"correlation is not causation". This is correct, but it certainly doesn't prove the opposite.
But the fact that the correlation is so great, between restrictions and infection falls, it starts to look like a very convincing case.
This is true on a country wide basis, but also the correlation can be seen when specific areas have gone into restrictions and seen their infections fall against trends elsewhere.
Now if you believe there is no causation, what is the probability of this correlation by some other means.
Charles,
If you don't believe "lockdown sceptics" that lockdown is terrible policy, look at this from the BBC. They blame the "pandemic" but actually everything they are talking about is lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55863841
Maybe they helps you.
I don't deny Covid at all, just recognise the malignancy of lockdown. It is ruinous. One doesn't ruin oneself to avoid low-percentage threats, unless one has lost his noodles. Anyway, maybe not everyone is so afraid of death that they want to wreck everyone's life over it.
With respect this l have to challenge Thinksaboutit.
Leicester has been in some form of lockdown since the 29th June 2020, following on from the first national lockdown, and yet cases here are still relatively high here in comparison to much of the UK.
It is this very fact that made me more and more sceptical about the benefits of lockdown.
Lockdown clearly has not worked here so why would it work anywhere?
And before you say it even the Leicester Mercury reports compliance with measures has been good, so non compliance is not the reason.
non compliance is not the reason.
The virus can spread only when people with the virus mix with people without the virus,
if the virus is rife in Leicester, then people with the virus have been mixing with people without the virus, giving them the virus. Or am I missing something?
"correlation is not causation". This is correct, but it certainly doesn't prove the opposite.
Which is why you need to do it properly, scientifically with control groups to measure effectiveness.
But the fact that the correlation is so great, between restrictions and infection falls, it starts to look like a very convincing case.
Really? We have psychic lockdowns where cases peak a day before its announced for example.
Now if you believe there is no causation, what is the probability of this correlation by some other means.
We have a virus where all its human infecting relations show strong seasonality exhibiting exactly the same pattern for starters.
You're also (deliberately?) ignoring the main point. All the modelling show that all a lockdown does is spread deaths over a longer time period *AND* create a much larger spike than otherwise later on.
SPI-M had this, IC 9 had this, Lancet analysing LD1 showed this in many places.
Vallance himself said it was a bad idea in all we'd do is shift our peak from summer to winter where more people are sick and hospitals are already over capacity. And again thats exactly what we did.
Lockdown only appears to "work" if you deliberately stop looking 3-4 weeks after it ends.
