An alternative explanation is possible

If I could work all this out on the basis of the evidence that scientists were producing then why couldn’t the government? That is the question that needs answering, except there will never be a reasonable answer to that. Only wilful blindness can explain the government’s inaction.

Not that I’m saying that the P³ is right of course. But assume and an alternative explanation is possible. Which is that governments are shit.

Which is why we don’t want governments to be doing things. The surprise being that the P³ never can bring himself to make that logical leap.

14 thoughts on “An alternative explanation is possible”

  1. Tax, accountancy, economics, finance, politics and now medicine and epidemiology.

    Are there no limits to his expertise?

  2. His problem is that he only sees *this particular* government as shit, not whatever government would be his preferred one. And of course if his preferred kind of government were in charge and failing miserably as they are wont to do, well then it was clearly misrepresenting itself as his preferred kind of government when it truth it was nothing of the sort, obviously.

  3. Early in the pandemic I said that the modelling was so laughably inept that I’d back my guesses against their predictions. I would, I said, pipe down once their predictions were obviously better than my guesses. I’m still waiting.

    Mind you, maybe only guessing is suitable when you are told the number of cases – but it turns out they mean the number of people with positive PCR tests; the number of COVID deaths – but they mean the number who died of any cause within 28 days of a positive PCR test; the number of COVID hospital admissions – when they mean the number of people admitted who had tested positive within the 28 days plus the number who tested positive in hospital; the number of unvaccinated – but that includes people who are double-vaccinated but had their second dose within 14 days; et bloody cetera.

    To the classical two sorts of lies add a third – lying by adopting crooked definitions.

  4. The Prof is in charge though. Not him personally, but people exactly like him: they think they alone have all the answers, they don’t listen to contrary views; and above all, they believe that they are morally just in everything they do.

  5. @dearieme “they mean the number who died of any cause within 28 days of a positive PCR test”
    This is indeed a very dubious classification. On average people live for about 28,000 days so in other words if you take 28,000 people at random then one of them will statistically die the next day. Over the course of 28 days close to 1 in 1000 people will naturally die. So if we are getting 120,000 new people testing positive everyday, we should be expecting 120 of those positive testing people to die every day from non Covid reasons.
    This inevitably means we will soon see big increases in “reported” Covid deaths followed by stupid people saying that they were all preventable.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Early in the pandemic I said that the modelling was so laughably inept that I’d back my guesses against their predictions.”

    I saw a wonderful circular defence of the models on Twatter. When someone pointed out that as usual they hadn’t modelled human behaviour, apparently they don’t do that because if they did the numbers [cases/hospital admissions/deaths or whatever is the hobgoblin de jour would be lower], and if the numbers were lower people wouldn’t voluntary change their behaviour, and if they didn’t change their behaviour then the numbers would be higher than the models predicted.

    This was in defence of the latest Omicron models that were published yesterday:

    New modelling from Warwick Uni projects 1.4 million infections, 5,000 hospital admissions and 500 deaths per day by Saturday [1 Jan], if we’re lucky.
    https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1476587915966877701?s=20

  7. In addition to his other idiocies I can only surmise he is a racist as he rejects all the evidence from South Africa that is a Much milder form of the disease with vastly lesser impact.

    Anyone who lauds Independent SAGE has pinned their colours to the mast as a Stalinist. But we knew that anyway…

  8. “500 deaths per day by Saturday [1 Jan], if we’re lucky.”

    Reads like they’re salivating hoping it gets to 500.

  9. Sadly there is some truth in his statement, you don’t need to be an expert to see how much of this stuff just doesn’t add it, the better question is why we don’t have a media or opposition that are prepared to ask these questions anymore and the sorry state of education that people can’t think for themselves anymore.
    The latest Orwellian trick apparently is to rename ‘restrictions’ to ‘protections’

  10. AndyF

    Over the course of 28 days close to 1 in 1000 people will naturally die. So if we are getting 120,000 new people testing positive everyday, we should be expecting 120 of those positive testing people to die every day from non Covid reasons.

    Shouldn’t that – as you suggest yourself – be over the course of 28 days, rather than every day? Ie, circa 4 per day?

    I agree there is a mass of dishonesty with the Government’s analysis. For example, “with” rather than “of” is probably a far bigger issue, particularly when their own numbers demonstrate that the last two years has shown little out of the ordinary wrt total mortality (in the UK), especially when one factors in the significant 2018/19 dip in deaths (compared to prior trend) which then mostly simply reversed as might have been expected in 2019/20, and with 2020/21 then being quite ordinary.

  11. I forget who the quote was from or the exact wording, but it went along the lines of “Tyrants hide behind the excuse of public safety to carry out their nefarious deeds.”

    So all these restrictions in the name of public safety and protection just mean nefarious deeds are being carried out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *