Like Tree160Likes

Travelling to the UK during this pandemic.

Reply
Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
  1. #151

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,762
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah01:
    You, sir, are accusing me of what you are committing. Your statement itself is a perfect illustration of arguing back solely on the basis of your own "interpretation".


    Need I say more?


    In the end, none of us here is qualified to assert their " claims" of "Covid is this , Covid is that" (whether it's verified by scientists/related personnel in the field, or our own - in your own words - interpretation).


    So, I'm repeating what I did to Madam Katherine -- you go, live in your own world, I - in my own, shall we?
    If "living in your world" means opening a new line of attack in a debate about the Covid risk of travelling to the UK today then you better expect to get your flimsy arguments debunked, particularly when it’s one as spurious as 'Covid is as deadly as Spanish Flu'.



    Seeing you’re such a purist for proof you might like to point out which of these facts is objectionable to you:


    Deaths by Spanish flu in 3 yrs: 50-100m (50m)
    Deaths by covid in 9 months: 1m = (4m in 3 yrs)

    Avg. life expectancy in 1917: 51.2
    Avg. life expectancy 2019: 72

    Avg. age of covid fatalities (USA): 69.7
    
Avg. age of Spanish Flu fatalities globally 30

    Life years lost to Spanish flu = 1.06bn at a conservative 50m count
    Life years lost to covid: 9.2m

    Spanish flu = 115 x more life years lost than covid, assuming no improvement in mortality rates for 3 yrs and no vaccine.

    Perhaps you can cite some data back at me other than just empty arguments?
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    If "living in your world" means opening a new line of attack in a debate about the Covid risk of travelling to the UK today then you better expect to get your flimsy arguments debunked, particularly when it’s one as spurious as 'Covid is as deadly as Spanish Flu'.



    Seeing you’re such a purist for proof you might like to point out which of these facts is objectionable to you:


    Deaths by Spanish flu in 3 yrs: 50-100m (50m)
    Deaths by covid in 9 months: 1m = (4m in 3 yrs)

    Avg. life expectancy in 1917: 51.2
    Avg. life expectancy 2019: 72

    Avg. age of covid fatalities (USA): 69.7
    
Avg. age of Spanish Flu fatalities globally 30

    Life years lost to Spanish flu = 1.06bn at a conservative 50m count
    Life years lost to covid: 9.2m

    Spanish flu = 115 x more life years lost than covid, assuming no improvement in mortality rates for 3 yrs and no vaccine.

    Perhaps you can cite some data back at me other than just empty arguments?


    Gentleman, will you, first provide me the valid source(s) of those data you've given here? Aren't you yourself doing the things you don't want me to be doing? That's unfair, sire. Very.



    Yours always,
    Hannah.
    TaD_LaLa likes this.

  3. #153

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    If "living in your world" means opening a new line of attack in a debate about the Covid risk of travelling to the UK today then you better expect to get your flimsy arguments debunked, particularly when it’s one as spurious as 'Covid is as deadly as Spanish Flu'.



    Seeing you’re such a purist for proof you might like to point out which of these facts is objectionable to you:


    Deaths by Spanish flu in 3 yrs: 50-100m (50m)
    Deaths by covid in 9 months: 1m = (4m in 3 yrs)

    Avg. life expectancy in 1917: 51.2
    Avg. life expectancy 2019: 72

    Avg. age of covid fatalities (USA): 69.7
    
Avg. age of Spanish Flu fatalities globally 30

    Life years lost to Spanish flu = 1.06bn at a conservative 50m count
    Life years lost to covid: 9.2m

    Spanish flu = 115 x more life years lost than covid, assuming no improvement in mortality rates for 3 yrs and no vaccine.

    Perhaps you can cite some data back at me other than just empty arguments?
    I think you need to balance that with advances in healthcare. If 100 years ago they had had our current knowledge and technology how many lives would have been saved? (I know that is probably unanswerable but I guess it would be very significant).

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,762

    Google - this is publicly available data.

    Life expectancy comes from WHO, average age from CDC stats etc etc etc.

    If you don't put any work in to find this out for yourself, you be likely to harbour frankly ridiculous ideas like C19 is more deadly than SP flu. In what world is 1m deaths of mostly elderly people worse than 50m of mostly young people? The whole idea is ludicrous from the start, surely you can recognise that?

    Name:  CDC.png
Views: 79
Size:  116.2 KB

    Cheeky Kiwi likes this.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,762
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    I think you need to balance that with advances in healthcare. If 100 years ago they had had our current knowledge and technology how many lives would have been saved? (I know that is probably unanswerable but I guess it would be very significant).
    An impossible and meaningless exercise but sure you can imagine if you want , you'll still come to the same conclusion though.

    We have to deal with actual realities not what if's.

    How about, 'what if' the sugar industry hadn't contributed so dramatically to obesity and diabetes in the US, how many fewer people would have died of Covid? A pointless debate....
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  6. #156

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah01:
    Okay, then let us see what you've "found out" -- the base to support what you've found out backed by evidence we all can mutually agree on.


    Oh, wait. You have your own private hypothesis that do not run congruent to actual science but just your personal sentiments and values.. So, I spare you from that. You go, live in your world, I - in mine.
    I only base my views on science. Have since the start. I have a degree in science. I read many of the scientific articles. Which seems to be more than many on this forum.
    Cheeky Kiwi likes this.

  7. #157

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Katherine:
    I only base my views on science. Have since the start. I have a degree in science. I read many of the scientific articles. Which seems to be more than many on this forum.
    I did go through various science based journals and articles as well.


    Well, um, for or against (not meant to be disrespectful) your degree in science, I'm backed by medical science. That's to say, I graduated from medical school ( MBBS) and would never say anything merely based on googled articles.
    TaD_LaLa likes this.

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah01:
    I did go through various science based journals and articles as well.


    Well, um, for or against (not meant to be disrespectful) your degree in science, I'm backed by medical science. That's to say, I graduated from medical school ( MBBS) and would never say anything merely based on googled articles.
    But this is not JUST a medical crisis. It's also an economic and social crisis. And being a doctor does not give one a degree in epidemiological studies (unless you have that too). I've been an economic consultant for more than 20 years and find the level of analysis of the "trilemma" of heath/economic/social impacts to be poorly managed to the extent of not even recognised in HK. At least some other countries pay some attention to the whole spectrum of impacts.

    The other "trilemma" issue I have dealt with regularly over the last 10 years is the environment. Climate change vs economic impacts vs social desire for secure energy/transport. It took many years before any kind of balance became apparent there, and even now climate change dominates in some countries (Europe) while economic impacts/desire for energy and transport security dominates in others (typically lower income countries).
    Cheeky Kiwi and Sage like this.

  9. #159

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    An impossible and meaningless exercise but sure you can imagine if you want , you'll still come to the same conclusion though.

    We have to deal with actual realities not what if's.

    How about, 'what if' the sugar industry hadn't contributed so dramatically to obesity and diabetes in the US, how many fewer people would have died of Covid? A pointless debate....
    Weird response. The obesity and general health issues are important as well.

  10. #160

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    170

    Incredibly confused by the direction of this thread.

    Anyone care to summarize the salient points?

    Or would that just be like pissing in the wind?

    Tyresmoke likes this.

Reply
Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast