I think I'd still support something that looks like lockdown although we aren't in one at the moment, and we won't be next month - that in itself is part of the problem. But @Onlooker has a point that the minority view hasn't really been debated, and its not so small a view as to be dismissed out of hand.
@Malone said:
Clearly 696 deaths is horrific. That hoes without saying.
But there's a big difference between 696 dying yesterday and 696 deaths accumulated over a month or so.
That's DEFINITELY NOT what the 696 means though. It means 696 were reported yesterday, on top of the 442 reported the day before, and so on. It's cumulative. The actual monthly for November is almost exactly 10,000 deaths.
@Onlooker said:
No, it's dishonest reporting by the media and the government that often leads to an over-estimation of the rate of increases in deaths. Plus numbers also include anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test, whatever the cause of death.
There are plenty of resources in the media and online that very clearly show the deaths, hospital admissions, and cases by the day they occurred rather than reported. It's clearly not acceptable to have long time lags on certain numbers but the levelling out is done and from my understanding used by SAGE if not by TalkRadio.
I'll leave it there as the rest of your thoughts border too closely to some well known conspiracy theories to give worthy debate.
Over 56,000 dead from a bit a flu. What was predicted from the beginning and laughed off as scaremongering and would be nothing but a few OAPs croaking until Cummings front of house man got it. Yes, it would be great if the vulnerable had been, were, or are shielded so the rest of us can get on with it but they're not so a lockdown is vital. Of course, what steps your government takes to sort things out properly during a lockdown is another thing. Letting people come out of it and then shop until they drop, go to footy and drink eggnog until the next spike would not necessarily be top of my list, however much I long for crisps and football in the Beechdean. I must admit though I'm quite interested in getting one of those £350 million government contracts to fail to supply much needed equipment...any idea where I sign up?
@Wendoverman said:
I must admit though I'm quite interested in getting one of those £350 million government contracts to fail to supply much needed equipment...any idea where I sign up?
@drcongo excellent thanks. I wonder how close I am to be being able to dip into my pension? It's always that first ten grand to oil the wheels that has escaped me...
@Wendoverman said:
I must admit though I'm quite interested in getting one of those £350 million government contracts to fail to supply much needed equipment...any idea where I sign up?
@Onlooker said:
I've tried hard to avoid posting lately but remain convinced that lockdowns are unnecessary and will prove to be more damaging to public health than Covid-19.
Some really interesting submissions to the inquiry into data transparency and accountability in Covid-19 policy.
Lockdowns are absolutely necessary in some form, mixed in with keeping as many businesses afloat as possible.
I work in the funeral industry and in April/May it was horrendous. A business I know within 20 miles of Wycombe had 117 funerals in April from a single small funeral home. He would normally conduct 25 in April.
It’s ludicrous that grounds are being reopened as nothing has changed since April, apart from an extra 55000 deaths.
It isn’t complicated. A very infective disease kills (horribly) a lot of old and vulnerable people.
You can either take (draconian) steps to reduce the risks of transmission or you accept that it will kill (horribly) a lot of old and vulnerable people.
You can argue (and produce statistics and forecasts to support your argument) that the steps will ultimately do more harm than good, or alternatively you could just be a human being.
Until Covember I was back at work in that London after six months for six weeks or so. Chiltern Railways was fine (although by the end of the six weeks there were noticeably more people not wearing masks and obviously looking for and waiting for an argument about it) but the Tube got fuller and there were loads of people of all ages maskless or pointlessly wearing it on their chin and despite all the signs of dire consequences no-one from TFL was saying anything. (I suppose enforcement is not their job) Our office was very strict and yet we still had two cases which ended up clearing the place of one whole shift for two weeks isolation. It's a nasty little thing begging for complacency. No-one wants a lockdown. No-one likes a lockdown and we'd all like someone to give us cast-iron reasons for not doing it...but the fact is at this point in time we just cannot have what we all want.
For me it is finer balanced than others on either side of the argument suggest. There is an argument of economy versus health. You have to find the balance between the two. I dont think that's easy.
In August cases were fairly rare, deaths virtually nil, there was no certainty of a "second wave" and no certainty of a vaccine coming to the rescue. With those facts I would have opened outdoor football stadia in a controlled way in August. The Government chose not to.
Now we have a confirmed second wave but if you believe reports a vaccine will virtually end the problem within three months. With those facts I would hold off opening football grounds until March. The Government chose to open them now.
I think we have a shit Government kneejerking policy based on PR rather than sense.
Actually I would go further now. I would cancel Christmas bank holidays and celebrate for one year only "new christmas" with bank holidays between late March and early may not clashing with Easter so that we can be sure that stopping granny being lonely at Christmas doesn't risk killing her.
I would suspend football at least below Champinship from 1 Jan to 1 March extending season by two months at end (and if it clashes with Euros sobeit). :Govt loan clubs money to get through that time to be repaid from may/June gate money they otherwise would have got in Jan/Feb.
Have to admit, I've been very undecided as to my feelings on the lockdown. Yes it does of course temporarily supress the virus, but does that benefit outweigh the consequences in terms of mental health, people suffering with other illnesses and the collapse of the economy and peoples livelihoods.
One thing however that did show to me the foolishness of the "we should carry on as normal", "herd immunity" arguments was a trip to Czech Republic I took in the summer. The country was widely praised for it's early response to Covid and up till August they had only had 2-300 deaths throughout the pandemic. During my trip however it was clear that Covid was yesterdays news. No social distancing, nobody wearing face masks, even in shops, holiday resorts were back to normal and they even had a well publicised goodbye to Covid party in Prague. The results of this complacency have been dire. Hospitals are full (despite having an excellent health care system) and even the new hospitals the army have built haven't been enough. The death toll had soared to 3500 by the end of October and has since doubled to over 7000 in the first weeks of November. Considering the size of the country and where the death toll was in August, this should serve as a wake up call to everybody who thinks that a return to normal is in anyway desirable at the moment.
Whilst I'm not a fan of some of the restrictions, you really only need look to countries like Czech Republic to realise that many of them are absolutely essential for protecting peoples lives and the NHS.
@Onlooker said:
But if the lockdowns aren't working as SAGE and the government believe they should, why not accept this and change course?
The first one did absolutely, undeniably, work. The second one isn't working because it's not really a lock down. Absolutely nothing changed and we're still forcing kids to go back to school and sit in freezing cold classrooms with the windows open. The number of cases at my eldest's school is both terrifying, and accelerating. She's been at home for the last two weeks after the girl she sits next to in one lesson tested positive. This current lockdown is 90% life as normal, so is likely to be about 10% effective.
I'm with @drcongo on this. My daughter is a 1st year teacher, as such, works with walking petri dishes. Just waiting for her/someone at the school to test positive and that's our house in quarantine for 2 weeks. Schools are just about the worst places in my mind for the spread & should definitely be shut. Teenagers have a zero personal accountability attitude. Only got to look at them on the streets as they pour out of schools. In the end, for me it's all about personal responsibility. The virus only travels one way, from person to person. If everyone stops passing it on, then it will, coupled with an effective vaccine, die out. Local lockdowns just aren't going to work, a bit like toothpaste, you only squeeze it to somewhere else. I am still not sure that national lockdowns are the answer, unless we have a global, in unison, lockdown! If nobody moves for 28 days, surely then it will die out naturally? We all know that isn't going to happen.
First lockdown did work but was forced upon an unwilling government who then did nothing competent in the breathing space they had (beyond promoting driving as an effective eye test) to get PPE where it was needed or the Test and Trace system up and running. Their default of handing out lucrative contracts to their mates does not work when you actually have to deliver something for the country. They are an incompetent bunch voted in on one issue and did not expect to have to actually deal with anything beyond making jokes about Johnny Foreigner until Brexageddon was 'delivered'. Then post lock down, having declared themselves a great success they were forced into baffling tiers to prevent another lock-down and then forced into another lock-down and now this Ho! Ho ! Ho! public relations exercise. I know this is unprecedented but despite unflappable PM in waiting Sunak's quiet confidence I'm yet to be convinced they have a handle on anything. But that's just me.
@EwanHoosaami said:
I'm with @drcongo on this. My daughter is a 1st year teacher, as such, works with walking petri dishes. Just waiting for her/someone at the school to test positive and that's our house in quarantine for 2 weeks. Schools are just about the worst places in my mind for the spread & should definitely be shut. Teenagers have a zero personal accountability attitude. Only got to look at them on the streets as they pour out of schools. In the end, for me it's all about personal responsibility. The virus only travels one way, from person to person. If everyone stops passing it on, then it will, coupled with an effective vaccine, die out. Local lockdowns just aren't going to work, a bit like toothpaste, you only squeeze it to somewhere else. I am still not sure that national lockdowns are the answer, unless we have a global, in unison, lockdown! If nobody moves for 28 days, surely then it will die out naturally? We all know that isn't going to happen.
That 28 day total lock in is an interesting concept.
Would you take a one off 28 day spell imprisoned on your own property for the greater good of the country.
Enough notice so that everyone can stock up on 28 days of food/medicine.
Only critical healthcare on offer. And massive PPE for those offering it.
It would need one hell of an effort and sacrifice from everyone.
You'd have to have every country doing it as well, or at least have exceptionally well thought out processes at every airport, port, and way into the country etc.
Unfortunately there's so many agendas at play and so many disbelievers, ranging from mild doubt on numbers (as seen on this thread) to outright talk of it being a hoax (nutters) for any even remote prospect of this happening.
Hence the inevitability of a couple of years being messed with to some extent.
Think I would @Malone If it was a globally co-ordinated thing, alongside an effective vaccine. At least it would be a "finish it once and for all" thing. We know it aint ever going to happen & too many people will not play fair as they are not going to adversely affected.
Comments
Oh hang on hang on..you're the guy who posted the David Icke stuff aren't you!
Yes, I am sorry and apologised for that at the time
@Onlooker I have relatives working in medicine and science who would tend to disagree with you, but each to their own.
I think I'd still support something that looks like lockdown although we aren't in one at the moment, and we won't be next month - that in itself is part of the problem. But @Onlooker has a point that the minority view hasn't really been debated, and its not so small a view as to be dismissed out of hand.
@onlooker, since that page links to 45 submissions was there 1 in particular that you were citing?
That's DEFINITELY NOT what the 696 means though. It means 696 were reported yesterday, on top of the 442 reported the day before, and so on. It's cumulative. The actual monthly for November is almost exactly 10,000 deaths.
Still working through them but would recommend:
Prof Fryer of Keele University
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/12729/pdf
Dr Norris of Bristol Medical School
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13825/pdf
Royal Statistical Society
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/14038/pdf
There are plenty of resources in the media and online that very clearly show the deaths, hospital admissions, and cases by the day they occurred rather than reported. It's clearly not acceptable to have long time lags on certain numbers but the levelling out is done and from my understanding used by SAGE if not by TalkRadio.
I'll leave it there as the rest of your thoughts border too closely to some well known conspiracy theories to give worthy debate.
Lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if we all had a quantum nano layer bioshield.
Over 56,000 dead from a bit a flu. What was predicted from the beginning and laughed off as scaremongering and would be nothing but a few OAPs croaking until Cummings front of house man got it. Yes, it would be great if the vulnerable had been, were, or are shielded so the rest of us can get on with it but they're not so a lockdown is vital. Of course, what steps your government takes to sort things out properly during a lockdown is another thing. Letting people come out of it and then shop until they drop, go to footy and drink eggnog until the next spike would not necessarily be top of my list, however much I long for crisps and football in the Beechdean. I must admit though I'm quite interested in getting one of those £350 million government contracts to fail to supply much needed equipment...any idea where I sign up?
Here you go sir: https://sophieehill.shinyapps.io/my-little-crony/
Roughly, a £10k donation to the tory party should net you roughly £1m in contracts that you don't need to fulfil.
@drcongo excellent thanks. I wonder how close I am to be being able to dip into my pension? It's always that first ten grand to oil the wheels that has escaped me...
And another one...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message
It would be funny if it wasn’t resulting in tens of thousands of people dying.
Lockdowns are absolutely necessary in some form, mixed in with keeping as many businesses afloat as possible.
I work in the funeral industry and in April/May it was horrendous. A business I know within 20 miles of Wycombe had 117 funerals in April from a single small funeral home. He would normally conduct 25 in April.
It’s ludicrous that grounds are being reopened as nothing has changed since April, apart from an extra 55000 deaths.
It isn’t complicated. A very infective disease kills (horribly) a lot of old and vulnerable people.
You can either take (draconian) steps to reduce the risks of transmission or you accept that it will kill (horribly) a lot of old and vulnerable people.
You can argue (and produce statistics and forecasts to support your argument) that the steps will ultimately do more harm than good, or alternatively you could just be a human being.
It's all a bit self fulfilling as the level of people actively ignoring the current lockdown is clearly enough to make the lockdown less effective.
Limiting contact and wearing a mask must help deny the virus chances to spread. It continues to spread because so many don't do it.
If only we had human beings in government.
Agree 100%
Until Covember I was back at work in that London after six months for six weeks or so. Chiltern Railways was fine (although by the end of the six weeks there were noticeably more people not wearing masks and obviously looking for and waiting for an argument about it) but the Tube got fuller and there were loads of people of all ages maskless or pointlessly wearing it on their chin and despite all the signs of dire consequences no-one from TFL was saying anything. (I suppose enforcement is not their job) Our office was very strict and yet we still had two cases which ended up clearing the place of one whole shift for two weeks isolation. It's a nasty little thing begging for complacency. No-one wants a lockdown. No-one likes a lockdown and we'd all like someone to give us cast-iron reasons for not doing it...but the fact is at this point in time we just cannot have what we all want.
For me it is finer balanced than others on either side of the argument suggest. There is an argument of economy versus health. You have to find the balance between the two. I dont think that's easy.
In August cases were fairly rare, deaths virtually nil, there was no certainty of a "second wave" and no certainty of a vaccine coming to the rescue. With those facts I would have opened outdoor football stadia in a controlled way in August. The Government chose not to.
Now we have a confirmed second wave but if you believe reports a vaccine will virtually end the problem within three months. With those facts I would hold off opening football grounds until March. The Government chose to open them now.
I think we have a shit Government kneejerking policy based on PR rather than sense.
Actually I would go further now. I would cancel Christmas bank holidays and celebrate for one year only "new christmas" with bank holidays between late March and early may not clashing with Easter so that we can be sure that stopping granny being lonely at Christmas doesn't risk killing her.
I would suspend football at least below Champinship from 1 Jan to 1 March extending season by two months at end (and if it clashes with Euros sobeit). :Govt loan clubs money to get through that time to be repaid from may/June gate money they otherwise would have got in Jan/Feb.
But if the lockdowns aren't working as SAGE and the government believe they should, why not accept this and change course?
Have to admit, I've been very undecided as to my feelings on the lockdown. Yes it does of course temporarily supress the virus, but does that benefit outweigh the consequences in terms of mental health, people suffering with other illnesses and the collapse of the economy and peoples livelihoods.
One thing however that did show to me the foolishness of the "we should carry on as normal", "herd immunity" arguments was a trip to Czech Republic I took in the summer. The country was widely praised for it's early response to Covid and up till August they had only had 2-300 deaths throughout the pandemic. During my trip however it was clear that Covid was yesterdays news. No social distancing, nobody wearing face masks, even in shops, holiday resorts were back to normal and they even had a well publicised goodbye to Covid party in Prague. The results of this complacency have been dire. Hospitals are full (despite having an excellent health care system) and even the new hospitals the army have built haven't been enough. The death toll had soared to 3500 by the end of October and has since doubled to over 7000 in the first weeks of November. Considering the size of the country and where the death toll was in August, this should serve as a wake up call to everybody who thinks that a return to normal is in anyway desirable at the moment.
Whilst I'm not a fan of some of the restrictions, you really only need look to countries like Czech Republic to realise that many of them are absolutely essential for protecting peoples lives and the NHS.
The best post you have ever made Dev in my opinion. Sensible and too the point.
The first one did absolutely, undeniably, work. The second one isn't working because it's not really a lock down. Absolutely nothing changed and we're still forcing kids to go back to school and sit in freezing cold classrooms with the windows open. The number of cases at my eldest's school is both terrifying, and accelerating. She's been at home for the last two weeks after the girl she sits next to in one lesson tested positive. This current lockdown is 90% life as normal, so is likely to be about 10% effective.
I'm with @drcongo on this. My daughter is a 1st year teacher, as such, works with walking petri dishes. Just waiting for her/someone at the school to test positive and that's our house in quarantine for 2 weeks. Schools are just about the worst places in my mind for the spread & should definitely be shut. Teenagers have a zero personal accountability attitude. Only got to look at them on the streets as they pour out of schools. In the end, for me it's all about personal responsibility. The virus only travels one way, from person to person. If everyone stops passing it on, then it will, coupled with an effective vaccine, die out. Local lockdowns just aren't going to work, a bit like toothpaste, you only squeeze it to somewhere else. I am still not sure that national lockdowns are the answer, unless we have a global, in unison, lockdown! If nobody moves for 28 days, surely then it will die out naturally? We all know that isn't going to happen.
First lockdown did work but was forced upon an unwilling government who then did nothing competent in the breathing space they had (beyond promoting driving as an effective eye test) to get PPE where it was needed or the Test and Trace system up and running. Their default of handing out lucrative contracts to their mates does not work when you actually have to deliver something for the country. They are an incompetent bunch voted in on one issue and did not expect to have to actually deal with anything beyond making jokes about Johnny Foreigner until Brexageddon was 'delivered'. Then post lock down, having declared themselves a great success they were forced into baffling tiers to prevent another lock-down and then forced into another lock-down and now this Ho! Ho ! Ho! public relations exercise. I know this is unprecedented but despite unflappable PM in waiting Sunak's quiet confidence I'm yet to be convinced they have a handle on anything. But that's just me.
That 28 day total lock in is an interesting concept.
Would you take a one off 28 day spell imprisoned on your own property for the greater good of the country.
Enough notice so that everyone can stock up on 28 days of food/medicine.
Only critical healthcare on offer. And massive PPE for those offering it.
It would need one hell of an effort and sacrifice from everyone.
You'd have to have every country doing it as well, or at least have exceptionally well thought out processes at every airport, port, and way into the country etc.
Unfortunately there's so many agendas at play and so many disbelievers, ranging from mild doubt on numbers (as seen on this thread) to outright talk of it being a hoax (nutters) for any even remote prospect of this happening.
Hence the inevitability of a couple of years being messed with to some extent.
Well said @DevC, I'm completely with you on that!
Think I would @Malone If it was a globally co-ordinated thing, alongside an effective vaccine. At least it would be a "finish it once and for all" thing. We know it aint ever going to happen & too many people will not play fair as they are not going to adversely affected.