You're lucky you haven't been banned yet dude. You're quite literally in the top 2 worst regular posters on this forum, and you whine about being moderated to boot.

Could be but I think more commonly it's:

A: we need to keep the economy/etc going
B: can't covid is too bad
A: you're exaggeration how bad it is

Better is:
A: we desperately need to keep the economy/etc going
B: we desperately need to tackle covid
A & B: we're performing a high wire balancing act over a canyon filled with **** because both are true

My point was about the IFR being in the "ballpark of seasonal flu" and whether this should be thought policed out of 2+2 forums. It is pleasing for the sake of preserving adult discussion that you appear to have accepted this point. However, is it reasonable to qualify this with it being "vastly more dangerous" due to lack of or access to vaccination? Can "vastly" be quantified?

CDC claims

At this point I don't have time or inclination to check the rabbit warren of pubmed and cdc "studies" cited to support this so let's just take this as fact. Does this figure of a 40% reduction make flu "vastly" less dangerous than sars2?

The CDC claims

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

Which is precisely what happened in the UK in 2018 - a bad vaccine failed to mitigate against flu. Just because large numbers of people were vaccinated against flu, 46% from age 6m to 65 yrs, did not protect them against it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8660496.html

Don't really want to speak for TD here on why he deleted, however you are kind of misrepresenting your post here. The premise of said post was basically 'COVID is in the same IFR ballpark as the flu and we don't stay home in the winter because of the flu, so therefore we shouldn't be staying home for this.'

Which is total 'flu bro' propaganda imo. The objectionable part is not discussing the disease, rather it is the politically motivated optics mitigation and disinformation efforts while the stakes are actual human lives.

Im not speculating, Im repeating a concrete statement he made.

I've cleaned up this thread a little for personal attacks and further arguments seeking to minimize Covid-19 as threat. I stated earlier that this thread is not a place to simply repeat the arguments that were previously moderated.

For further discussion about Covid-19, use the relevant thread in the forum.

To explain a bit further: Censorship is very much a double-edged sword and carries a cost when it is used. On personal attacks and stuff like that it is easier to justify, because the poster generally can get his point across without intervention simply by being a bit more civil.

Discussion about the price of lockdown vs covid-19, when cited (presumably by something a bit more merited than the blogosphere) is of course okay. That discussion is very much alive in the medical community as well, but tends to go more into debate on specific measures - not "this disease should be left unchecked".

I know you've been modding this place for a couple of weeks now which is probably enough to drive anyone a bit insane, but are you actually having a conversation with yourself there?

I deleted a post because CBA to have to go through the derp process with deniers.

Cliffs is claim 50K excess deaths due to flu in 2018.

Reality= only 34% of those deaths were from respiratory diseases of which flu is one subset. Actual admissions to ICU from flu were not remotely comparable to those we have seen with C19.

We also had the beast from the east that winter, a very severe cold winter. Unlike this year, weather was great during lockdown.

Its of course hugely significant that we had our excess death spike in Spring 2020 not winter, and its exactly those kinds of details cognitive dissonance experts like Billy wont engage with.
More people dying in cold winter is apples to a more people dying in warm spring oranges.


https://assets.publishing.service.go...17_to_2018.pdf

Also I suggested that deniers should be able to post their subjective opinions but should be under strict citation rules to support those opinions. A claim such as " covid would go away on its own" must be supported by evidence or ban imo.

I think I responded to a deleted post, but can a person really tell if he is sane or not?

On a more serious note, it's not so bad in here really. Americans (who are the primary posters here) are fairly polite, even when they are yelling at each-other. Go to a political forum in my country and it's far worse name-calling and pretty much zero arguments.

"deniers need strict citation rules". Er, those rules should apply to anybody stating an argument.
Now he wants to go into details about the 50k 2018 excess deaths, really? It is heresy to attempt to differentiate deaths "from" and "with" covid, and deaths caused by lockdown (for which btw I cited ONS data directly) but fine to perform the analysis for other illnesses.
Re personal attacks, yes please delete all ad hom attacks. Coma guy will have about 6 posts left after the cull.

Yea well given concrete data exists for how many were respiratory illness related, and how relatively few ICU admissions were made, and I cited, you are well off. There was no citation with your 50K ED claims.

Off course when it comes to C19 data, its a conspiwacyyyyy.

Also, again cold winter deaths apples to warm spring death oranges, as predicted, no engagement.

derp process is a general statement not a personal attack fwiw.

Cite or ban is an awful approach.

The mods have made their position clear enough so you just have to decide whether to accept it or not. After WN left and we almost lost the forum there was a little talk about trying to make modding easier so maybe consider just accepting this decision?

To be clear, the other guy wants cite or ban for "deniers" but provided you fit the narrative you can spout any old garbage.

Cite or ban is always some variety of this. And there's no view that cant come up with a cite so it just leaves the mods making endless decisions about what is a credible cite and who to ban. That invariably amounts to the same as the original decisions anyway but with a lot of heat, noise and work being generated. plus more frustration for those on the wrong end of this as they will usually be much more impressed with their cites then the mods are.

I hope you consider the point I made about us all not trying to make it hard work for the mods when we know where we stand.

Ok, then being asked to cite claims that "coivd would just disapear" is too much, lets just stick to deleting denier posts which is the current policy.

Sorry for trying to make some rules by which you could still express your opinion, the burden of cite is too much, just stick to not being able to express said opinion.

I dont ask non deniers to cite because they generally do anyway, over the last few days I have seen some extraordinary claims made entirely naked, and if the rule is going to be delete on sight of such claims, arguing that said claims can remain if sufficiently cited is of course an attempt at being more moderate, but yea, whatevs.

Of course you can cite anything, and its of course entirely reasonable to attack cites if weak.

Also.

The guy who tries to conflate above average cold winter deaths with above average warm spring deaths does not get to call out others for garbage narratives.

I'm not having a go at your intentions but in practice a small group will follow their targets around demanding cites for everything and then insisting the cites are ban worthy or aren't credible so poster should still be banned.

I don't think that's true. You have any evidence for that?

I do now

Yes obviously. Well done.

Next we shall build a mega powerful computer to find out if god exists.

Done.

chez going to the mat for COVID truther bullshit is an unexpected development.

oh dear young trolley of the unstuckied.

The mods and others have been following the discussion - pick better spots for your silly.