
Norway health chief: Lockdown was not needed to tame Covid - 9nGQluzmnq3M
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/norway-health-chief-lockdown-was-not-needed-to-tame-covid
======
basicplus2
Not a very useful article.. i cannot read the report as I don't speak the
language and the graph shown is so low resolution i can't read it thus there
is no evidence presented that i can agree to with as to what is written jn the
article.

Can anyone help with this?

~~~
badRNG
The Spectator is a right wing oped paper that is focused on signal boosting
narratives that are in line with a pro-business, anti-regulation position.
It's a shame they've decided to take the anti-science route here, as they've
been a good paper for a conservative perspective for as long as I've been
alive.

~~~
bleah1000
Evidence is starting to trickle out that a lot of the lock downs may not have
been the best move. Like the 66% of New York City people getting covid at home
during the lock down.

The problem is that most of the lock downs weren't actually lock downs. They
funneled people into a few big stores (where everyone else was). I don't know
if the Norway lock down was similar, but if so, that's not a lock down, that's
a great way to spread the disease.

This is a problem that I see a lot, people attack the source and say, they are
terrible people so they must be wrong. That's not how you win an argument,
that's how you get your tribesmen to agree with you, and nobody is better off.

If you have some science to back up your claims that they are wrong, great. If
you have evidence that the paper is playing fast and loose with the numbers,
or taking the numbers out of context, or something else great. Right now they
appear to have some data to back their claims, so dismissing them out of hand
makes it looks like you are the anti-science person.

~~~
badRNG
This feels somewhat akin to the discussion about whether or not climate change
is a hoax. In both cases, the overwhelming majority of experts in each field
respectively hold a position about each issue. That's where I defer to their
judgment. Then, on the other hand, you have conservative papers, economics
journals and cable shows implying or stating that those experts are wrong.

Having beliefs that align with the consensus of experts isn't "tribalism" nor
is it political just because there is a tribal anti-science perspective.
That's a false dichotomy.

