You're making a strawman argument. No-one's saying - as far as I'm aware - that we shouldn't take sensible precautions to limit the spread of this corona'.
Just like no-one's saying we ought to ban driving outright because it's a massive killer.
We impose sensible rules for driving and we ACCEPT the deaths that come from it.
A bit like what we should've done with the coronavirus.
The problem comes with the circular reasoning involved in saying that "only 'x' number of peopled died, therefore the measures taken to ensure that more didn't die weren't necessary".The driving analogy is a pertinent one @terminal . As @Whey_Aye_Banzai points out though, we impose rules and accept deaths in a cost/benefit or risk matrix way.
As opposed to equating those who are advocating a proper risk analysis to be done on COVID deaths with them advocating getting rid of seatbelts, the equivalency is more those advocating for further lockdown with imposing a national 20mph speed limit.
It would be more useful if you included the number of tests performed each day along with the percentage of tests confirmed as positive.
There is far more widespread testing available now than there was back at the start of the year. In my neck of the woods, only patients admitted to hospital were tested back in March/April, now anyone can get tested. Numbers from March/April are likely a huge undercount.
|Date notified||New cases||Reported|
You asked about " number of tests performed each day along with the percentage of tests confirmed as positive "so I dug around for these data sets:
View attachment 508965
Back in April the percentage of tests that returned postive was about 20%+.
View attachment 508973
Now its bouncing around 2%
Makes you wonder how many people had this at the start of the year....
No idea why the X axis on those runs backwards though.
Which the Herd Immunity people would argue was the reason that both the 1st and 2nd "outbreaks" seemed to naturally peak then decline with or without lockdowns.
Easy enough to resort the data by date but I couldn't be bothered.
Decided to do some more digging to try and get some idea of how many people may have actually had this, it's not as easy to find and I've been distracted by actually having to do some work.
Sero prevalence in London estimated at 15% which is 1.35 million people against a UK Gov confirmed positive total for UK of 453,000.... And that's just London.
Fair to assume the true number of positives in UK could be measured in the millions.
True but I did say statistically. Remember the Stalin quote; "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."It’s still one MILLION grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends, colleagues. One million deaths of loved ones.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True but I did say statistically. Remember the Stalin quote; "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
Thanks. Not my usual reading but informative. We have had to limit some life chances as a wave of disease deadly to some nearly overwhelms the NHS. Probably there have been invidious decisions taken a patient level by stressed medical staff. There are limits of resource some caused by incompetence or bad planning and that will lead to people getting sub-optimal treatment. As a Western nation with a good health service we have over the 55 years successfully extended the lives of the population. However many will be susceptible and are being treated for chronic illnesses. The situation for men is shown;