Forum menu
But it has been reported that the vaccination is effective agains those strains.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you..
But UK all cause mortality is now below average for the time of year? So where is the pandemic
Suppressed because we've been in lockdown. Wish you'd stop this.
Whilst not so extreme in my demands I see where you are coming from curlywhirly on the restrictions front. Today's rate is 37/100 000. The pressure on hospitals is no longer a limiting factor it's time to start lifting restrictions. but how far do you go?
Some restrictions cost nothing and cause no economic pain. So keep masking the kids in school, especially as they aren't vaccinated. Mask wearing in public transport ditto, and mask wearing indoors. Home working, keep that up where possible.
Then there are the economically damaging restrictions, I think that's the place to start a progressive opening up. But with new and hopefully temporary restrctions. You want to go to the cinema, fine, wear a mask. You want to travel within the UK, fine. You want invite 50 people to your wedding, fine, but everything is done outside, rain or shine.
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Putting venous blood clots into perspective<br><br>Astra-Oxford vaccine risk = 4 people in a million <br><br>Women taking combined contraceptive pill risk = 5 to 12 per 10,000 per year<br><br>Women not using pill=2 cases per 10,000 per year@SusanMichie @chrischirp @hssood @NikkiKF @PHE_uk @rcgp</p>— Kamlesh Khunti (@kamleshkhunti) April 9, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But it has been reported that the vaccination is effective agains those strains.
Pretty sure that all the reports say that it is less effective against those strains, though still some effectiveness.
No one is disputing the economic damage of lockdown. But dead and seriously ill people are pretty bad for the economy too. And Delhi has succinctly summed up the all cause mortality. If you do less, fewer people die in the process.
I'm assuming from some of curlywurlys comments you are US based?
I’m assuming from some of curlywurlys comments you are US based?
No, from Devon actually.
And the madness continues. So it costs between £600m and £800m to build a major new hospital. The government pledge to supply the UK population with 2 tests per week will cost £1b per week. Could we all have a think about that for a second?
Could we all have a think about that for a second?
Its pretty obvious - Dido Harding won't get a Knighthood if a new hospital is built, so what's the point eh?
Does anyone look at the actual data anymore?
I've looked at it but I don't understand it. Can you explain the data in your chart from earlier please?
So it costs between £600m and £800m to build a major new hospital. The government pledge to supply the UK population with 2 tests per week will cost £1b per week. Could we all have a think about that for a second?
option A takes probably the best part of a decade, and does that cost include the subsequent increase in doctors, nurses and other staff to run it?
option B a short term solution to the current short term problem. 100bn spent on furlough, if we can end that quicker at the cost of 1bn a week, then I'm all for it.
It would be nice to see confidence intervals and sample sizes (number vaccinated per age group)
When the numbers are this big, you don't really need the confidence intervals for proportion vaccinated. Confidence interval for incidence of thrombotic events is another matter.
Meanwhile, effective measures that should have been taken last year, such as prioritising our resources into the protection for the elderly and vulnerable, were not.
We fail at this annually for influenza. When an even larger hazard appears, why would we expect to me even MORE successful? Lockdown has the desired effect on force of infection in a relatively naive population. Hence relaxation led to a second wave which was brought under control by three months of intervention (95% reduction in cases, admissions and soon to be deaths). THE big question is whether the vaccination will control future spread once we unlock again. Models predict an increase in epidemic, likely smaller than the wave that just passed.
Dido Harding won’t get a Knighthood
Made me laugh anyway 😉 She's got one (well the equivalent), and I doubt she'll want the surgery. Nor am I sure of the precedent.
Does anyone look at the actual data anymore?
Yes of course. Currently mono-exponential declines across the board. Slight stabilizing of cases at the moment. Deaths fell faster than in the first wave. That may be partly explained by vaccination.
Hence relaxation led to a second wave which was brought under control by three months of intervention (95% reduction in cases, admissions and soon to be deaths)
What caused the waves and reduction in cases in those countries that did not lock down or have vaccines?
in those countries that did not lock down?
such as ?
Pretty sure that all the reports say that it is less effective against those strains, though still some effectiveness.
Absolutely, but far from as effective as against the current uk strains according to all the reports I've read
Hopefully he's read some fascinating insight into its effectiveness against the South African variant in the Devon Gazette..
I won't hold my breath however ...
Find me a country with zero restriction in movement to compare. What caused the resurgence in the UK (despite skeptic calls that the epidemic was over), complete with dip prior to Christmas from the Nov 4 lockdown, followed by a subsequent peak in cases a week after the third lockdown? The timing of interventions and expected changes in cases, admissions and deaths is now causally well established (and why we have a five-week decision cycle). The debate has shifted from "do they have an effect" to "whether such interventions are worth it".
@TiRed -
Confidence interval for incidence of thrombotic events is another matter
That was what i was getting at. Given a presumably low number of people under 50 having been vaccinated, I would have thought the confidence intervals on incidence of thrombotic events would be pretty large? Is that information presented anywhere?
Can you not see how the goal posts keep moving,
Would these be the goal post Boris concrete into the ground despite saying he wouldn't do.
effective measures that should have been taken last year, such as prioritising our resources into the protection for the elderly and vulnerable, were not.
Water under the bridge, can't go back in time, don't see how what happened last year is relevant to the route out if restrictions.
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media
You actually wrote that! Last defence of a conspiracy nut is to claim they have the inside track on knowledge everyone else has missed.Lockdowns worked, infection rates came down. And you're from Devon, one of the least affected areas in terms of infection, unfortunately many parts of the country are a lot more urban and have had much higher infection rates, that's straight from the data, not the main stream media or even social media.
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media for our news have realised that all lockdowns are was a dramatic and panicked public response designed to convince the electorate that our governments were acting decisively to address the perceived threat of Covid-19.
Water under the bridge, can’t go back in time, don’t see how what happened last year is relevant to the route out if restrictions.
To a point, but if we don't learn from past mistakes we will keep repeating them. On our third lockdown now aren't we?
Some of us who look outside the mainstream media
know that the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked, the lizard people at the centre of the earth are controlling everything, and the virus both doesn't exist and was made in a CIA lab in China.
Doc's just phoned, AZ 19:00 this evening. Time to put my arm where my mouth is. 🙂
The vaccines work with more efficacy than was ever dreamed possible. So I fail to see what the problem is?
Long covid for one thing. An estimated 1.1 million people of all ages with it right now. Horrendous debilitating symptoms. No treatments. No idea of how long it will last. No current evidence on whether vaccination prevents it.
Find me a country with zero restriction in movement to compare. What caused the resurgence in the UK (despite skeptic calls that the epidemic was over), complete with dip prior to Christmas from the Nov 4 lockdown, followed by a subsequent peak in cases a week after the third lockdown? The timing of interventions and expected changes in cases, admissions and deaths is now causally well established (and why we have a five-week decision cycle). The debate has shifted from “do they have an effect” to “whether such interventions are worth it”.
It should not be up to people who think lockdowns don't work to prove anything. More the burden of proof should be on the protagonists of lockdown, since they are the ones in charge of the nation and they are the ones dictating the measures. The lockdown proposers need to justify why they work, with risk and impact statements to prove why it is the best cause of action. So far I have seen no evidence that they work, baring some mild correlation which does not always bear out when you look at other nations.
Are you aware of any risk or impact assessments that have been made by the government to try and quantify the harms caused by lockdown? If you are then please share these because I haven't seen any.
Lockdowns are a big and unproven experiment which we are all subject to. And without a comprehensive risk assessment or impact assessment having been carried out, then they should probably be considered negligent in the extreme. Particularly when the first principle of medicine is "first - do no harm".
But in answer to your point, Sweden have maintained a fairly constant and sustainable level of mild restrictions throughout this crisis. They did make the same mistake with care home residents we did in the UK, but regardless of their success or otherwise, which is a separate debate, their Covid journey has had similar peaks and troughs to the UK, the first peak declining without imposing a strict lockdown like we did in the UK.
So why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
Long covid for one thing. An estimated 1.1 million people of all ages with it right now. Horrendous debilitating symptoms. No treatments. No idea of how long it will last. No current evidence on whether vaccination prevents it.
You mean what commonly used to be called 'post viral fatigue' with many other serious viruses until it was renamed for Covid to generate that extra fear factor?
I had something similar with Glandular Fever. Strange symptoms, constantly knackered and unable to concentrate on work, not nice, lasted around 18 months before I felt properly right again.
, I would have thought the confidence intervals on incidence of thrombotic events would be pretty large?
Assuming a Poisson distribution, then the standard deviation is the square root of the number. So 100 cases would have an interval of about 60 to 140. Rare events always carry uncertainty.
More the burden of proof should be on the protagonists of lockdown
We've had three so far. After two cases rose again. After the third, there is an expectation that vaccination will have imparted sufficient immunity so as not to see a third surge.
We are not Sweden. We do not have the healthcare of Sweden. Why not choose Brazil? Or Mexico? For reference, probably our closest country statistically is France. Edukator knows exactly how things are looking in France - about the same as UK three months ago.
Air-borne viruses transmit more in stagnant damp air. In dry air the droplets contining the virus dry (the water droplet changes phase) and the virus loses its transport medium. That's why flu and colds are seasonal. Much has been made of the regional diffferences here in France. I'm happy to live in one of the least affected areas, the SW, which hasn't seen the third wave, it's an area that enjoys mild and relatively dry Winters. However the second wave which happened during our Autumn "monsoon" period filled the local hospitals fast. So the Swedish Spring decline can be put down to the weather - nad th emeasures they did take which weren't insignificant.
Edit: I confirm France is where the UK was a couple of months back, TiRed but it's very regional, Brittany and the SW have barely felt the third wave.
measures they did take which weren’t insignificant
Like closing schools.
We’ve had three so far. After two cases rose again. After the third, there is an expectation that vaccination will have imparted sufficient immunity so as not to see a third surge.
That is correlation, not causation and can be discredited by comparing to the curves in other countries with different measures in place.
We are not Sweden. We do not have the healthcare of Sweden. Why not choose Brazil? Or Mexico? For reference, probably our closest country statistically is France. Edukator knows exactly how things are looking in France – about the same as UK three months ago.
I doesn't matter whether we are Sweden or not, or or any other country for that matter. The facts are that many nations or regions have had their Covid cases reduce without lockdowns or other significant restrictions in place. Therefore I would be grateful if you could just answer the questions relating to this since it is material to your point, namely:
Why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
Incidentally Sweden have less hospital beds than the UK per capita. I am sure there are other variations but this disproves the point you made about capacity to some extent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds
Even Macron has had to accept closing schools aften holding out as long as possible. Four days before the school holidays and five days after. Hopefully by then things will be under control again. Teaching windows open and masks on has kept classroom transmission down but the problem has been the canteens. The kids have to take the masks off to eat. In Madame's schol the head put up a big tent outside to feed some of the kids and spread luchtime over a longer period. Inner city schools didn't have the space to do that.
Like closing schools.
Not during the first wave they didn't yet cases declined in Sweden with their schools open at a similar rate to the UK with all of our schools shut. No masks either.
School closures during the Sweden second wave came about because of international and media pressure and it was only high schools that closed. Primary have been open throughout. Again no masks.
Seems some people have been mis-informed!
Analysis of latest imperial REACT data shows some evidence of flattening of prevalence. I fit an exponential polynomial through four contiguous surveys. This and ONS missed the peak in January.
EDIT - postimage seems to be borked. But there is not a lot to see. Yet...
Wouldn't waste your time on this thread, all reason went out of the window months ago.
Seems some people have been mis-informed!
Well, you’re trying to misinform us. Deliberately. Sweden moved all older children to distance learning in March 2020.
Anyway, we’ve covered Sweden 2020 in great depth already in this thread, often when engaging with new accounts created to troll on this subject, just like yours. We shouldn’t bother doing it all again to entertain you, and I have no idea why your new account is still active.
Incidentally Sweden have less hospital beds than the UK per capita. I am sure there are other variations but this disproves the point you made about capacity to some extent:
And yet spends significantly more per capita on healthcare, has far lower rates of obesity, higher life expectancy and a massively lower population density.
There are lots of reasons why any point about how well/badly Sweden has done compared to us need to be qualified or treated with caution. In health terms, you are comparing apples with a bag of chips.
Casting around for any reason to argue against lockdown is fine, but there is clear evidence that the introduction of lockdown here made a difference in terms of case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths. The Great Barrington stuff is beyond ridicule now, most of its proponents were saying in November that the pandemic was basically over in the UK.
There are lots of reasons why any point about how well/badly Sweden has done compared to us need to be qualified or treated with caution. In health terms, you are comparing apples with a bag of chips.
I am not arguing how badly or not Sweden have done (although they have done better than us here in the UK). What I am asking is for someone to justify the following:
So why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
So far I've not seen a convincing argument made by anyone. The only response when things start to get 'hot' for those promoting lockdown is to either resort to nit-picking, pointing out very slight differences that amount to very little, or they resort to slander. Instead of offering evidence or data they resort to calling people trolls or conspiracy theorists, or suggesting that people with the 'wrong opinion' get removed from the forum, as can be seen in Kelvin's post above.
I mean why would you resort to this sort of response if you think your argument is not in danger of being holed below the waterline?
People, including someone from Sweden, have tried to explain to you that measures were taken, that life did change.
I think you need to go back to the last page and read my post on air-borne virus transmission in dy and damp air, curlywhirly. many countires di better in the Spring and it was generally due to a combination of measures taken by gouvernements and drier, milder air.
The return to school resurgence of air-borne disease is a classic. Colder weather, damper air and people bundle back into the incubators that are school classrooms and work places. In France they show maps of how the seasonal flu is progressing on the news.
@curlywhirly, instead of keep asking questions please can you answer mine from several hours ago, now requested 3 further times.
And as for only those proposing lockdowns need to provide evidence for it - just no. You can't throw out a theory with no explanation and walk away (rather you can but some would suggest there's a specific term for it)
"but Sweden" is so last year
So, we are exporting vaccines now…
What happened to that exclusivity agreement for UK produced AZ/Oxford doses?
you can see here that movement of people in Stockholm decreased massively in the first wave, down to about 30% of normal
https://citymapper.com/cmi/stockholm
of course that was not enough to stop transmission and they had a much higher death rate than other nordics with similar demographics (tho sweden had an inbuilt advantage with lowest housing occupancy in Europe)
https://citymapper.com/cmi/copenhagen
Curly, the comparison with Sweden isn’t ideal. I’ve lived there and they’re not like us. Personal space, geographical space, self-control, etc.
Surely the lockdown argument is moot now that we’re about to exit our last one. Shops reopening on Monday here in Wales.
If they don’t work, we’ll see cases shoot up, no?
So, we are exporting vaccines now…
What happened to that exclusivity agreement for UK produced AZ/Oxford doses?
And why not do this if the aim is to save lives? No one over the age of 50 in the UK needs a vaccine to feel safe so best to send them somewhere else where they can be put to good use vaccinating the old and vulnerable. Can't understand why this is a problem for you?
Curly, the comparison with Sweden isn’t ideal. I’ve lived there and they’re not like us. Personal space, geographical space, self-control, etc.
Actually Sweden has a higher urban population percentage than the UK.
you can see here that movement of people in Stockholm decreased massively in the first wave, down to about 30% of normal
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
Surely the lockdown argument is moot now that we’re about to exit our last one. Shops reopening on Monday here in Wales.
It is not moot at all. We are only now starting to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of collateral damage that has been caused by lockdown. We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again.
Over-reaction. Really? It looked like a rabbit staring into the headlights and sitting there through January and February of last year. Go back to the start of this thread and read it.
We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again.
Who's the WE in that sentence? FWIW, as a front line health worker, I'd rather not have infected people coming to the surgery and coughing over all my staff, thanks all the same. I'd rather you stayed at home
Get yourself vaccinated, and get on with your life. make sure you don't make anyone else life worse by your actions.
It should not be up to people who think lockdowns don’t work to prove anything.
Qualified experts on here have patiently with evidence why and how lockdowns, for all their flaws, have worked.
Over to you now. Explain, with evidence, what the better alternative would have been. Because all you've come up with so far has been busted
curlywhirly - you really can't compare 'long covid' to CFS.
There are of course similarities as to your life being put on hold. However with Long covid there are real problems relating to organ failure, risk of a stroke at anytime, maybe long term damage to health for ever.
With cfs, it's more a case of one being unable to do everyday things. Some people end up in a wheelchair, some will be lucky enough to get a mild case and almost carry on some form of life.
Having had cfs for 5 years when I was younger and a now friend with 'long covid' there really is a huge difference.
The only hope is that the people with long covid can recover in time as is often the case with cfs.
Joe Pud - I do have a heart thanks very much. Love for my family, friends (especially my closest, who has spent the last year plus, working a hospital in conditions, I hope you never find yourself in).
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
Whether you are locked down because the government mandates it, or you stay away from others because you have a brain, the end result in terms of isolation is the same.
We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again
OK I'll ask my usual question when someone comes up with this. How many dead bodies per day are you prepared to accept by not locking down? Going by past lockdowns the government's figure is somewhere between 50 and 500, I'd be interested to know what yours is.
There's some things I still don't understand.
If I understand your theory, it's that lockdowns have had no impact on controlling the virus, and the waves of cases and deaths and the subsequent reductions are coincidental with the lockdown and opening up? Many, myself included find this not credible, but it's your theory so let's go with it.
In support of your theory you presented a graph that showed there was no correlation (even an inverse correlation?) between 'lockdown severity' (still waiting for you explanation of that metric) and deaths.
Why do you think that so many Governments and Health Agencies have made the same mistake and got it wrong then? Or - is it no mistake and instead there's a reason why they have taken us down this path?
What do you need to see coming out of this UK lockdown that would change your mind? From my side; I expect cases to rise but at a lower rate due to the combined impacts of weather/season, vaccination, etc., but I expect there to be a rise. I also hope that the case numbers to hospitalizations to death linkage is reduced by the preferable protection of the vulnerable in the vaccination program.
BTW - I agree absolutely that the impact on the economy, mental health, future poverty and life chances is going to be horrendous and I have advocated for opening up of schools in particular whilst knowing there is a risk/cost to that. So I'm not against the same outcomes as you, I just don't follow the same reasoning.
Saying things as they are:
Even if the headline is loaded.
First jab for me today a few days ahead of the official start of over 60s here on 16/4. I could have waited a few weeks for pfizer or Moderna but if someone of my age isn't going to accept AZ who is? Second jab 11/6.
Well done. Someone across the channel may as well make use of it.
I could have waited a few weeks for pfizer or Moderna
Is that actually an option? You get to pick and choose?
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
So you ignored the servings part of my past that showed how much worss they did han similar demographic neighbours
OK I’ll ask my usual question when someone comes up with this. How many dead bodies per day are you prepared to accept by not locking down? Going by past lockdowns the government’s figure is somewhere between 50 and 500, I’d be interested to know what yours is.
Firstly you are assuming that lockdowns save lives which is a point that has now been thrown into question when you look at the real data from around the world.
I would also argue that over the next 5-10 years that lockdown, through an increase in poverty and damage to the economy, will cut short way more lives than even the strongest of lockdown protagonists will claim had ever been saved by lockdown. As we should all know, the health of the nation and its economy are intrinsically linked. No country in history ever improved the health of its population by making itself poorer.
But anyway since you asked for the number I refer you to the UK Government pandemic planning which plans for deaths of up to 750,000. No mention of lockdowns or of quarantine for the healthy in here that I can see. So there you go, there is your number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pandemic-flu
So you ignored the servings part of my past that showed how much worss they did han similar demographic neighbours
I have already explained that rather than selecting individual countries to fit our chosen argument, in a global pandemic we need to take a global view, looking at all countries to see how the many factors that affect outcome could possibly be interplaying. If you look globally there is no clear correlation between lockdown stringency and the deaths per million from Covid. Therefore it would imply that there are many other factors that might be influencing outcomes, not necessarily whether a country locked down hard or not. If lockdown is indeed a factor in influencing outcome then the data would suggest it is a very small factor, and almost certainly the longer term damage caused by lockdown will far exceed any short term benefits it may bring.
Why do you think that so many Governments and Health Agencies have made the same mistake and got it wrong then? Or – is it no mistake and instead there’s a reason why they have taken us down this path?
Panic and the need to be seen to be doing something. Possibly following misleading information from China. Pressure from the media following the Italy hospital photos. Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests. Basically a contagious herd mentality amongst Western nations. As the famous quote goes:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Originally we though the IFR of Covid-19 was in the region of 3.5%, and that everyone was susceptible, therefore we can perhaps forgive the panic motivated first few weeks of lockdown.
Very quickly however we knew that the actual IFR was in the region of ten times less than we first thought, that the vulnerable were the elderly, and that there was very little risk to healthy people of working age, yet the inexcusable mystery is why we continued with damaging lockdown policy without an impact assessment being carried out, and even when we knew that this disease was not what we first thought it was.
What do you need to see coming out of this UK lockdown that would change your mind? From my side; I expect cases to rise but at a lower rate due to the combined impacts of weather/season, vaccination, etc., but I expect there to be a rise. I also hope that the case numbers to hospitalizations to death linkage is reduced by the preferable protection of the vulnerable in the vaccination program.
There is nothing that would change my mind. It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve. The cure is far worse than the disease if you like. And if you can't see this now then I suggest that in due course you probably will, or you are most likely currently living in a bubble or are in some way insulated somewhat from the most serious effects.
Covid-19 is here to stay in some form. We can either put aside our irrational fear and just learn to live normally with it, or we can carry on hobbling ourselves with crazy restrictions like masks and passports and testing of healthy people or some of the other ridiculous and over the top measures that actually cost a lot of taxpayers money, hurt the poorest in society the most, but yet have achieved very little.
Never again should our country or its law abiding citizens be held to ransom by the threat of panicked and badly thought out and over the top regulations, dreamt up by computer modellers, and put into place in an un-democratic fashion, circumventing due parliamentary process, at the whim of our increasingly authoritarian government ministers and their select few scientists. This is not how democracy works.
Never again should scientific debate or journalists, reasonably seeking to question the path we are following be censored, shut down or smeared. This is not how science works.
Never again should people be denied the right to be with the ones they love in their hour of greatest need. This is not how human nature works.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
You've yet to prove this
Covid-19 is here to stay in some form.
That's right and it's accepted that we'll live with it like flu, managed through provision of vaccines and therapies, likely targeted at the vulnerable only in the future and accepted that some will die.
Long covid might be a factor in deciding who gets vaccinated regularly as well once we understand it more but at the moment we're in beta testing.
Prior to that we had no scientific mitigation, we've seen what happens when restrictions are lifted without vaccines three times, you're just choosing to ignore that blatant fact.
Now we're in a different testing scenario and time will tell what the outcome is from lifting restrictions.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
I wouldn't go that far as case numbers, admissions, and deaths have clearly fallen. Anecdotally I heard a psychologist call lockdowns the "bluntest tool" we can use to stop the spread of a virus. However the social impact of lockdowns wont be felt for a while. It will take time to see the impact its had on school kids, peoples mental health, social mobility and even the economy. Its too soon to say lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve but there will be some fall out.
You should read your own article link curlywhirly:
Scientific modelling estimates that the UK could experience up to 750,000 additional deaths over the course of a pandemic. These figures might be expected to be reduced by the impact of countermeasures, but the effectiveness of such mitigation is not certain. The combination of particularly high attack rates and severe disease, resulting in this deaths figure, is also relatively (but unquantifiably) improbable.
Taking account of this, and the practicality of different levels of response, when planning for excess deaths, local planners have been set the target of preparing to extend capacity on a precautionary but reasonably practicable basis, and aim to cope with a population mortality rate of up to 210,000 to 315,000 additional deaths, possibly over as little as a 15 week period and perhaps half of these over 3 weeks at the height of the outbreak
So less than half of your clickbait attempt of 750,000. You do know when you make assumptions and post questionable evidential data it only serves to lessen your already pretty weak stance, right?
You also state no mention of countermeasures, read the first paragraph... so as much as it’s a bit galling to talk about “targets” when we are referring to friends and colleagues deaths, fwiw UK.gov is way above the target stated here with c19, deliberately or as we’d probably all acknowledge accidentally.
@curlywhirly thanks for your answers. Please ignore any abuse, you are IMHO better than the obvious trolls on here as you clearly have an opinion/theory that you are prepared to explain and defend. I see some truths in your position, eg: that there is a cost to lockdown that needs measurement against the benefits of lockdowns, but I still think you're wrong in the extent of that. Data will show, and in time maybe we will learn we should have responded differently. One thing's for sure, I can't wait to get 'back to normal' so we can learn the lessons from it.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
I don't think it is yet.
You have referred, indirectly to this (I assume the graph you posted a day or so ago), in the answers you gave above:
"rather than selecting individual countries to fit our chosen argument, in a global pandemic we need to take a global view,
"Firstly you are assuming that lockdowns save lives which is a point that has now been thrown into question when you look at the real data from around the world.
- and then while you have cut and pasted specific questions from my post you still haven't answered one that I have asked several times now.
I'll make it easy, and repost here so you can see it.
Your graph:
My questions
what is the definition of 'average lockdown severity index'? I can't understand the chart without, and can't understand a graph where eg: Brazil is considered to have a more severe policy than the UK?
how do you consider an average / single number is truly representative when the data seems to suggest that infections rise and fall 'periodically' (me: in line with restrictions / opening up; you: you say this is coincidental and it's other factors)
A new question related to the one immediately before. We essentially have similar weather and seasonality to NEU, why are the UK's waves out of sync with eg: France if the cause is other, eg: environmental rather than 'man made'
and secondly - keeping this apart as I think this is substantially more contentious. As reasons for why the majority of nations have responded as they have, you said:
Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests.
Can you explain this further please? Who do you think they are and what are their vested interests?
Are any doctors on today?
I’ve been vaccinating for the last few days with AZ at my local pharmacy - obviously lots of questions about clots. Our advice has been any strong persistent headache seek immediate medical help.
Could someone explain to me the treatment for cvst and how successful swift treatment could be.
Would patients reporting symptoms be taken seriously?
Possibly too seriously based on this report
Of course; can't be 'too' careful but (IANAD) seems like headache is a common and unconcerning side-effect, but the list of effects for the CVST (from EMA, but I'm sure elsewhere) are:
Patients should seek medical assistance immediately if they have the following symptoms
- shortness of breath
- chest pain
- swelling in your leg
- persistent abdominal (belly) pain
- neurological symptoms, including severe and persistent headaches or blurred vision
- tiny blood spots under the skin beyond the site of injection
Member of my family has just been admitted to hospital with a blood clot on the lung following an AZ vaccine.
Risk factor appears to be recent surgery. Female, mid 40s.
Statistics aside I can understand why people are panicking about 'mild' symptoms, these are not normal times and a lot of people are a headache away from full on panic.
Can anyone tell me what travels further Covid aerosols or perfume aerosols?
If I can smell a strangers perfume are they too close? Non stalker question but I have recently been over powered by perfume when passing walkers outside. Maybe my nose sensors have been locked down too long?
or we can carry on hobbling ourselves with crazy restrictions like masks
So you think helping to prevent the transmission of a disease with something as simple and convenient and cheap as a mask is crazy? how is something like that hobbling anyone?
Could someone explain to me the treatment for cvst and how successful swift treatment could be.
Would patients reporting symptoms be taken seriously?
Blood thinners probably, and depends on how quickly you seek help. and yes currently you'd be taken extremely seriously
Can anyone tell me what travels further Covid aerosols or perfume aerosols?
I know what you mean but I don't think the two are comparable, perfumes contain volatile small molecules that evaporate and are essentially gases when you smell them.
Aerosol particles are liquids and fall to the ground. Air currents will carry them around (how far depends on size) but they're fighting against gravity and losing.
So perfumes will generally travel further, but you're not comparing like with like.
thanks theotherjonv I will stop holding my breath!
Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests.
Seems unlikely to me that a group of wildly divergent countries across the world would willingly choose to trash their economies.
It's a cabal of tech companies promoting lockdowns to sell more teams / zoom / internets licenses
So you think helping to prevent the transmission of a disease with something as simple and convenient and cheap as a mask is crazy? how is something like that hobbling anyone?
Many people find masks uncomfortable, they are a visual sign that prolongs the fear, they do not allow effective communication since as we all know, 90% of communication is non verbal. My 16 year old nephew who is mostly deaf has particularly struggled throughout this, not being able to see the usual facial expressions etc. Are these invalid points perhaps?
I am yet to see any credible evidence as to the effectiveness of wearing a mask in relation to viral transmission, such is the tiny size of viral particles. Can't remember who but have heard one respiratory doctor say that wearing a mask for a virus is like trying to catch a grain of sand in a football net.
The data is so far pretty inconclusive as to any benefits. I am afraid that it is just is not good enough to say 'well we think there could be some benefit' because under medical ethics code, when prescribing any medical intervention, a doctor needs to know that there is a good chance that it will work.
We have so far spent the best part of $166 billion on masks during the 2020 period, a good proportion of which now lay littered in hedgerows or are slowly killing marine life in the ocean. Think of the actual good we could have achieved with that money if we'd invested it in other areas of healthcare? Crazy does not even begin to describe the utter lunacy and short sightedness of this!
Still, if that doesn't worry you then this should:
https://twitter.com/wef/status/1379720605235175433
A smart mask that the government can check to see if you are being a good boy and wearing. What on earth have we stooped to as a society if this is the new normal? Still, I await the accusations of being a conspiracy theorist!
It’s a cabal of [s] tech companies[/s] lizards promoting lockdowns to sell more teams / zoom / internets licenses
FTFY
Many people find masks uncomfortable,
ah, diddums Sorry, but really who cares.
they are a visual sign that prolongs the fear,
now you're really straying into the realms of psycho-babble. There's no sensible evidence that folk are being traumatised because they have to wear a mask, (it's pretty common in SE Asia after all)
they do not allow effective communication since as we all know, 90% of communication is non verbal.
again, you state this like it's a fact, when you're just guessing.
I am yet to see any credible evidence as to the effectiveness of wearing a mask in relation to viral transmission
Here's just the first one I googled The evidence is all around you, you just have to look, and it's certainly better quality that that meaningless graph you posted
You've clearly made up your mind, and arguing on the internet never changed anyone's opinion. I hope you make good decisions that don't effect the people around you, and wish you good luck.