Forum menu
most of the surrounding areas are the main culprits with rates of over 1K+ per 100,000.
Holy ****!, that's 4 x the numbers in Glasgow!
A fascinating discussion about the pros and cons of Lockdown. Why are we not seeing this sort of debate in the UK media?
Sorry, ignore the subtitle commentary and concentrate on the debate.
Sweden has backpedaled on the controlled infection a little. But it is wrong to assume that they did little. They simply relied on the public to act appropriately. Their new policy is to "help" the public continue to do so.
The adherence is pretty shambolic,
Welcome to experimental medicine. 20% of people prescribed statins do not collect a repeat prescription. The analysis (ITT or Intent to treat) account for that and are conservative.
A modest reduction, say 15% and a 17% increase in contacts with mask-wearing means that any effects will be largely undetectable. I had always assumed an effect size of 20% and have not been disappointment. I'm still happy to wear a mask though in enclosed public spaces.
I know nobody actually knows but is it likely? I’m in Kirklees.
#expect to leave lockdown and re-enter whatever tier you left. higher restrictions (Tier 4 - or further lockdown) are likely, but I imagine after the Christmas mass-transmission event.
BTW there is firm data to show that peak influenza mortality and pneumococcal pneumonia hospital admissions rise a week after the holidays in ordinary years. The same is likely again 🙁
Why are we not seeing this sort of debate in the UK media?
Look back in this thread for "health warnings" about Ivor Cummins. I can't be bothered to do it again... QUACK.
Look back in this thread for “health warnings” about Ivor Cummins. I can’t be bothered to do it again… QUACK.
Sorry, that's why I said concentrate on the actual debate and not the commentary. Why is he a QUACK though? Is that the term used for someone who has a different opinion to the official government narrative these days?
Is that the term used for someone who has a different opinion to the official government narrative these days?
No.
[tl:dr] six months on, your immune system works as it should and you probably won’t get reinfected with Covid too quickly after a first infection. Or after a vaccine by implication.
If you catch covid, get better, and are then continually surrounded by covid infected people (say, in varying healthcare settings) does that continued exposure keep your immune system "current" i.e. kind of resetting the six month / eighteen month timer?
Lee is looking a little foolish at the moment on his comments on vaccines [14 min] - but it is still early days for duration of protection and coverage of strains. It is a typical response one sees in someone who is certain of their facts despite uncertainty in the science. A few points from the debate:
LEE:
Not new plague - IFR is currently about 0.5%, that is 4x the rate for flu and the low deaths in the young is partly due to effective management of those hospitalised.
Evidence on societal basis - now hard evidence that interventions reduce transmission
More harm than good - the economic debate is a political decision not a scientific one
Within envelope of past experience - All-cause mortality has exceeded all but 1918 influenza
Should increase capacity in healthcare - Nice, perhaps Father Christmas will bring it in December - appeals to what one should have done in the past do not help debate.
+ve vases = testing - Not really, decisions have focussed on hospital ADMISSIONS and capacity not cases.
No evidence of lifespan reduction - yes there is and life expectancy of an 80yo without COVID is nearly 10 years.
Other deaths >1M/yr - indeed, and it is additive. 0.25M deaths from COVID19 in the US to date.
I could go on... But decisions regarding lockdown and restriction of transmission are political and based on weighing healthcare and the economy. i have said many times that there are NO good choices. But I am minded to note that the economy bounces back relatively rapidly. Think of flying after the Iceland volcanic eruption (travel was back in 3mo). For COVID, two years is a reasonable time frame to normality. We're a third of the way and things are looking up.
My rule of thumb is that a person's certainty on a position is inversely proportional to their eventual likelihood of being correct. "Often wrong, seldom in doubt". There is no shame in saying you don't know, but are investigating with appropriate experiments. Managing the doubt in science is what is important.
"More harm than good" is not simply an economic issue- there is in my view an alarming tendancy to support authoritarian responses that inhibits normal social interaction to an unprecendented degree and for an indefinite timescale. The effects of this are unknown.
But I am minded to note that the economy bounces back relatively rapidly.
Early on in the pandemic Bill Gates made the point that "economic damage is reversible but piles of dead bodies aren't."
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies they think are acceptable to "save Christmas"
The effects of this are unknown.
I would, however, argue that the effects of the counter are pretty predictable. They may be unpalatable, but they are predictable. Hence it is a political decision.
As a general rule, thing's don't always happen to other people. Life experience has taught me "why not you?", for significant but rare events. Hence "significantly higher" mortality in the general population and "stretched healthcare services" might be acceptable to the general public on an arbitrary level. Until it is your spouse who is denied care because every ITU bed was filled, or the staff were off sick, and no reasonable treatment was available at that hastily assembled bed on an industrial estate because we failed to make provision for "wasted" HDU/ITU care 10-years ago.
The picture is bigger than "a bit like flu", unfortunately. And the economy is a part of that picture.
squadra
Free Member
“More harm than good” is not simply an economic issue- there is in my view an alarming tendancy to support authoritarian responses that inhibits normal social interaction to an unprecendented degree and for an indefinite timescale. The effects of this are unknown.
I don't like it but I "support it" because it's a tool we know that works. Your counter suggestions? Let Covid rip through society? That's alarming to me.
Oh dear Nature seems to think closing educational institutions ranks second most effective non-clinical intervention
Meanwhile the WSJ reports studies that contradict common sense on lockdown effect -
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890
"Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections."
Early on in the pandemic Bill Gates made the point that “economic damage is reversible but piles of dead bodies aren’t.”
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies they think are acceptable to “save Christmas”
But the people dying are mostly in their 80's, most with serious co-morbidities. Why can't we have a grown up discussion based on the assumption that we all die at some point from one cause or another and what should be the balance of healthcare between people with Covid and people dying because of other reasons. And still, even if the death toll from Covid triples from where it is currently there will only be an extra 80 million people added to the planet this year instead of 83 million.
Over the last few months it seems like the NHS has taken a deliberate decision to stop or postpone treating non-covid patients to avoid needing to decide not to treat Covid or non-Covid patients at some theoretical point in the future. Throughout this time the NHS has remained well below 100% capacity. Long term this will lead to many more times the number of premature deaths of people from other conditions than those caused by Covid directly.
So what are we saving the NHS for exactly? Is now in our time of national crisis not the time to be using the NHS in full, not saving it for some point in the future than may never come based purely on some dodgy data, misleading graphs and doom-laden talk from Mr Whitty?
Kelvin
This was always going to be the case. Being clear that social distancing is much more effective than casual* mask wearing should always have been part of the government’s messaging. To open up public transport and workplaces masks are an essential tool, but they are not magic. To be fair, they’ve always added things like “make space” to their “wear a mask” messaging, but undermined that with their “covid secure” concept. And as for “one metre plus”…?!?
As I'm sure we agree the government's messaging has been anything but clear however the point here is people using masks in a way likely to increase infections.
I'm hardly claiming to be an expert but it would seem "common sense" that a mask dripping with mucus and saliva then placed over a face would be an ideal place for a coronavirus to replicate.
The people I see walking/running about with "chin masks" are not then disgarding them but sticking them over their face and getting on a bus etc then touching the same surfaces before getting off and grubbing about with their mask?
TiReD
Welcome to experimental medicine. 20% of people prescribed statins do not collect a repeat prescription. The analysis (ITT or Intent to treat) account for that and are conservative.
A modest reduction, say 15% and a 17% increase in contacts with mask-wearing means that any effects will be largely undetectable. I had always assumed an effect size of 20% and have not been disappointment. I’m still happy to wear a mask though in enclosed public spaces.
What I really really getting at is that they are simply asking if people followed.
Please don't take this as aimed at you but this seems a common way companies industry manipulate their results by either manipulating the control or the active sample especially when they expect marginal results.
Total off the cuff example ... but some sponsored research 20yrs ago tested a sample of coeliacs to see if low amounts of prolamines (200ppm) in their diet were not harmful.
The conclusion was they "suffered no more damage" than the control.
There was no monitoring or education of the control's diet or immunoglobulin response only the active sample being fed prolamines.
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies YOU think are acceptable to “save Christmas”
Reworded for reality. Its whats the public perceive. Some don't give a toss and will have a 25 person Christmas lunch, some will stick to the rules, some are still wondering what to do for the best if they have elderly / remote relatives.
Yes Gov.UK can provide their judgement based on the science of spreading C19, but it'll be just that and whatever they do will be open to broad interpretations, abuse and criticism with anything other than a lockdown resulting in growth in cases.
Very much a case of "would you rather" with an open ended own goal.
let it rip
Ahh that scary phrase 'let it rip' that's been dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine so that it can be used to sully all who disagree with them.
I've not seen anyone say we should 'let it rip', more people who care about the long term future of our country and the long term health of our population discussing why 'Lockdown' might not be the best or only approach to mitigate the impacts of Covid.
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like 'let it rip', 'granny killer' etc?
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like ‘let it rip’, ‘granny killer’ etc?
It's another sign that folk can't (or can't be bothered to) look at other opinions to their own. Red or Blue, leave or remain, they need to have a side, and go to the nuclear option of the view opposing their view.
The truth is always somewhere in between.
The US is a big place with multiple epidemics at various stages at any given time. Experience in the UK does not bear out the US picture.
The UK epidemic was brought under control by significant contact restriction from mid-March onward, and increased once restrictions were lifted from July, with acceleration from early September. The North has been more affected after lifting restrictions because their first epidemic started later and hence was at a higher level than the South when restrictions were lifted, from whence it grew at basically the same universal rate. The epidemic will decline presently based on current restrictions (Tiers and lockdown2), but not to the extent it did from April-June, only to rise again after Christmas.
The impact of school closures has been harder to demonstrate, but the Tier system has shown a smaller effect than in April. It is a dynamic but predictable system subject (one hopes) to the eventual natural brake that is immunity. There is almost no evidence immunity has played a significant role in the current epidemic. Were it to have done so, then there would be no reemergence of infection after restrictions are lifted (something noted in all EU countries notably Sweden), and the need for a vaccine to give people "past infection history" would be moot.
That's about the clearest explanation I can give. There is much debate and exceptionalism, but on a global scale there is a pretty clear picture with little exception. The pathogen is about twice as transmissible and four times as pathogenic as influenza. Spread can be controlled by restrictions in contacts, and returns when relaxed. Infection and a vaccine will confer some immunity and this WILL eventually limit spread.
In the future, COVID19 will become a childhood infection like other seasonal coronaviruses. It will have additional mortality in the elderly, but this will be mitigated (in part) by emergent therapies. I'm pretty optimistic myself.
[tl:dr] the obvious explanation for the control of the global epidemic makes predictions that have come to pass universally. Eventually COVID19 will be a virus that gives your children's children a cold (likely several colds).
Some don’t give a toss and will have a 25 person Christmas lunch, some will stick to the rules, some are still wondering what to do for the best if they have elderly / remote relatives.
I find it astounding that ANYONE is doing or not doing Xmas because of government guidelines.
We're unlikely to do Xmas, but not because someone tells us we should or shouldn't, but because it's daft to do so.
Why can’t we have a grown up discussion
Why do people who don't like lockdowns use phrases like 'grown up discussions' as if their viewpoint is the only adult one?
let it rip
Prof Gupta has argued for controlled transmission whilst protecting those most at risk. I have already shown that countries with the poorest 2018 influenza outcomes, those with highest nursing home usage and those who spend less on healthcare have the poorest outcomes for COVID19 excess mortality.
How well do you believe the UK will protect those most at risk? Hint - we're terrible in an ordinary year. As I said, what society deems acceptable goes out the window at the personal level. Everyone wants higher taxes until they come to pay them.
As for the mortality - some facts. The MEDIAN age of ITU admission has been 61. A QUARTER of all people admitted have been under 50 - yes that's this readership. there have been plenty in their 20's - OK they didn't die, but they took up beds that a stroke patient might need. Only 1/10 in ITU have significant comorbidities. What that means is that modern healthcare is pretty good at keeping people alive (thanks @crikey). The ITU mortality rate has fallen with better patient management and dexamethasone.
Were healthcare to be swamped, the average age of deaths will start to fall because treatment will not be able to keep up. The NHS have tried to balance a constant demand (CV, cancer, dementia...) with a potentially explosive demand (COVID19 admissions). The margins for error on something that can grow so fast (cases doubled every three days in March), may have led to too much restriction during the first epidemic wave. OK, that is a valid debate. Now the NHS is trying to maintain normal services with a reduced margin of error. I think that's also perfectly reasonable now we have learned more. But worry about CV events in January as more people are admitted after Christmas with COVID19 and HDU/ITU beds start to fill again.
[tl;dr] Do not become fixated by the deaths figure, nor the "doom and gloom" plots. The truth is ALWAYS more complex than portrayed in media soundbites.
(thanks crikey)
Can't be said too often. And thanks to all crikey's colleagues as well, obviously.
dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine
THIS IS UNTRUE. It is conspiracy theory nonsense, and should be called out as such. It, is BULLSHIT.
pondlife
Free Member
let it ripAhh that scary phrase ‘let it rip’ that’s been dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine so that it can be used to sully all who disagree with them.
I’ve not seen anyone say we should ‘let it rip’, more people who care about the long term future of our country and the long term health of our population discussing why ‘Lockdown’ might not be the best or only approach to mitigate the impacts of Covid.
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like ‘let it rip’, ‘granny killer’ etc?
I use the phrase purposely as you imply that's what you consider to be a valid option. As for "propaganda", oh Lord, your not one of the conspiracy ones are you?
Would you rather I use another term?
"Throw the NHS under the bus." (The NHS isn't a name, its people.)
"Discard the elderly/infirm people as, well, they are going to die anyway right?"
Again, give us a valid alternative till vaccines arrive? I'd be interested to hear.
The UK epidemic was brought under control by significant contact restriction from mid-March onward, and increased once restrictions were lifted from July, with acceleration from early September.
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
Also it was well documented that the peak in UK infections was reached around a week before the actual Lockdown came into place. In other words cases were already declining before lockdown. Also why no local spikes observed with BLM protests, VE day, packed beaches etc as per this graph?
Pondlife
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
Compare those figures with other Scandinavian countries to see how "well" they've done. Including the economy. Sweden is no Covid nirvana.
As for people on the beaches etc. Covid doesn't spread well outdoors with free airflow all around you. Its indoors that the real danger exists. It's now winter, beaches won't be full of people, houses will...
Again, what's your alternative?
I find it astounding that ANYONE is doing or not doing Xmas because of government guidelines.
My mum, bless her, is old, confused and very vulnerable to covid. If tye gov says she can visit for xmas she will want to. She will argue that its her life and she has lived it anyway, get busy living or.....
If the gov do the sensible thing she'll stay at home, they wont though. I'll have to decide. We could kill granny, she might be dead by next xmas anyway... Tough decisions ahead.
Edited to add.......the MIL can stay away though!!
In other words cases were already declining before lockdown.
Did you wait till the date Mr Johnson told you to stay at home to change your behaviour? Did everyone else? No one I know did.
Compare those figures with other Scandinavian countries to see how “well” they’ve done. Including the economy. Sweden is no Covid nirvana.
Again, what’s your alternative?
They have done better than us with less lockdown. And the shape of the infection curve is the same. I'm not comparing good or bad here, just that the shape of the infection curve seems to suggest that a 'virus does as a virus does' regardless of the strength of the lockdown. Still, Peru had a hugely draconian lockdown - look at their Covid stats!
Sorry not read much beyond the last few posts, but is the poster above suggesting lockdown v1 didn't have a massive impact on reducing transmission, whilst end of lockdown was directly related to a massive increase?
As I recall, prior to schools and pubs opening, in Scotland we were down to less than 30 cases per day at one point. Now it's 30 times that number.
Did you wait till Mr Johnson told you to stay at home to change your behaviour? Did everyone else? No one I know did.
So no need for lockdown then? We could have all been treated as adults after all?
‘virus does as a virus does’ regardless
Narrator: "The evidence does not suggest this."
So no need for lockdown then? We could have all been treated as adults after all?
As per your Sweden in spring example, what matters is social distancing. How the government gets us to do this can vary. We, in the UK, have never had a lockdown. Some countries have had (and/or are currently having) proper lockdowns, with people told not to leave the house. Other countries have been able to offer financial support to encourage social distancing, coupled with advice to do so, and avoided having to instruct or enforce much at all. The social distancing is the tool. Lockdown is just a (very emotive) word, with many meanings.
Sorry not read much beyond the last few posts, but is the poster above suggesting lockdown v1 didn’t have a massive impact on reducing transmission, whilst end of lockdown was directly related to a massive increase?
As I recall, prior to schools and pubs opening, in Scotland we were down to less than 30 cases per day at one point. Now it’s 30 times that number.
It would be strange if Covid-19, which is a respiratory virus, didn't follow all similar respiratory viruses and be subject to a seasonal effect. You know like every year in the Autumn/Winter when people die of flu etc, and the NHS gets put under pressure every winter because of it. Yet in the summer they appear to mostly go away? Very strange how this would happen.
Normally though we accept that the NHS will be under severe pressure in the Autumn/Winter because of this. we don't destroy our economy, our jobs and way of life and stop treating Cancer patients in the process.
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
That tidy old chestnut again. The Gompertz curve is simply the solution of a family of models called Generalised logistic functions. They reflect the rate of an exponential process declining with time under some constraint. In an epidemic process the reasons for that constraint may be 1) restriction of contacts and 2) reduction in people who can be infected - aka immunity.
A STRONG prediction of immunity is that if contacts were not the reason for control, then once contacts are restored, transmission will remain low because people cannot be infected. Mike Yeadon has stated 50% of the population have been infected (which bares no relation to seroprevalence data - it's less than 20% universally). That has not come to pass in the UK. Transmission in Tier 1 had a doubling time of 7-10 days in the South West from September 1st and the hospitals are seeing the effects of that now.
Sweden laudably left its residents to use their common sense. They also closed some schools btw. their contact levels were still higher than elsewhere, so they saw a slower rate of decline than elsewhere (quid pro quo). Seroprevalence data from Sweden shows a slightly higher level than their neighbors. Now, once restrictions were relaxed, infections increased, hospital admissions increased and so have ITU admissions. OK not as fast as previously - but that is because contacts are still at lower levels than they were in early March. Sweden has learnt a hard lesson, but they have informed greatly on possible measures. Their neighbors have had significantly better outcomes by all measures including economic. The Swedish government have decided to follow their neighbors a little more closely.
There is NOTHING magical about Gompertz, nor the fact that the primary route of transmission for a respiratory pathogen is closed spaces. My favorite is a spin class in Canada infecting 44 people in one go! The virus does not appear to be highly transmitted to any significant extent in outdoor groups in well-ventilated areas. I have no issue with that. Catching the train to a football match... No thanks.
I'm always happy to debate and appear on lockdownsceptics.org too (djaustin). Science is intrinsically skeptical. I was fitting Gompertz equations to the global epidemic in March before a certain Nobel Prize winner - it told me that lockdowns have a significant effect in epidemic growth 🙂
stop treating Cancer patients in the process
And around we go again... social distancing is our current best tool, for now, to keep the virus under control enough to enable cancer care to continue as best as possible. If we don't take measures to control this virus this winter, cancer care will be decimated.
pondlife
Joined November 18, 2020
What I find dispiriting is that despite TiRed's post, I can pretty much guarantee pondlife won't change his views. Presumuably because TiRed isn't grown up enough. Or perhaps people will select their facts to suit themselves and continue to believe what they want to believe.
Haha I should not have gone to that website TiRED. I might have to go and sit in a cool dark room this evening.
Mike Yeadon has stated 50% of the population have been infected (which bares no relation to seroprevalence data – it’s less than 20% universally)
I think his argument is that T-Cells and prior exposure to other similar Coronaviruses comes into play. Also that mild infections would not generate sufficient antibodies to be recognisable in an antibody test, the virus being dealt with in the body by other means. Also that antibodies decline gradually after initial infection (immunity memory remaining in the body though) and antibodies are generally not getting re-spiked or re-made because of no more exposure to Covid-19 in the community, i.e. it's mostly gone.
This can be bourne out by the recent testing in Liverpool where the level of infection detected in the population was at similar level to the'False Positive' rate of the test used in question. In other words, nearly all gone.
People are in hospitals dying of respiratory diseases right now, but most of that is not Covid-19.
I don't set out to change people's views. Science does not care for what we believe. I also view challenge as important. Falsifiable predictions are necessary, and the picture I have painted above makes such predictions that broadly have come to pass in multiple countries and settings.
Yes, SARS-CoV-2 will BECOME a seasonal coronavirus, in fact it will be a childhood infection due to vaccination practices. But this is not that season I am afraid. Wait a few years and you will see infections peak around February. The increase since September is totally out of phase with other seasonal infections. Peak influenza is January NOT September. The narrative does not fit the facts when exposed to close inspection. But one must always check the narrative.
I think his argument is that T-Cells and prior exposure to other similar Coronaviruses comes into play. Also that mild infections would not generate sufficient antibodies to be recognisable in an antibody test, the virus being dealt with in the body by other means.
Point me to a single publication that states that such T-cells have a protective effect. You have T-cells that recognise many things (including components of toothpaste). Also the ONS survey looking at both infections and antibodies has shown that even asymptomatic infections generate seroconversion - they follow the same people and test for both at regular intervals. Less than 20% of the population have had the infection. Wanting it to be more based on presumption about how immunity works is not science.
People are in hospitals dying of respiratory diseases right now, but most of that is not Covid-19.
About 15% MORE people died in Week 45 than the highest recorded number in the same week in any of the previous ten years. That will rise eventually to about 25-50% above historic mean levels around Christmas. Other respiratory pathogens are available, but there are many people currently suffering COVID hypoxia and clogging NHS resources. they may not die, and we could just send them home?
About 15% MORE people died in Week 45 than the highest recorded number in the same week in any of the previous ten years. That will rise eventually to about 25-50% above historic mean levels around Christmas.
More a result of the NHS not treating people for anything much other than Covid as they should have back in the Spring/Summer perhaps?
Now I will pose the counter. What POLICIES would the sceptic want to see implemented? It's easy to throw stones, but I seldom hear what they would want to do? None of that silly "protect the vulnerable" nonsense. What practical decisions are on offer?
Such decisions range from:
Return to normal (Do nothing is always the first option for Civil Service)
Sweden lite - open theatres, cinemas and mass indoor entertainment, schools run as normal
Tier 1 everywhere avoiding large indoor groups
Modified Tiers depending on testing or (worse) available hospital beds
Further lockdowns once things have worsened significantly
And what about hospital admissions? Do we deny people care based on their oxygen saturation levels because they may not die? Do we remove people in beds to make space or give the bed to another more needy patient who ha come in with a stroke? Do we run cancer operations with reduced staffing due to prevention of nosocomial infections and isolating staff? Happy that they may not have a space in an HDU post-op?
Scepticism is easy, but practical policy decisions are much more challenging. There are presently no good choices and there are no simple options.
dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine
THIS IS UNTRUE. It is conspiracy theory nonsense, and should be called out as such. It, is BULLSHIT.
Okay perhaps have a look at this then. "People are not sufficiently scared":
And Ofcom who control the official narrative that we all hear:
You seem to have blind trust in the government don't you, despite them lying to us time and time again. Do you not question all those billions spunked up the wall to mates of the Tories on the various Covid contracts too? Because of Covid innit! You know those billions that if they had been properly invested in our health service instead rather than a failing Test and Trace scheme, could actually make a real difference to people health.
Sure, if those billions had been invested in the NHS 10 years ago, maybe we'd have more capacity now, but we don't have a time machine.
You seem to have blind trust in the government don’t you
Far from it. Perhaps try reading some more of this thread, or just about any non-cycling thread on this forum, and it'll be pretty clear that is far from the case. And how about you contributing more generally to the discussions on this forum, or did you join yesterday just to sow misinformation and bait people as regards this pandemic?
You know those billions that if they had been properly invested in our health service instead rather than a failing Test and Trace scheme, could actually make a real difference to people health.
A good outcome would be a proper debate about future healthcare provision and how it should be changed. That won't help now.
And for the record, some of the decisions made by HMG look awful, hurried and not well thought out.
Just becasue our government are a bunch of spivs who take advantage of every situation to enrich themselves and their mates doesn't mean covid isn't real/dangerous.
Have you considered that maybe not taking it seriously is what "they" want you to believe - dead people don't need their pensions paying afterall, and think of all that juicy inheritence tax they can rake in.
*or you could have drunken deeply of the conspiracy kool aid.
I couldn't possibly comment. Looks like I wasn't quick enough in editing/fixing my post.
A good outcome would be a proper debate about future healthcare provision and how it should be changed.
Absolutely this, plus changes to the pharma industry and regulatory approval are the positives here.
discussions are starting on the future post covid healthcare system.
What POLICIES would the sceptic want to see implemented? It’s easy to throw stones, but I seldom hear what they would want to do? None of that silly “protect the vulnerable” nonsense. What practical decisions are on offer?
1. For the government to communicate with us rationally as adults, not showing us wildly misleading graphs in an attempt to deliberately scare us.
2. For the government to ditch the failed modelling of Prof Neil Ferguson and base instead their policy decisions on the actual data on the ground.
3. Have a simple and easy to understand policy, not forever changing tiers and constant tweaks before we have even allowed the results from the previous tweak to take effect.
4. For the government to have communicated to us all that Covid was no longer classified as a HCID: https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-hcid/ and that the IFR/CFR is no where near what was initially predicted.
5. To bring in restrictions that are measured and lawfully, not trying to circumvent the democratic process of Parliament as they have done.
6. For the government not to suppress or censor the media or alternative opinions from eminent scientists. Instead there should be debate on the alternative opinions which hasn't happened so far.
7. Protection and financial support for those who feel like they are unduly vulnerable or must shield from this, encouraging the rest of us to go to work to support the economy, which in turn will support the NHS. People say this won't work but the current measures don't appear to be protecting the elderly either and come with busting the economy in the process.
8. No locking down of healthy people.
9. To spend the money on failing test and trace systems instead more wisely to support other health initiatives going forward within the NHS and community.
10. To prioritise the lives of the young over the old. There used to be a basis of £30k per QUALY given as a cut off point for treatment. We've gone way, way over that with this.
11. To undertake a proper risk assessment or evaluation of the lives lost, and the impact of social and economic damage being done by lockdowns to see indeed in the cure is worse than the disease. A government minister when questioned last week admitted that this had not even been done, so focused were they on eliminating Covid. Disgraceful.
12. For us to measure the disease properly and be honest with the data. A positive test is not a Case unless it has symptoms too. To be clear on deaths 'with Covid' and 'from Covid'. To openly publish NHS Covid bed occupancy data instead of trying to suppress it.
13. For the government not to sow damaging social discord, blaming kids for killing granny, blaming the public rather than their policies. None of this is healthy.
14. No mandatory masks, 10pm pub curfews, rules of 6 or other equally crazy policies that have no basis in scientific fact and lead to distrust and resentment.
There are more but you get the idea for now.
pondlife - Joined November 18, 2020
You seem to have blind trust in the government don’t you, despite them lying to us time and time again.
LOL...
I’m hardly claiming to be an expert but it would seem “common sense” that a mask dripping with mucus and saliva then placed over a face would be an ideal place for a coronavirus to replicate.
Just a note on this one, from a biological viewpoint. Viruses need cells to replicate. So the virus needs to insert itself into a living cell and take over that cell's normal replication systems. This means that cell stops replicating itself and turns into a virus factory, creating new viruses which eventually burst the cell open and all those new viruses infect the cells around them, and may be carried by the bloodstreams to infect cells all over the body.
So "a mask dripping with mucus and saliva" (which is a lovely image!) would be dripping with the stuff the body makes to passively kill viruses, but wouldn't provide a place for the virus to replicate because it wouldn't contain any living cells.
It would, however, provide a decent medium for bacteria to multiply because they're self-replicating and you just need to give them a food source. So you might get all kinds of smelly and horrible nasties growing in your mask if you don't wash it, but viruses won't be one of them.
The thing i am amazed at is that all of the odd numbers points are actually good ones.
but then a lot of your even numbered ones are horse shit as discussed at length in this thread previously
The thing i am amazed at is that all of the odd numbers points are actually good ones.
but then a lot of your even numbered ones are horse shit as discussed at length in this thread previously
Pretty smart really. Who'll be fooled and drawn in?
Anyone who suggests lockdown doesn't have a massive impact on transmission rates isn't really worth debating with as they are clearly an idiot..
I'm not sure why anyone here is bothering to humour him
Pierre
Just a note on this one, from a biological viewpoint. Viruses need cells to replicate. So the virus needs to insert itself into a living cell and take over that cell’s normal replication systems. This means that cell stops replicating itself and turns into a virus factory, creating new viruses which eventually burst the cell open and all those new viruses infect the cells around them, and may be carried by the bloodstreams to infect cells all over the body.
So “a mask dripping with mucus and saliva” (which is a lovely image!) would be dripping with the stuff the body makes to passively kill viruses, but wouldn’t provide a place for the virus to replicate because it wouldn’t contain any living cells.
Ah, fair enough ... TBH I struggle to keep up with the U turns....
First it was only passed on via touch and masks were useless then that changed.
Then there was the warm and wet objects harbouring the virus or allowing it to remain active
Then there was the asymptomatic people can't spread it
Now it seems masks are only of any use running about outside but not in classrooms.
which is a lovely image!
Well it's pretty yucky but that seems to be the case with people then grabbing the dripping mask to put over their face before getting on public transport or opening doors and smearing mucus over the surfaces.
Regardless of SARS-COV19 it's still a pretty disgusting thing.
None of that silly “protect the vulnerable” nonsense.
But it would be a start. I dispair at the figures for cases in EHPADs in France, retirement homes in the UK, in Sweden, in Germany, in Spain. Lesons weren't learned in the first wave and figures for the second wave are lousy, again.
Then I look at the people around me. Some of Madame's teacher colleagues drove or flew across the country to dump their kids fresh from non-masked crêches/primary schools with grandparents so they coulfd enjoy a kid-free holiday. Our neighbours' parents rocked up to babysit for the school holidays. I see grandparents picking up kids from the local school to take them home for lunch or look after till the parents leave work. All this is legal (some of them would claim essential) but leaves me drop-jawed.
University students can party and get pissed and spread whatever bodily fluid among themselves they feel like and I really don't see the problem, I do see a problem with not taking protecting the vulnerable very seriously because they are the ones that fill the hospitals which is what this is all really about - over full hospitals and understandably rattled staff putting pressure on the media and politicians that forces action. But the wrong action because the government knows which sector of the population applying selective restrictions to will cost them the most votes, the elderly.
To sum up, I can't ride a bike up a deserted mountain on my own but granny can pick the kids from school. Childcare bubbles:
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/new-national-lockdown-childcare-rules-19202879
Lesons weren’t learned in the first wave and figures for the second wave are lousy, again.
They were learnt here. Care homes are far more on top of things now than many were at the start of the pandemic… the result can be seen in two ways… far fewer deaths in care home settings, and the way the media are making hay from the very difficult decisions care homes have had to make to prevent the virus getting in.
But community transmission still matters. The barriers that care homes have erected are not infallible, and the higher prevalence of the virus in the community at large, the greater the chance that the virus will get into any individual care home and take lives.
As for what you can and can’t do Ed… you’re not in the UK (where we can get out on the bike, if not perhaps up a mountain).
There are more but you get the idea for now.
Many of those I have lot of sympathy with. I have always advocated clear and consistent rules and communication that must be explained carefully. See Germany for example. But we have the government the people elected. OK, elected for different times, maybe the country will learn (it won't).
2. For the government to ditch the failed modelling of Prof Neil Ferguson and base instead their policy decisions on the actual data on the ground.
Now about that modelling. It turns out that some of the initial parameters were a little off, but not so far as to be of no use whatsoever. The model, complete with my own statistical (i.e., not assumption-driven) analysis of global epidemics predicted in March that our healthcare (like other countries) would be swamped without intervention. The Imperial model is now well-refined and doing an excellent job of mid-term forward projection (unlike the PHE model of 4000 deaths/day fame) and agrees with non-model based projections. You will also find if you listen to what he actually says, Prof Ferguson is relatively measured in his public comment on policy (unlike many others). And for full information - I used to share an office with him.
13. For the government not to sow damaging social discord, blaming kids for killing granny, blaming the public rather than their policies. None of this is healthy.
This one I have most sympathy with. It is not the young that tend to flout rules. In fact idealism works most strongly and they want to do the right thing. The problem really is that the virus is sufficiently transmissible that unpalatable contact restrictions are largely the only means of effective control. Even modest restrictions that met with relatively high compliance, will still lead to spread. That is not failure, it's the rules. It's a transmissible pathogen with limited immunity.
But the people dying are mostly in their 80’s, most with serious co-morbidities. Why can’t we have a grown up discussion based on the assumption that we all die at some point from one cause or another and what should be the balance of healthcare between people with Covid and people dying because of other reasons.
@pondlife (most appropriate username by the way). So its OK they died as they were sick and were going to die anyway? That's not what the excess death figures are showing us because there has been no undershoot in excess deaths after the April peak. Just because some people have one or more other diseases or conditions that may at some point kill them doesn't mean they don't have years of life ahead of them. If you have living parents have you discussed your position with them to see if they will be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good if they get COVID?
you’re not in the UK
I made a point of using examples that apply to many countries including the UK. Care homes might be doing better than in the first wave, it would be hard to do worse but the lessons really haven't been learned:
https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2020-10-22/care-home-staff-worried-amid-covid-19-second-wave
If you have living parents have you discussed your position with them to see if they will be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good if they get COVID?
I've discussed with my parents, they realise they probably won't get much care at their age and accept the risks of what they get up to. If they were worried about the greater good they'd not have done some of the socialising they've done.
and accept the risks of what they get up to
That's all very well them accepting the risks but by engaging in risky behavior and getting COVID they'll take up an ICU bed that could have been used by someone who followed all the guidelines didn't take risks and still caught COVID. Or will they be refusing ICU?
Believe me, I'm not defending them, uponthedowns. They had my opinion on their socialising straight. As for ICU, if anyone asks me my answer will be "don't" on the basis of the last converstation I had with them, they don't want it. Can they refuse it, legally I mean, can the doctors accept a refusal of themselves or a spouse (or even a son if they both get it)?
Fair enough
I'm glad pondlife has appeared, but I'm more glad TiRed is here.
On a completely unrelated note I'm reminded that farage's latest vehicle is turning ukip in to an anti-lockdown movement. Wonder what Cummings is up to? 🤔
My FiL seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that there's a lockdown.
A conversation earlier went along the lines of 'where are you' - He said at my Girlfriend's daughter's house for the day, waiting for others to po round, then going back to GFs to see her kids, then back to my flat.
He asked - so when are you coming over to see us? our response - we're in a lockdown / were in Tier 3, we can't go anywhere until 2nd December at the earliest - his response - really? I didn't know.
And then he goes on about dutty forinners coming here and not following our rules etc.
TiRed for PM please.
I don't do politics. But Merkel was an accomplished scientist. I believe Alok Sharma is the only scientist in Government (applied Physics from Salford).
As I say, science is uncertain and decisions are made with uncertainty. It helps to get the big ones right. The first lockdown was, unequivocally a right decision. Most sceptics do not question that some form of restriction was needed. One may argue severity and duration, but not need. It was a robust decision not based on 'models' per se. Some form of continued contact restriction is still currently necessary to control spread. Treatments are coming and these will relieve those constraints. I'm working on one myself. Early data from vaccines looks very promising, not least for future vaccines. And the economy will recover, of that I am in no doubt.
I always welcome debate. I'm actually my own harshest critic.
Interesting article in The Guardian - suggestion is that social mixing favours strains that are more virulent, quarantine favours milder strains.
One may argue severity and duration
And... timing.
And timing, indeed.
Thanks Larry and TiRed
I believe Alok Sharma is the only scientist in Government (applied Physics from Salford).
Therese Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry
That’s all very well them accepting the risks but by engaging in risky behavior and getting COVID they’ll take up an ICU bed that could have been used by someone who followed all the guidelines didn’t take risks and still caught COVID. Or will they be refusing ICU?
Ahh that old chestnut. My parents are both elderly and both assume that they are already on borrowed time. They are grateful for any time they have left and certainly don't wish to spend this time shut away from society, friends, family and the things that make life worthwhile etc. For this reason we will all be getting together at Xmas regardless of whatever rules are in place or not.
I couldn't care less to be honest if you are scared of Covid-19. Your fairly irrational fear should not selfishly dictate whether or not my parents enjoy their final years or not. And your fear is pretty irrational being as Covid has a lower death rate than the flu for anyone under the age of 65.
These needless lockdowns and restrictions place terrible burdens on businesses, the poor and the young. Our economy is being crippled and unless we act fast there won't be much money for the NHS going forward - we've spunked it all up the wall on our Covid obsession incase you hadn't noticed. Your obsession with Covid will have a direct impact on someone else treatment for something else in the future. I'm assuming you're fine with that?
This seems appropriate:
I couldn’t care less to be honest if you are scared of Covid-19.
How obvious does the trolling need to be?
I think @pondlife is a previous forum member hiding behind a new yet apposite sobriquet
This seems appropriate:
It does a good job of illustrating you dont understand what the lockdown is for
These needless lockdowns and restrictions place terrible burdens on businesses, the poor and the young
Needless is pejorative. How would you define it? If you mean remove all restrictions, I'd say that was reckless. If you said introduce measures of control that avoid the tsunami of hospital admissions (and I don't mean the first wave, but the continued surge that follows), what sort of restriction?
In regions with only Tier 1 restrictions (South East, South West), hospital admissions with symptomatic COVID (the disease), confirmed subsequently by testing, have been doubling every week-to-10 days. Slower than in April, and from reasonably low numbers. But double they have. These numbers have been predicted by multiple independent data streams (ONS, REACT, ZOE...)
When would you like them to act to slow them down? When bed occupancy is at 50% COVID? 75% COVID? 90% COVID? Those are patients that require attention not just "positive cases" from some testdemic, often needing a bed and passive oxygen, some require the ITU. About 1/5 will die. Only about 10% have comorbidities. Bare in mind that the supply of oncology patients, CV and dementia is still constant.
This is not influenza, and deaths are not the whole story. Right at this moment people are making decisions based on the above facts.
What's your plan?
I'm not scared of Covid and may well have had it unless I had something a lot like it in the first week of lockdown 1 which has left me with asthma many time worse than it was. Madame is a teacher so we we're both in uncomfortable proximity with the virus.
What does worry me is the damage to society that you outline in the rest of your post, Pondlife. where I differ is that on a personal level I'll do all I can to not contribute to the problem and that means keeping folk out of hospital so the government doen't need to take any more severe measures and can hopefully reopen the economy at the end of the month. That means not exposing my parents or other vulnerable people to risk.
Madame stopped going to her kep fit class not through fear of the virus but because it would have been ****ing anti-social to go from a classroom of kids to a room full of ageing ladies and gentlemen. Why the ageing ladies and gentlemen thought it was still a good idea to be there I have no idea. Non essential, no contribution to the economy... .