beauf wrote: » I get Page not found?
sheepysheep wrote: » It's a 2018 report. How can it be 5 years out of date? It won't be out of date in 10 years time because the data will be available for comparison with 2020, 2022, 2024 reports when they arrive. Comparisons made by, you know, researchers looking for insights. You don't like the data so your attack it's veracity. Typical fake news approach.
cnocbui wrote: » What race does he belong to?
biko wrote: » American epidemiologist about Sweden's strategyhttps://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1364869473765908481?s=19
But as Feigl-Ding’s influence has grown, so have the voices of his critics, many of them fellow scientists who have expressed ongoing concern over his tweets, which they say are often unnecessarily alarmist, misleading, or sometimes just plain wrong. “Science misinformation is a huge problem right now—I think we can all appreciate it—[and] he’s a constant source of it,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at George Mason University and the University of Arizona who serves on FAS’s COVID-19 Rapid Response Task Force, a separate arm of the organization from Feigl-Ding’s work. Tara Smith, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Kent State University, suggested that Feigl-Ding’s reach means his tweets have the power to be hugely influential. “With as large of a following as he has, when he says something that’s really wrong or misleading, it reverberates throughout the Twittersphere,” she said. Misinterpretations, caveats, and sensationalism Critics point to numerous problems. Not too long after his “holy mother of God” tweet, for example, Feigl-Ding took to Twitter to discuss a titillating but non-peer-reviewed paper that some readers interpreted as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab; once the authors retracted the preprint, he deleted a series of tweets from the middle of the thread. In March, Feigl-Ding tweeted a graph from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as evidence that young people were “just as likely to be hospitalized as older generations,” but failed to mention an important detail about the age ranges represented in the graph’s bars, which didn’t actually support that claim.
charlie14 wrote: » Limerick :rolleyes: At least you didn`t attempt to defend the bullying
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Ah, so now the Americans are in a position to critique Sweden
humberklog wrote: » Without re-quoting Biko's post of Eric Ding's Tweet- I find myself confused. There's a vid of the Swedish PM questioning the reasoning for introducing measures because of the results they'd give. Which would kinda mean that Sweden are still taking a more relaxed approach to locking down. This would tally with what I can read and see regarding Sweden. For the most part it looks like Ireland on a mild dose of Level 3 but with little adherence to the wearing of face masks. However a few months ago on this thread a few posters were saying that Sweden is going into lock down. So much so that there were posts saying that the thread should either be renamed or indeed locked as it was apparent that "Sweden avoiding lockdown" was no longer correct. So is Sweden still a fairly open society (like the PM has suggested) or is it now on full lock down like some posters have said? It does get a bit confusing when people's second guesses gets mixed up in the noise with relevant facts.
greyday wrote: » Do you think Ireland is on a full lockdown?
Ireland now has a score of 85.19. This is down from a high of 87.96 earlier in February, before in-person classes resumed in special education schools.
humberklog wrote: » what level of lock down is Sweden is on?
Boggles wrote: » God knows. The problem with Sweden at the moment is half the country are sick of restrictions and the other half want something done about the deaths and hospitalizations.
Boggles wrote: » God knows. The problem with Sweden at the moment is half the country are sick of restrictions and the other half want something done about the deaths and hospitalizations. .
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Where exactly have you got this from?
Boggles wrote: » The news. It's a deeply divided country over the response which is becoming more split. It's why governance are buckling and bringing in legally binding restrictions.
charlie14 wrote: » Well the title of the thread is Sweden avoiding lockdown, so Sweden now on "mild dose of level 3" does leave the title no longer correct.
humberklog wrote: » But those legally binding restriction have been brought in and enforced back in October/November
humberklog wrote: » if you were to believe some here posting back then and like I've said- people's second guesses of the future have been muddying the facts of the present.
humberklog wrote: » From what I've been listening to there is some unhappiness with the government's position but that kinda ebbs and flows.
Boggles wrote: » 10th of Jan this new legislation was enacted. No powers existed to curtail and close private business before that, AFAIK, it was basically all voluntary.
Boggles wrote: » God Bless Global Warming.
Boggles wrote: » God knows. Exponential growth of the 3rd Wave has started and will peak in 4-6 weeks, probably accelerated by a big public holiday next week. More deaths, more hospitalizations, more restrictions and in all likely hood less adherence by those who are fed up.
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm afraid people hoping for an Irish-style lockdown in Sweden are going to be disappointed. Currently their daily fatalities are about half those of Ireland and falling at a faster rate the past few weeks according to this logarithmic chart.
sheepysheep wrote: » There were some more local restrictions recommended far as I'm aware a while back. One local Official described this as a 'effectively a lockdown.' One poster on this thread has repeatedly used this quote as evidence that Sweden is Lockdown. That's where most of the noise is coming from.
99nsr125 wrote: » Also Sweden is always two weeks away from lockdown and Two weeks away from being overwhelmed Has been.in that state for the last 12 months apparently but it nevet seems to happen . . . . . .
humberklog wrote: » Way to go Charlie, why not just zap the virus with a good dose of "charlie14 semantics"? If it kills the virus as successfully as it kills discourse then big pharma can go suck a large one.
sheepysheep wrote: » There were some more local restrictions recommended as far as I'm aware a while back. One local Official described this as 'effectively a lockdown.' One poster on this thread has repeatedly used this quote as evidence that Sweden is Lockdown. That's where most of the noise is coming from.