The trouble with Iain Davis’ “absolute risk reduction” is small sample size, monitored for a short time period. For instance, if we observe a sample of 50,000 people for six months, probably none of them will be killed by traffic collisions, so we therefore conclude that all road and vehicle safety features, traffic law and enforcement are unnecessary, an impediment to freedom and a waste of effort.
Iain Davis’ article primarily serves to provide confirmation bias for those who already accept some covid-19 conspiracy theory, eg:
– “It should also be noted that these figures suggest the threat from COVID 19 is vanishingly small.”
But we know that covid-19 has killed tens of thousands of people in the UK alone and overwhelmed the health service, so the above statement can be interpreted two ways. It could be showing that Iain Davis is misinterpreting the figures. But for those who already accept the conspiracy theory, and worse, for those who are considering giving it credence, it can supply false confirmation for all the rest of it, ie. that there’s no crisis, the mortality figures are an artefact from stupid, supine doctors sheepishly following government instructions to misclassify cause of death, it’s really just a common cold being blown out of proportion by the “MSM” so that Bill Gates can sell vaccines, etc. etc. etc.
The human mind is highly susceptible to conspiracy theory because we are social animals and capable of deception and manipulation, so we have developed a “malicious agent spotter”, just like our “face and object spotter” sees patterns in clouds, or genitals on irregular carrots.