27th April

chrismisterx said:
read the ones I give you that shows it, simple really.

here is is again

journals.plos.org

Estimated impact of the 2020 economic downturn on under-5 mortality for 129 countries

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), economic downturns can lead to increased child mortality by affecting dietary, environmental, and care-seeking factors. This study estimates the potential loss of life in children under five years old attributable to economic downturns in 2020. We...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
Click to expand...
👆There you go.😜
 


chrismisterx said:
reread and come back when you can understand how studies work. maybe google the Preston curve while your at it :)

Received: July 7, 2021; Accepted: January 15, 2022; Published: February 23, 2022
Click to expand...
That study didn't come anywhere near providing evidence up to 1.2 million children in underdeveloped countries could of died because of lockdowns in s 6 month period in 2020.For a start it's 129 counties of low and middle income.
 
Last edited:
bomber said:
That study didn't come anywhere near providing evidence up to 1.2 million children in underdeveloped countries could of died because of lockdowns in s 6 month period in 2020.For a start it's 129 counties of low and middle income.
Click to expand...
*yawn* we have debated this point, at least you know admit it has effected people, you need to know the difference between higher and lower estimates.

let me post the part where you got 1990 from so everyone who cant be arsed reading the part can have a little smile at how desperate you were to find the link I posed from 1990 ( which I am still waiting for )

3 Results​

Between 1990 and 2019, there has been a sustained trend of decline in global poverty and infant mortality in LMICs. However, as hypothesized above, COVID-19 related economic downturns of 2020 are likely to reverse these positive trends.

ohh look there it is the 1990... you silly billy. If only a date being mentioned in a study was the same as the study being done at that time and not feb 2022 you wouldn't look a complete arse. :oops:

just for fun, here is the further results:-

3.1 Under-5 mortality​

The results from fitting models of U5MR and GDP for each country are shown in S3–S5 Appendices. Our baseline projection is a benchmark where there is no reduction in GDP per capita (i.e., Scenario 1), and in this case the expected total number of annual under-5 lives lost in LMICs would be around 19.2 million. Under a conservative scenario (5% reduction on GDP per capita; Scenario 2), the total number of under-5 deaths increases to 19.5 million, or an additional 282,996 number of deaths (95% CI: 279,779–286,400). The results for each scenario at the country level suggest that for the scenarios of 10% and 15% GDP reductions, there is an estimated under-5 loss of life of 19.8 and 20.2 million, which corresponds to an additional 585,802 (95% CI: 579,184–592,799) and 911,026 (95% CI: 900,804–921,825) lives lost, respectively. Moreover, we estimate that 49% of the total under-5 lives lost would occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, a pattern that is observed across the four scenarios, where the total number of lives lost in this region increased up to over 470,000 between a no downturn scenario and a 15% reduction in GDP per capita.

Hmm maybe read the part above very carefully before trying to be clever.

4 Discussion​

We estimate that the economic downturns of 2020 significantly increased loss of life among children younger than five years old in LMICs. Many of the countries in this analysis have relatively young populations with tenuous access to stable housing, clean water, food, and primary care. The health of these children is highly susceptible to reductions in the economic well-being of their families. Children in these lower income countries are also subject to a high rate of exposure to other infectious diseases, besides COVID-19, which makes them more susceptible when the economy reduces their access to nutrition, housing, water, sanitation, and parental care.4 Disruptions to primary health care service supply and demand will compound these threats, and thus may be a likely driver of increased mortality in these settings. Efforts to shore up the delivery of paediatric primary health care services during an economic downturn can mitigate the mortality impact of a downturn.

Our estimates match the lower range of other estimates of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on child mortality which have primarily focused on excess mortality attributed to disruptions in delivery of key health services affecting children and mothers. Admittedly, this may primarily be driven by exclusion of delayed mortality effects after one year, economically mediated deaths in adults, and non-fatal effects on health, social development, and cognition that are known to follow famines and adverse childhood experiences.

put the important parts in red, remember the estimate was between 250k to 1.2 million in the modelling you dismissed, this study backs up the lower end.

studies are showing the modelling was right, just at the lower end.

your making yourself look stupid now mate, post the link from 1990 like you claimed I post or admit you lied about it to prove a very weak point or maybe you just misunderstood how the studies work.
ohh and can you show me the post from 10 months ago i said it was over? Just 1 will do, another time you lied, just 1 post showing i said it, you have had weeks to find it.

one question, are you saying these studies are wrong?
 
Last edited:
chrismisterx said:
*yawn* we have debated this point, at least you know admit it has effected people, you need to know the difference between higher and lower estimates.

let me post the part where you got 1990 from so everyone who cant be arsed reading the part can have a little smile at how desperate you were to find the link I posed from 1990 ( which I am still waiting for )

3 Results​

Between 1990 and 2019, there has been a sustained trend of decline in global poverty and infant mortality in LMICs. However, as hypothesized above, COVID-19 related economic downturns of 2020 are likely to reverse these positive trends.

ohh look there it is the 1990... you silly billy. If only a date being mentioned in a study was the same as the study being done at that time and not feb 2022 you wouldn't look a complete arse. :oops:

just for fun, here is the further results:-

3.1 Under-5 mortality​

The results from fitting models of U5MR and GDP for each country are shown in S3–S5 Appendices. Our baseline projection is a benchmark where there is no reduction in GDP per capita (i.e., Scenario 1), and in this case the expected total number of annual under-5 lives lost in LMICs would be around 19.2 million. Under a conservative scenario (5% reduction on GDP per capita; Scenario 2), the total number of under-5 deaths increases to 19.5 million, or an additional 282,996 number of deaths (95% CI: 279,779–286,400). The results for each scenario at the country level suggest that for the scenarios of 10% and 15% GDP reductions, there is an estimated under-5 loss of life of 19.8 and 20.2 million, which corresponds to an additional 585,802 (95% CI: 579,184–592,799) and 911,026 (95% CI: 900,804–921,825) lives lost, respectively. Moreover, we estimate that 49% of the total under-5 lives lost would occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, a pattern that is observed across the four scenarios, where the total number of lives lost in this region increased up to over 470,000 between a no downturn scenario and a 15% reduction in GDP per capita.

Hmm maybe read the part above very carefully before trying to be clever.

4 Discussion​

We estimate that the economic downturns of 2020 significantly increased loss of life among children younger than five years old in LMICs. Many of the countries in this analysis have relatively young populations with tenuous access to stable housing, clean water, food, and primary care. The health of these children is highly susceptible to reductions in the economic well-being of their families. Children in these lower income countries are also subject to a high rate of exposure to other infectious diseases, besides COVID-19, which makes them more susceptible when the economy reduces their access to nutrition, housing, water, sanitation, and parental care.4 Disruptions to primary health care service supply and demand will compound these threats, and thus may be a likely driver of increased mortality in these settings. Efforts to shore up the delivery of paediatric primary health care services during an economic downturn can mitigate the mortality impact of a downturn.

Our estimates match the lower range of other estimates of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on child mortality which have primarily focused on excess mortality attributed to disruptions in delivery of key health services affecting children and mothers. Admittedly, this may primarily be driven by exclusion of delayed mortality effects after one year, economically mediated deaths in adults, and non-fatal effects on health, social development, and cognition that are known to follow famines and adverse childhood experiences.

put the important parts in red, remember the estimate was between 250k to 1.2 million in the modelling you dismissed, this study backs up the lower end.

studies are showing the modelling was right, just at the lower end.

your making yourself look stupid now mate, post the link from 1990 like you claimed I post or admit you lied about it to prove a very weak point or maybe you just misunderstood how the studies work.

one question, are you saying these studies are wrong?
Click to expand...
🥱 Needs to be up to 1.2 million child deaths between may-oct 2020 and due to CV lockdowns in underdeveloped countries as per the original debate.Youve failed miserably to provide any evidence this happened.How many hours you must of wasted scouring the net to find something that doesn't exist is hilarious.😆
 
bomber said:
🥱 Needs to be up to 1.2 million child deaths between may-oct 2020 and due to CV lockdowns in underdeveloped countries as per the original debate.Youve failed miserably to provide any evidence this happened.How many hours you must of wasted scouring the net to find something that doesn't exist is hilarious.😆
Click to expand...
wow doubling down, I spent minutes to find the report, took a little longer to read them, but at least I did before posting , very easy to find from the UNICEF website.

show me 1 post where I said 1.2 million deaths as an absolute, find one post where I said it, bet you cant. Just like you cant find the other posts, just a liar really, go on prove me wrong.

if you cant understand what the report shows thats on you.

here is some help, because you really have doubled down on the wrong subject.

we estimate that 49% of the total under-5 lives lost would occur in Sub-Saharan Africa would you say this area is developed or underdeveloped? total number of lives lost in this region increased up to over 470,000 between a no downturn scenario and a 15% reduction in GDP per capita. thats between the modelling of 250k to 1.2 million encase your maths hasn't improved.

report clearly shows there was an increase in underdeveloped countries due to restrictions caused by covid, as restrictions was a major factor in reductions of GDP, or do you think thats wrong too, like you thought restrictions didnt cause people problems in gathering clean food and water before, which you very quickly dropped as you were so wrong again, it has to be a new record for getting stuff wrong on a thread.

now be a good chap, back up your claims, dont deflect.

show me where I said 200k kids died of covid, still waiting for you to prove this lie you said
show me where I said covid was over 10 months ago, another lie you said.
show me where I posted links dated 1990 yup another lie from you.

ohh and for fun 1 post from this tread, where I said 1.2 million died, be very easy to find that one.

you wont find any,

liar liar bombers bums on fire... 🔥 :oops:
 
chrismisterx said:
wow doubling down, I spent minutes to find the report, took a little longer to read them, but at least I did before posting , very easy to find from the UNICEF website.

show me 1 post where I said 1.2 million deaths as an absolute, find one post where I said it, bet you cant. Just like you cant find the other posts, just a liar really, go on prove me wrong.

if you cant understand what the report shows thats on you.

here is some help, because you really have doubled down on the wrong subject.

we estimate that 49% of the total under-5 lives lost would occur in Sub-Saharan Africa would you say this area is developed or underdeveloped? total number of lives lost in this region increased up to over 470,000 between a no downturn scenario and a 15% reduction in GDP per capita. thats between the modelling of 250k to 1.2 million encase your maths hasn't improved.

report clearly shows there was an increase in underdeveloped countries due to restrictions caused by covid, as restrictions was a major factor in reductions of GDP, or do you think thats wrong too, like you thought restrictions didnt cause people problems in gathering clean food and water before, which you very quickly dropped as you were so wrong again, it has to be a new record for getting stuff wrong on a thread.

now be a good chap, back up your claims, dont deflect.

show me where I said 200k kids died of covid, still waiting for you to prove this lie you said
show me where I said covid was over 10 months ago, another lie you said.
show me where I posted links dated 1990 yup another lie from you.

ohh and for fun 1 post from this tread, where I said 1.2 million died, be very easy to find that one.

you wont find any,

liar liar bombers bums on fire... 🔥 :oops:
Click to expand...
You can persist with replying to him but you really are wasting your time.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
You can persist with replying to him but you really are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
I know, I just find it quite interesting how it tries to twist and turn, its fascinating. I think he thinks he is being clever and doesn't really see how silly he is making himself look, funny subject to make a stand on mind, kids dying in the world from restrictions, when all the main outlets are reporting this now, that restrictions caused harm to the poorest in the world.
 
chrismisterx said:
I know, I just find it quite interesting how it tries to twist and turn, its fascinating. I think he thinks he is being clever and doesn't really see how silly he is making himself look, funny subject to make a stand on mind, kids dying in the world from restrictions, when all the main outlets are reporting this now, that restrictions caused harm to the poorest in the world.
Click to expand...
Well enjoy. He is funny.
 
chrismisterx said:
, funny subject to make a stand on mind, kids dying in the world from restrictions,
Click to expand...
Iam only disputing the claim that up to 1.2 million children died n period a 6 month period in 2020 in under developed countries due to CV restrictions/lockdowns as per Gelans post.I ask again for you to post the evidence of this.So far you haven't.😜
chrismisterx said:
funny really as I am defending a post you made, so really this is a mess you caused hehe.
Click to expand...
Surely you should of left the man who is in the process of curing the world's energy crisis to defend it.hehe
 
Last edited:
bomber said:
Iam only disputing the claim that up to 1.2 million children died n period a 6 month period in 2020 in under developed countries due to CV restrictions/lockdowns as per Gelans post.I ask again for you to post the evidence of this.So far you haven't.😜
Click to expand...
do you understand what up to 1.2 million means mate? the words UP TO....

basic reading comprehension.

once you understand what the words UP TO means, reread the studies and find a ton of data that proves in fact kids under 5 died due to covid restrictions and that it clearly falls into the modelling that predicted up to 1.2 million extra child deaths.

noticed every time your proven wrong you just skip over it, like 49% of extra deaths happened in Sub-Saharan Africa would you say this area is developed or underdeveloped, care to answer that even though it blows another of your past comments out the water, studies says 470k extra deaths, sure that falls into the up to 1.2 million deaths.

anyway found them posts yet or will you admit you lied to prove a point, just 1 little post that you claim I made and I will concede the whole debate, just 1 Mr pants on fire 🔥
 
chrismisterx said:
do you understand what up to 1.2 million means mate? the words UP TO....

basic reading comprehension.

once you understand what the words UP TO means, reread the studies and find a ton of data that proves in fact kids under 5 died due to covid restrictions and that it clearly falls into the modelling that predicted up to 1.2 million extra child deaths.

noticed every time your proven wrong you just skip over it, like 49% of extra deaths happened in Sub-Saharan Africa would you say this area is developed or underdeveloped, care to answer that even though it blows another of your past comments out the water, studies says 470k extra deaths, sure that falls into the up to 1.2 million deaths.

anyway found them posts yet or will you admit you lied to prove a point, just 1 little post that you claim I made and I will concede the whole debate, just 1 Mr pants on fire 🔥
Click to expand...
Still no evidence up to 1.2 children died due to CV restrictions.
 

Back
Top