So....What have we learned from all this?

[taxman10]

I fear a village is missing its idiot

Every single scientific study you link to hasn’t been peer reviewed (as you may note I specified peer reviewed studies) so until peer reviewed these remain the thoughts and views of individual scientists

You then link to articles written by a group called “lockdown sceptics”. Hardly impartial commentators. I would liken them to quoting Nigel farage in support of a brexit argument. Pathetic

To top it all off you link to a daily mail article which needs no further commentary but aptly demonstrates your lack of intelligence as far as producing credible evidence in support of your argument goes

Well done

[dismalswamp]

I fear a village is missing its idiot

Every single scientific study you link to hasn’t been peer reviewed (as you may note I specified peer reviewed studies) so until peer reviewed these remain the thoughts and views of individual scientists

You then link to articles written by a group called “lockdown sceptics”. Hardly impartial commentators. I would liken them to quoting Nigel farage in support of a brexit argument. Pathetic

To top it all off you link to a daily mail article which needs no further commentary but aptly demonstrates your lack of intelligence as far as producing credible evidence in support of your argument goes

Well done

I do understand what peer review means. All of these studies are new, so I would expect it to take time for them to be peer reviewed and challenged, rather than just accepted. This is science.

Can you please post the studies and science behind your viewpoints for me to consider?

Lockdown sceptics are certainly not impartial, although they do post many pro-lockdown arguments and differing viewpoints rather than censor or dismiss opposing voices.

Using links on that site is an easy and convenient way to link to a series of articles that question the science behind the current situation. The articles are not authored by the site, though wherever they are posted does not alter nor belittle the content.

When linking to the Mail article, I even stated it was an easy and quick summary of the Ferguson story - I could have linked you to this in many different publications, or even the original findings, and the Oxford Study, if you would prefer to wade through pages. I could not have made it clearer with my description on this, for a quick and easy catch-up. You are free to do your own research.

You can read more here: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/ and you can read about Oxford questioning the IC findings, and how the IC backed down from their original estimates, the estimates that instigated the lockdown measures.

Now I have laid out everything that I said I would, backed up my findings and asked you to detail and provide evidence to backup your stand point. You have failed to do so, and indeed have resulted to personal abuse, and called me an idiot, as clearly you have no argument. I do feel this makes you look a little foolish, but I do not wish to retaliate in personal abuse.

For one last time I will ask for some kind of evidence, scientific papers, anything 'real' from your side to counter my post or discredit the studies that have been linked above. Have you even read any of them?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I do understand what peer review means. All of these studies are new, so I would expect it to take time for them to be peer reviewed and challenged, rather than just accepted. This is science.

Not entirely true.

A few weeks back there was data from France showing smokers are 4-5x less likely to get it. And there was data from China showing the same that they'd sent to a US medical journal for peer review and publication and the Chinks knew no-one would trust anything they said otherwise.

So peer review can happen quite quickly.