it will be politicised for the next 20 years.
runner,
Yeah well, the GFC has been used as an excuse for longer than that but then again only by the Left. At least no-one can use COVID-19 in the same manner !
Let's hope the Left becomes more cooperative from this for the common good !
The Conservatives too need to stop themselves from knee-jerk policies & bring the Public Service salaries & benefits back to Earth !

Dear mhaze,

You write; "Normally this would result in a three day dual(sic) as you are slowly bought to a realisation that you were off coarse(sic), but this time....not playing."

Oh dear, really? Rather it takes at least three days to either admit your errors or for you to walk away and announce the end of the debate. That this took just two days is something at least.

Here is a site which monitors the European flu season. As you can see it was a relatively mild one in comparison to some of the ones which had shown up on your graphs.
http://flunewseurope.org/

It should be fairly easy to ascertain which deaths will be contributing directly to the corona virus toll.

What is also quite startling how quickly you climate deniers have jump aboard this issue. Is it that you are so against accepting modelling of predicted deaths or that you object to the "scare campaign'.

Regardless it is an interesting phenomena.

Information is now coming to light that the China virus might not have come from the wet market, but from a laboratory not far from the market. The head of the lab hearing, the first report of the virus, wondered if the virus had come from her lab. After she was called in and 'interviewed' by authorities, she changed her mind.

thinkabit,

" It clearly shows that there is a LARGE uptick in deaths compared to the average for the whole of Europe. It's the forth graph from the top: "Pooled numbers of deaths- all ages". It clearly shows that the current death rate is way over 4 z-scores. Even 4 z-scores is a large uptick."

Yes, I understand your point. But my point was that the correct way to look at this is to compare the numbers to previous peak seasons. Currently the overall death rate is below that of the three previous seasons. And nobody quite knows why. It may be that increased personal vigilance is reducing overall deaths. But irrespective of the reason, there is no evidence for mass deaths as predicted, except in a few isolated and often atypical locations.

" you suggested that the fatality rate could go "perhaps as low as 0.01%"."

Yes, but I wasn't offering that as THE number, just the lower end of a potential range. That, currently, some locations are exceeding that number doesn't invalidate it since other locations are below it. I'd also point out that the 0.27% figure you give is way below the usual influenza death rate of 0.1% .

But I'd like to thank you thinkabit for at least addressing the data and the issues. It seems many here have just adopted the view that they'll believe whatever the government has told them and that they'll ignore and/or leave unaddressed any contrary data. I'd imagine that type of thinking is the result of years of practice.

SR,

"Here is a site which monitors the European flu season. As you can see it was a relatively mild one in comparison to some of the ones which had shown up on your graphs."

Well the data I showed was for overall deaths, not just influenza deaths but basically you've shown my point exactly.

"What is also quite startling how quickly you climate deniers have jump aboard this issue. Is it that you are so against accepting modelling of predicted deaths or that you object to the "scare campaign'." (btw I'm not a 'climate denier' but for some, in the absence of argument, labels are indispensable)

Yes the correlation occurred to me as well. I think its due to years of learning the climate models are heavily flawed and therefore being sceptical of other untested models.

Just a few more examples of failed forecasts which have come to light today...."

On March 27 the favoured model predicted there'd be 65,434 people hospitalised by 4/4 in NY. In fact they were 16,479 -out by 400%.

Overnight the new model results had "# of deaths projected decreased from 93,531 to 81,766" (USA). Virtually every day sees projected numbers falling. (By comparison flu deaths in 2017 were ~61000).

Paul,
"you either have no comprehension of how serious this virus is, ..."

I fully understand how serious we've been told the virus is and that you've accepted that absolutely. And I accept that in the early days when data was scant, the estimates were arguably valid and the measures taken understandable. But my point is that better numbers mean better understanding and its time to implement policy based on that better understanding.

So Paul, no attempts to explain why this is a pandemic and flu isn't. Just that that's what you were told to believe I guess?

Nothing on Kansas? Please don't leave us thinking you just made that up.

I think the Diamond Princess numbers are highly revelatory. So why ignore them?

The Court assumed the “jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable” yet because the evidence from the “opportunity witnesses' was not contested they should have acquitted.

It use to be that the victims were not believed. Now even when their evidence is fully accepted the perpetrators can still walk free.

Dear mhaze,

I gather you are looking at the link I posted for the modelling figures given this is the figure it is showing now.

Don't you recognise how modelling is done? The figure was closer to 200,000 when I first looked at the site. However as more and more states enacted more and more robust responses the modelling reflected those changes as it was expected to do.

What spurred these states to enact the protocols they did? Many far in excess than those recommended by Trump and the Federal authorities? The bloody modelling mate.

This is how it is suppose to work with Climate Change too.

Those countries like England, Sweden the Netherlands and to a degree the US who were prepared to let this run through their populations and strive for a 'herd immunity' with as little impact on their economies as possible have had to dramatically revise their approach as the models were refined. They are paying a price for their tardiness. However the whole world will pay for tardiness on GW.