Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Mole View Post
I see that you're chosing to ignore the statements in the report about the far larger impact on mortality and morbidity without "measures" which included a lockdown. It's easy to have a go at someone rather than admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Article in Telegraph posted 27 August referring to a report "a month ago", so mid-July. ONS website updated 7th August: "Today, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) released a paper estimating the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on England’s mortality and morbidity".

And don't tell me to "resist temptation": the "data" that you're posting here, as has just been shown, is mostly tosh. And you seem to be having trouble defending it....
Paper was discussed at SAGE 23rd July. Over a month ago. I'm not surprised that you want to nit-pick over someone saying "a month ago".

What SAGE are in a nutshell saying is that the knock on negative consequences of the lockdown measures are forecast to be greater than the lockdown positives.

They justify that by saying - ah well but without lockdown...... and many believe that without lockdown the outcome would not be as SAGE and Ferguson thought.