Quote Originally Posted by taxman10 View Post
I’m intrigued you consider drinking in Wetherspoons to be some sort of insult

Fact is you posted 2 dubious supporting sources (daily mail and lockdownsceptics) and a bunch of non peer reviewed papers.

May I remind you that you started this thread with a rant about lifting the lockdown and have provided very flimsy evidence to back up your plea. I am not arguing to continue the lockdown, I’m merely questioning the scientific backup for your argument (flimsy) and stating that most right minded people would probably rather the government overreact than let tens of thousands of people die

As I said before. Why don’t you go and catch the disease to acquire the immunity you think exists? Could it be that even some of those with mild symptoms seem to be suffering continual medical issues with lung capacity etc and you don’t want to risk it?
I didn't post a rant, i laid out some points made by scientific experts, and linked to their papers.
Your response was that is 'garbage', and have despite being asked several times, you have failed to provide anything at all to dispute any of those findings.

As declared previously, lockdown sceptics did not author any of those posts, is merely a website that collates corona news and reports, so please get over yourself, and please stop shouting bias to cover your lack of being to provide any credible counter-argument.

I like your use of 'right minded people'. I would substitute it for brain-washed idiots, who thankfully are beginning to realize that they have been, at least in part, lied to, and their futures destroyed for no good reason.

The number of people dying from this virus, tragic as it is, is no different from any previous year, and well behind the flu outbreak in the UK during 2014.

We have now heard that the lockdown measures will cause an extra 50,000 unnecessary cancer deaths this year. You can go and find the sources for that, as I cannot be bothered to carry you any further. Heaven knows how many others can be added to that total with the disruption caused to lives and other hospital treatments.

The lockdown has not saved a single life, it is merely a delaying tactic to slow the spread, in case our NHS could not cope. Well the NHS has not been overwhelmed, and is not going to be, so the lockdown must end. The government themselves stated that immunity is the only answer, which you don't apparently believe in, even though every scientific body on both sides seem to agree with.

Regarding the Juventus player that your entire standpoint seems precariously balanced on:
Do you think the most likely outcome:
a) He was infected multiple times by the same virus (a somewhat unique trait for a respiratory virus)?
or
b) The testing might not have been up to scratch?

The policy of slowing the spread, slowing the immunity, will actually kill more vulnerable, than a big-bang spread has been well-made by many others.

I suggest that you watch the Knut Wittkowski interview, all of it, and assess his answers, and the sources that he cites, before continuing further.