XFool wrote:onthemove, I'm sorry you feel you are being belittled. Honestly, I have tried really quite hard to put across to you my pov (after all, like anyone, I prefer to be understood). More than once. For one reason or another you seem not to quite 'get' the points I am making.
I wonder what you might be implying that that 'reason' could possibly be?
XFool wrote: You seem to interpret everything in your own particular way which, unfortunately, seems to me to include misunderstanding what I am saying. I assume this is not deliberate, but it does make communication extremely difficult, AFAIAC.
XFool
It's not just me. Another poster has also pointed out the absence of a substantive argument in your posts. That the things you present don't actually provide support for the claims you are making.
But when we've pointed this out to you, it is then
you who have feigned ignorance that you don't know what we're talking about.
But you're not fooling anyone.
We all know that you're not stupid. You seem to be able to form what appears superficially to be a structured argument. You clearly know how you're supposed to form arguments in essays and such like. You clearly know what a substantive argument
should be like.
So when you try to claim that covid is different, and just post throwaway things like "it's infectious" when you know very well the flu is also infectious, you clearly know full well that you are not in any way backing up your point.
When you try to claim that covid is different, because when it comes to the flu you claim we have a flu vaccination program, when you know full well we also have had a covid vaccination program for quite a while now, again you know full well that you are not backing up your argument.
In a subsequent post when we pointed these things out to you, you seemed to be in total agreement and seemed to be making us out as being thick for even pointing these things out.
Yet these are the things that you presented in your argument to claim covid is different to the flu, and that that is why we need to act differently.
Then you tried to claim it was because we are in a pandemic. But then when presented with the definition of what a pandemic is, you still haven't explained why this makes any difference - why if the UK were facing the same pressures, but not other countries, why should the UK response be any different? Why does it matter whether or not other countries are having difficulties or not? Surely what matters is the UK situation, so whether or not there is a declared 'pandemic' shouldn't really influence how England deals with the situation in England.
Now of course there could be nuances within the things you presented. Though, to be clear, you haven't referred to these nuances, nor used them as part of your argument. For example, you just assert that covid is 'infectious', you don't say anything about the level of infectiousness in your argument. You're not stupid. You know full well that if your argument depends on the comparative rates of infection, that you would need to call out the relevant details in order to make your argument. Which you clearly haven't done.
And I suspect that is because you know that if you do so, then that would start to show the cracks in your argument.
For example, if you were to try to claim the different
rates of infection (as opposed to just retorting 'it's infectious') were what made the need to act differently for covid in comparison to the flu, you know full well that you could then be challenged on two points ... for example point (1) our covid vaccination program is already rolled out to far more people than the flu vaccination programs, and (2) the covid vaccines are considered to be substantially better (efficacy, etc) than the flu vaccines. You're already well aware that we have already referred to an analysis from the London School of Health and Tropical Medicine which suggests that even if everyone were to catch covid now, the number of hospitalisations wouldn't be all that excessive compared to what they would have been without the vaccination program, etc.
So if that were your argument, you would then still need to go into further detail to support your argument.
There maybe other nuances you have in mind, but again, if you don't actually present what they are, then people have no option but to challenge your argument in the form you present it. And in the form that you have presented so far, no reasonable, sincere person would consider that the arguments you have made lead to the conclusion that you claim.
And I suspect the problem is, that you don't actually have a deep enough understanding yourself to be able to respond to the challenges which I suspect you know you'll open up by presenting your reasoning in more detail.