Forum menu
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... .
TiRed has been invaluable in the understanding he has brought to this thread, and in the measured way he has calmed people down, no matter what their views and information sources. He should not have to put up with a troll, who made a new account purely to troll people about this subject, accusing him of scaremongering to try and get a rise out of him.
There is a reason why we were not overwhelmed in the Spring, and some cancer patients will sadly now be less well treated as a consequence.
What. Is. Your. Plan? My best friend really wants to know. Why? Because she is triaging the arrivals with hypoxia at the Royal Berkshire this evening. And they aren't all frail old people with comorbidities. They are you and I. This is not, I am afraid scaremongering. Hospitals have been filling at a rapid rate with patients presenting with hypoxia (I deliberately do NOT count test results here - admissions are based on symptoms). The Nightingales are a distraction for when things are so bad we have nowhere to put the bodies. There is no fancy modelling involved in that simple projection. None, it's data-driven.
Somebody in the NHS has the job of ordering body bags. How many extra will be required over the winter? I am on record as stating 30k with appropriate control measures (a bad flu year). How many would you like without such measures? Sorry to be blunt, but decisions are required. I don't do scaremongering, just facts.
I would argue if that is the case, that the NHS and the people who run and advise it are not fit for purpose.
Well it seems we agree on something. But that won't help with that order.
He should not have to put up with a troll, who made a new account purely to troll people about this subject, accusing him of scaremongering.
It helps clarify the arguments. Sceptical points are always welcome, but one has to make decisions based on available information and valid methods of inference. I don't normally like being so blunt, but that is the situation we find ourselves in.
The hospitals were not overwhelmed with the first wave
With a lot of colleagues who worked in ITU during the 1st wave, I'd really like you to say that to their faces so you could see their response
The hospitals weren't overwhelmed because they cancelled operations that would arguably been better use of beds. A relative had to drive to Malaga to get cancer treatment because the NHS had put treatment on hold to free off resources for Covid. A 50 year old cancer patient lost a bed to an elderly patient with Covid because the elderly paient was in immediate risk of death whereas it was considered that delaying the treatment to my relative would only increase risk of death. Happily the Spanish health service had different priorities.
Edit to reply to Kimbers. Officially pondlife is right:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-and-other-professional-bodies-response-to-sunday-times/
Edukator
and may well have had it unless I had something a lot like it in the first week of lockdown 1
I think you can find out or was told so.
I understood pharmacies in France have a test you can get.