* Your issue with the current boss of the WHO is fine & dandy, but on the whole we've been better off having them than not, particularly because they've done well in the fight against ebola and other diseases. Whats the alternative?
* Wet markets in China are known to sell wildlife, despite being predominantly 'seafood' markets. And this wet market was known to sell wildlife.
* Sweden is profoundly different from the UK. London alone has equivalent population to whole of Sweden, majority of households are single, and despite no 'official' lockdown, population did it themselves - 70% less foot traffic over Easter etc. I'm not sure its fair to compare the two in the way you have.
* Ultimately, you might turn out to be correct in your assumption that infections are higher than we predicted, so CFR is actually rather low - but right now they are still assumptions. The evidence isn't there yet.
Hi Chris,
I agree with the basic premise - the world has gone mad, the collateral damage from shutdown will likely far outweigh the damage caused by the virus. But we don't know that for sure yet. Nobody knows. The serological studies are a mixed bag (https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/24/the-results-of-coronavirus-serosurveys-are-starting-to-be-released-heres-how-to-kick-their-tires/)
Some concerns -
* Your issue with the current boss of the WHO is fine & dandy, but on the whole we've been better off having them than not, particularly because they've done well in the fight against ebola and other diseases. Whats the alternative?
* Wet markets in China are known to sell wildlife, despite being predominantly 'seafood' markets. And this wet market was known to sell wildlife.
* Sweden is profoundly different from the UK. London alone has equivalent population to whole of Sweden, majority of households are single, and despite no 'official' lockdown, population did it themselves - 70% less foot traffic over Easter etc. I'm not sure its fair to compare the two in the way you have.
* Ultimately, you might turn out to be correct in your assumption that infections are higher than we predicted, so CFR is actually rather low - but right now they are still assumptions. The evidence isn't there yet.
* Compelling conclusion.