that the refusal to extend those restrictions has been responsible for at the very least an extra 10,000 Covid-related deaths already, and probably closer to 15,000.
We should be careful to distinguish facts from opinion/guesses.
This virus is new and viruses are rather 'unpredictable': I do not like the lockdown situation as a permanent solution, I have many questions concerning this 'novel' virus and how dealing with it has been conducted, but who will forgive us if it mutates to a form which is more deadly to younger children?
It must be as effectively contained as possible and templates from many countries are available.
This virus is new and viruses are rather 'unpredictable': I do not like the lockdown situation as a permanent solution, I have many questions concerning this 'novel' virus and how dealing with it has been conducted, but who will forgive us if it mutates to a form which is more deadly to younger children?
It must be as effectively contained as possible and templates from many countries are available.
I agree entirely with your view on the governments' (all four) dealing with Christmas, Jim. If a lockdown was the deemed necessary in November it made absolutely no sense to suggest that (virtually) "all bets are off" for five days. Worse than that, the lack of notice that people were given of that decision was unforgivable.
