if your question is "Do you think including countries that we're hit massively before lockdowns were put in place if a fair thing to do in a study about mortality in relation to lockdowns?" then on that question again I honestly have no idea. I have not read the study yet. I trust Brennan's judgment on a lot of things, I suspect his characterization of Bjørnskov's paper is fair, I have no reason to suspect otherwise. One of the benefits of posting things here is that folks can read articles such as Bjørnskov's and offer comments and criticism of their own, which I find helpful. But again, I haven't read the paper yet.
Did the author look at a graph at all? Did he notice there is a super big jump in US cases in June? (There's a graph you can look at: the big hill thing in June means "more cases": that's bad.) See, I think that big hill thing is coz the lockdown thingy ended. But, quite frankly, it is what it is.
Lol OS what the hell is this. Do you honestly read stuff like this or this a troll post? I can't imagine this is really what you want to be for a representation of your opinion? I did find your opinion of last week bein relayed Spoiler The fact is that there may have been nothing President Trump could have done to make the effects of the virus any less devastating than they have been. Still a complete garbage opinion, a very obvious one, for me. It's a subjective question though? It's bizarre how much you conserve your opinions behind self-labeling as being unqualified but will post zero substance highly partisan opinion pieces like that article above in reference to a pandemic, like where's the qualification for any of those opinions?
Please read ethics alarm and 200 proof liberal blogs and stop pestering him with questions on his thoughts... Honestly he has no idea
So you think I'm the opposite of that article I guess. To an extent, sure I'm an unqualified ******* to have an opinion on anything. Almost everyone is on every single thing in the world, things can be incredibly, incredibly complicated... but at the same time OS, some things aren't, and sometimes it's fine to use some common sense, basic math, and elementary science to form an opinion as an average unqualified citizen. In fact, that's probably kind of important if you support democracy. If a car is heading 100 mph directly at you I hope your response isn't to call a Swedish physics professor.
You're posting a link to a paper that you didn't even read? And you're expecting us to read it for you and comment? How is that any basis for an honest debate or even discussion? This sounds like a more intellectual version of my friend who post Rightwing Memes on FB of things like "Obama gave Jeffrey Epstein the Congressional Medal of Freedom in 2007" and then when challenged on it says, "I didn't really pay attention to it and I really just want to learn.."
now I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. "opposite of that article"? not even sure what that means if you say so. but I would disagree with you on this one. actually I think most things are complicated. Simple things only appear simple to people who haven't thought them through fully enough. good point to insert the Bertrand Russell quote again.
One would consider it common courtesy or for that matter if you want to be taken seriously. Bertrand Russell was pretty big on reading.. If your goal is truly just to post something because you saw the headline and you posted it just to get a rise that is the definition of "Internet Troll". If your goal was to post it so someone else could read if for you so then you know what's in it that is the definition of "lazy."
That my opinions are the left-wing version of that article, highly partisan with zero qualifications. Not always. Some times things are truly simple, like stepping out of way from a car heading 100 mph at you, has the Swedish physics professor answered his phone yet? Some things are complicated, some things are simple, regardless, the VAST majority of issues will have to get simple answers from a human being, or else we would all freeze.
more commentary on the Bjørnskov study: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/08/did-lockdowns-work-evidence-says-no.php
Great, so now that you are unfrozen and capable to give simple answers under the protection of being a simple human being, why do you think Swedens death rate is so ridiculously high in comparison to it's neighbors, and why does a Swedish economic professor want to write a bunk paper about lockdowns having no effects on death tolls from COVID?
Let's read his very opinionated, unsupported, unscientific conclusion: The bolded part is called "opinion." By the way, it has nothing to do with his data. Well, it shouldn't. Let's call it his "motivation."
Perhaps I am just naive in that I actually like to have honest discussions on serious issues and as such want to make sure I know what is in the material I post before launching into a discussion or debate. I mean that is in the name of the subforum. I guess if you don't want to be taken seriously then you're right we shouldn't take you seriously or bother with anything that you post since you haven't even bothered reading it yourself.
