# How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?



## Spectric

The obvious is too little to late, missed opportunities and shambolic. Is this the fault of this government, no it would have been the same with any government because the way the system is setup. 

First mistake, forgetting we are an island nation and not slamming the borders shut as soon as the virus was on the horizon. 

Next mistake, being caught with your pants down. Having gone through other issues like F&M, birdflu etc etc the chances of a human virus were high and even Mr Gates pre warned the planet yet the stockpile of PPE for medical staff and carers was rock bottom, too much cost cutting or just ignorance?

Then too many cooks in the kitchen, complicated lines of command and not understandng the public. Result confusion, wrong advice and to little enforcement so the public become lost sheep. Then all the sillyness like if you are shielding then your partner can still go too work and bring the virus home.

Lastly there is a vacine and they drag there heels, to much talking and not enough action. Why not setup an NHS shop on Amazon and let the doctors and such order vacines on Amazon, their distribution and logistics are good and they would have been injecting the next day.


----------



## pe2dave

2/10?
See NZ for how it should be done


----------



## Rorschach

0/10 but unlikely for the same reasons as you.


----------



## Trainee neophyte




----------



## Stanleymonkey

Dreadful, completely inept. 

The mess they made of the schools this week was shocking.


----------



## PerryGunn

I don't think there have been obvious 'right' answers to the pandemic, as evidenced by the number of different strategies that have been tried worldwide.

It's very easy to look at everything that's happend with the benefit of hindsight and say '_They should have done this_', '_Couldn't they see that..._' or '_If only they'd <insert option here> before <something>_' but I don't think that any alternative UK government would have handled things any better given the information that they had at the time. 

I'm just thankful that I'm not one of the people who had/have to make the decisions that try to walk the tightrope between too many deaths and severe economic damage.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> 0/10 but unlikely for the same reasons as you.


No doubt you still think lockdowns aren't necessary.
And Covid is no worse than flu


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> No doubt you still think lockdowns aren't necessary.
> And Covid is no worse than flu



Throwing out the line but the fish ain't biting today


----------



## RobinBHM

Spectric said:


> The obvious is too little to late, missed opportunities and shambolic. Is this the fault of this government, no it would have been the same with any government because the way the system is setup.
> 
> First mistake, forgetting we are an island nation and not slamming the borders shut as soon as the virus was on the horizon.
> 
> Next mistake, being caught with your pants down. Having gone through other issues like F&M, birdflu etc etc the chances of a human virus were high and even Mr Gates pre warned the planet yet the stockpile of PPE for medical staff and carers was rock bottom, too much cost cutting or just ignorance?
> 
> Then too many cooks in the kitchen, complicated lines of command and not understandng the public. Result confusion, wrong advice and to little enforcement so the public become lost sheep. Then all the sillyness like if you are shielding then your partner can still go too work and bring the virus home.
> 
> Lastly there is a vacine and they drag there heels, to much talking and not enough action. Why not setup an NHS shop on Amazon and let the doctors and such order vacines on Amazon, their distribution and logistics are good and they would have been injecting the next day.




The cabinet we have was formed specifically for their dedication to Brexit. 
That has meant we have a government that is built for campaigning, not for governance. 

On the negative side, the government have been slow to react, slow to go to lockdown resulting in much higher economic damage than necessary.

Countries that locked down very hard and very fast have recovered much faster.

However it's very very difficult to make comparisons, demographics, culture etc make big differences.

NZ for example shut its borders....but UK did not. However UK has major hub airports and London is a global financial centre...it would have been hard to shut borders.


----------



## selectortone

I was going to say that the situation is unprecedented and we should give the government some slack, but on the other hand there have been credible warnings for many years that some kind of pandemic was inevitable eventually, so there should have been some kind of contingency planning. Talk about headless chickens...

Watching Johnson, Hancock and especially that silly person (edit: that's not what I wrote) Education Secretary every night doesn't fill me with confidence. They all seem to be way behind the curve in decision making. It was obvious in mid December that a nationwide lockdown was necessary so why the vascillating?

As one of Rorschach's expendables (I'm 70), I just hope I can hang on and stay safe until I get my turn for the vaccine.


----------



## billw

I don't blame government, no matter who was in power from both a personal and political persuasion point of view they'd have messed it up. Singapore did it very well, but the whole country is about the size of Manchester and has no land borders.


----------



## JandK

Countries where the citizens have taken responsibility themselves and have done as asked have all been more successful as well


----------



## Jacob

Stats say UK 9th worst with 1,173 deaths per million.
Out of the 8 even worse, only Italy is comparable so you could say we are world 2nd worst
USA doing better, only 13th worst with 1,129 deaths per million








COVID Live Update: 145,102,212 Cases and 3,079,464 Deaths from the Coronavirus - Worldometer


Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...




www.worldometers.info


----------



## TheUnicorn

the fact that we have one of the highest deaths / cases per capita can only lead to the conclusion that we have done terribly. At every stage we've been too slow to act, if we had locked down quicker and harder, closed borders etc etc, we could have reduced the lengths of the lockdowns, reduced the amount of deaths and reduced the impact on the economy. Instead we get mixed messages, broken promises and and far too much self serving political decisions.


----------



## Peter Sefton




----------



## billw

TheUnicorn said:


> the fact that we have one of the highest deaths / cases per capita can only lead to the conclusion that we have done terribly. At every stage we've been too slow to act, if we had locked down quicker and harder, closed borders etc etc, we could have reduced the lengths of the lockdowns, reduced the amount of deaths and reduced the impact on the economy. Instead we get mixed messages, broken promises and and far too much self serving political decisions.



On the positive side I note that there is nobody not wearing a mask in my local shops any more. In previous lockdowns there were always some swaggering around as if life was normal - now, none at all. Maybe the messaging has finally hit home. 

It's a shame we're 10 months into this for me to say that.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> As one of Rorschach's expendables (I'm 70), I just hope I can hang on and stay safe until I get my turn for the vaccine.



At 70 you wouldn't be on my list don't worry


----------



## Stanleymonkey

PerryGunn said:


> I don't think there have been obvious 'right' answers to the pandemic, as evidenced by the number of different strategies that have been tried worldwide.
> 
> It's very easy to look at everything that's happend with the benefit of hindsight and say '_They should have done this_', '_Couldn't they see that..._' or '_If only they'd <insert option here> before <something>_' but I don't think that any alternative UK government would have handled things any better given the information that they had at the time.
> 
> I'm just thankful that I'm not one of the people who had/have to make the decisions that try to walk the tightrope between too many deaths and severe economic damage.




Yes it has been a difficult time for all countries and leaders, but our leader was the one who hugged people in hospitals and boasted about it before going on to nearly die from Covid. We have had u-turn after u-turn and I seem to remember Boris was too busy to attend most of the early COBRA meetings. He did have time to give an interview complaining how hard it was living on a paltry £150,000 salary whilst people in the UK queued up for foodbank parcels.


----------



## powertools

Ask yourself without the benefit of hindsight what would you have done differently.


----------



## Billy_wizz

TheUnicorn said:


> the fact that we have one of the highest deaths / cases per capita can only lead to the conclusion that we have done terribly. At every stage we've been too slow to act, if we had locked down quicker and harder, closed borders etc etc, we could have reduced the lengths of the lockdowns, reduced the amount of deaths and reduced the impact on the economy. Instead we get mixed messages, broken promises and and far too much self serving political decisions.


The fact that we have such a high death toll might not be as bad as it looks many people on the list would have died even if they didn't have covid a friend who works in the NHS knows of several people with late stage terminal cancer who have made the list also there are many other factors that will effect the list including population age ethnic make up of the population some are more naturally resistant than others! A populations willingness to look after themselves pubs where opened so small family groups could go out for a quiet meal and help the economy but some took the water and used it as an excuse to get trollied did the government do everything right of course not but to try and make out it's all there fault is equally ludicrous!


----------



## Jacob

powertools said:


> Ask yourself without the benefit of hindsight what would you have done differently.


Listened to the science. 
Johnson was derisive at the start and carried on being dismissive and behind the curve. Ditto Trump. 
Both now recognised as world class poor performers.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> Listened to the science. Johnson was derisive at the start and carried on being dismissive and behind the curve.



Which science?


----------



## Stanleymonkey

powertools said:


> Ask yourself without the benefit of hindsight what would you have done differently.



I listened in on a briefing mid December. Attendees were asked not to share the charts and graphs. The London wide statistics then were deeply worrying. But the government threatened local authorities with legal action when they tried to close schools early. I would have shut them down and created a three week break over Christmas. That is not hindsight talking, it was quite obvious then, many families intended to take kids out early and self isolate before meeting up with family it wouldn't have hurt their education!

Boris Johnson openly mocked Keir Starmer about 'cancelling Christmas' and then did it himself a few days later. I'm sorry but this isn't really about difficult decisions and unknown territory. U-turns like that show he is not fully aware of the big picture or is more concenred about losing votes than public health.
It is very poor management and government.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Which science?


Credible voices in the wilderness have been warning governments for decades that a pandemic of some sort was inevitable ultimately. And here we are.

It is one of a government's jobs to prepare for eventualities like these.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Credible voices in the wilderness have been warning governments for decades that a pandemic of some sort was inevitable ultimately. And here we are.
> 
> It is one of a government's jobs to prepare for eventualities like these.



They did prepare, they held a comprehensive war games for a pandemic a few years ago and implemented all the recommendations. The problem was the war games were for a flu pandemic as that was deemed most likely by the scientists. 

There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. C19 is an unknown unknown, very difficult to prepare for that, you can't prepare for all eventualities, too expensive. You don't tow a car behind your car in case it breaks down do you?


----------



## Terrytpot

Like many of you I don't think it really matters which party were "at the helm" for this crisis as none of them have been vociferous in opposing any of the decisions made. Call me a cynic but I would imagine that whoever is in control will be heavily reliant on their "advisors" and civil servants and will be steered towards the safest career/party decisions, irrespective of the impact on the general populace. Blame aside, I don't envy anyone in a position to determine a policy for this when all the information they've had to base it upon is time sensitive in that it's only useful if you use it before you get told about it, and by the time you are told, it's too late to act upon but you have to be seen to be doing something! It all strikes me as being a bit like an episode of "Yes Minister" but not quite as funny.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Which science?


Exercise Cygnus for a start - and then their own scientific/medical experts, the universities and academics, etc etc. Mistakes were made, but made far worse by Johnson's dismissal of the whole issue at the start, sounding much like Trump and finally performing even worse than Trump.
They are both chancers, jeering from the sidelines, saying they knew best, just winging it and hoping to take the credit if everything turned out OK. But it didn't.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob said:


> Exercise Cygnus for a start - and then their own scientific/medical experts, the universities and academics, etc etc. Mistakes were made, but made far worse by Johnson's dismissal of the whole issue at the start, sounding much like Trump but finally performing even worse than Trump.



Did you see Johnson's speech in Greenwich in Feb / March....basically he said "we won't lockdown we will keep our economy open and profit whilst other countries are shut".

Well that worked out well  

It's interesting the worst performing countries in the world are run by right wing populist governments: USA, UK, Brazil.

Some the best performing ones are run by women...NZ


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Which science?


The real science, not that GBD hogwash.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> Did you see Johnson's speech in Greenwich in Feb / March....basically he said "we won't lockdown we will keep our economy open and profit whilst other countries are shut".
> .....


A masterpiece of arrogance and stupidity. "Bizarre autarkic rhetoric" indeed! Guess who he had in mind as the "supercharged champion"


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> Exercise Cygnus for a start



Read my post above, I covered exercise Cygnus (not by name). If you watch this weeks Spectator TV, Jeremey Hunt is interviewed and talks about it as well.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Comparisons should be made between broadly similar countries - eg: comparison with NZ is pointless. It has 5m vs 65m population and 6% of the population density. 

Cherry picking statistics to prove whatever point you want is the behaviour of politicians and the media - not the product of useful thought. We need to be clear what metrics are appropriate.

Many of the problems originate in decisions and value judgements made decades ago. We have spent little on contingency planning and resourcing yet £40bn a year on Defence. Both are there to defend the public.

The government has unquestionably made some mistakes - in particular delaying the first lockdown when cases were doubling every few days. 
Education issues have been handled incompetently.

They have also done some things well - eg: nightingale hospital construction, vaccine development and roll out, financial support for business and individuals (albeit with some gaps).

A cool review of countries closest to the UK shows many of the problems in the UK have been mirrored in mainland Europe. Test and trace has been generally ineffective. Deaths in care homes have been similar to the UK. Lack of PPE is not just a UK problem.

Indeed the only comparable European country to have performed materially better than the UK is Germany. They did this by locking down a few days earlier (good fortune or judgement?). They are now contending with precisely the same problems as the UK - mutated virus aside)

We also blame ministers for failures in their area of responsibility despite that fact that senior civil servants are largely deficient - eg:

Public Health England have a specific responsibility for contingency planning - a task they complely failed. 
I think Gavin Williamson has acquitted himself very poorly, but he was very poorly advised by Ofqual and Dept of Education. 
The whole subject of what went right or wrong needs a far more thoughtful analysis. Unevidenced selective comments on a forum (and this one is much better than most) are truly pointless.

What I particularly object to is using selective bits of data to draw politically motivated conclusions - whether the context is "Boris is rubbish" or "didn't we do well".


----------



## julianf

I think they've done wonderfully.

It's a balancing act for a right wing government in a western developed nation with an aging voter demographic.

Basically they need to appear to have cared, as most do not warm to heartlessness when it's too visible, but, on the other hand, really, what do the most vulnerable (to covid, or indeed, any form of vulnerability) really contribute to the accumulation of wealth?

I think theyve probably gone a little overboard on helping out their mates (eg Handcock's ex landlord, etc) but we are far enough away from an election cycle that that will probably be forgotten about when voting comes about again.

So, yes, I think theyve done well.


----------



## Lons

This might work to get things moving


----------



## Jacob

julianf said:


> I think they've done wonderfully.
> 
> It's a balancing act for a right wing government in a western developed nation with an aging voter demographic.
> 
> Basically they need to appear to have cared, as most do not warm to heartlessness when it's too visible, but, on the other hand, really, what do the most vulnerable (to covid, or indeed, any form of vulnerability) really contribute to the accumulation of wealth?
> 
> I think theyve probably gone a little overboard on helping out their mates (eg Handcock's ex landlord, etc) but we are far enough away from an election cycle that that will probably be forgotten about when voting comes about again.
> 
> So, yes, I think theyve done well.


Yep. Gotta look on the bright side. When it's all over the dead will tell no tales and their legacees will be having much more fun than they expected!


----------



## Rorschach

Lons said:


> This might work to get things movingView attachment 100573



Have you see how they drive though?! No way I want them coming at me with a needle, they'll come in too fast, swerve, smash into my arm with the wrong hand and then jab me in the eye.


----------



## Bodone

I despise the conservatives and Boris, but as a life long labour person I honestly think they would have been as equally clueless especially after the Corbyn, useless pineapple (Didn’t use a fruit word - seems forum does not like bad words even though he’s a foul language alert ), debacle over the last few years.

Hindsights great but I really don’t care about the blame game, we’re facing enough rubbish with this brexit farce.

What I do want as a witch hunt is to find those people in positions of government responsibility who knowingly profited from other peoples loss and misery. Those who put there own careers and bank balances ahead of our parents and children. Those people I want nailing.

Will it happen, no, but I can at least dream.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> Read my post above, I covered exercise Cygnus (not by name). If you watch this weeks Spectator TV, Jeremey Hunt is interviewed and talks about it as well.



As the man in charge before during and after, he is not exactly the best source to turn to for an unbiased appraisal of how he dealt with the lessons that should have been learned.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> Which science?



The one promoted by the approved political party.


----------



## D_W

selectortone said:


> Credible voices in the wilderness have been warning governments for decades that a pandemic of some sort was inevitable ultimately. And here we are.
> 
> It is one of a government's jobs to prepare for eventualities like these.



And asteroids, and UFOs and volcanoes (OK, that's us over here), etc. If the government spent enough money to be prepared for all of them, them same whiners going at it now would complain about the wasted money and resources when "you could be giving that money to people who need it right now".


----------



## Jake

It's an awfully difficult problem, but there are some stand-out failures at dealing with it and we and the US are forefront in that. That said, there are many less transparent nations who just cover stuff over. Among the transparent, we've done poorly. So far. We might start do better if vaccine rollout is handled well.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> The one promoted by the approved political party.



Avoiding the politicised wonks who kept pronouncing that everyone is already immune in March would be a good start.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Avoiding the politicised wonks who kept pronoucing that everyone is already immune in March would be a good start.



Can't disagree with that. 

Both sides are off here, the "it's aerosoloized and wash your hands all the time " side, but far worse is the "masks don't work, that's the science" (no, it's not) side. 

Washing hands for covid is a lot like collecting scrap metal for WWII in the US (the fed gov had people collect scrap to make them feel like they were involved, and then they threw it away because there's no shortage of raw material for aluminum and steel here).


----------



## julianf

Bodone said:


> What I do want as a witch hunt is to find those people in positions of government responsibility who knowingly profited from other peoples loss and misery. Those who put there own careers and bank balances ahead of our parents and children. Those people I want nailing.



I suspect syphoning off of public funds for politicians mates has always happened, but the simple scale of it now seems to be beyond anything ever seen in modern western societies prior.

It's as if nooone is even trying that hard to cover the corruption. Lying seems accepted now also.

Trump has, i hope, been a wake-up call, and his removal might hopefully start to reverse this wave of populism that the world is seeing currently, but will it be enough?


Historically, vast wealth distribution divides have precipitated civil unrest, and things have been stretching further and further since 2008 - one side getting QE propping up the asset market and bolstering the asset rich, and the asset poor seeing austerity and real wage decline.

Covid and its economic fall out is unlikely to "level up" society without the populous getting a little "smashey smashey" - will they / wont they?

Who knows. But, again, historically, this is basically the tinder bed on which the fire is lit.


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> Have you see how they drive though?! No way I want them coming at me with a needle, they'll come in too fast, swerve, smash into my arm with the wrong hand and then jab me in the eye.


Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## TheUnicorn

Jacob said:


> A masterpiece of arrogance and stupidity. "Bizarre autarkic rhetoric" indeed! Guess who he had in mind as the "supercharged champion"



better version here


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> As the man in charge before during and after, he is not exactly the best source to turn to for an unbiased appraisal of how he dealt with the lessons that should have been learned.



I never said it was unbiased, just pointing out that Cygnus was not designed for C19, it was designed for flu, so saying we didn't learn the lessons is a false premise.


----------



## Rorschach

D_W said:


> And asteroids, and UFOs and volcanoes (OK, that's us over here), etc. If the government spent enough money to be prepared for all of them, them same whiners going at it now would complain about the wasted money and resources when "you could be giving that money to people who need it right now".



Stop it with the common sense, they don't like that, it upsets them.


----------



## Cirks

Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing but in reality I doubt in this country there would have been a fundamental difference in the actions taken by any party in power as at the end of the day, the civil service are still the same, the scientists are the same and as is the NHS. Of course, advisors are different and speech writers too (although there are plenty who have written for both major parties). What is different of course are the core targets for the parties which have led to the issue with timings of actions - Boris et al will have tried to keep economy going, enable people to work and have a decent freedom of actions to an extent. 
Labour would prob have acted sooner relying on a more constrained fiscal policy stopping businesses and work quicker but I’m unclear as to how they would have helped education of the needy and state sector schools by shutting schools earlier. Overall, Labour would have relied on massive tax changes eventually paying for their actions whereas the Conservatives would be trying to avoid that by having a continuing economy (we’ll still need the tax changes anyway!).
Loads of mistakes certainly made but the main people to blame for the spread and impact are those who have failed to take precautions and put others at risk. Bloke in queue behind me in the other day moaning to someone else about Boris and just about everything else yet standing there with no mask, getting close than 2m (marked on floors) to the poor bloke he ended up moaning to (who was masked) and saying it (C19) is all rubbish. The girl serving me had lost a member of her family to Covid, Boris (or any leader) can’t be blamed for this type of action. Too many have ignored guidance (a lot of which should have been rules and not guidance)


----------



## Jacob

Cirks said:


> Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing but in reality I doubt in this country there would have been a fundamental difference in the actions taken by any party in power as at the end of the day, the civil service are still the same, the scientists are the same and as is the NHS. Of course, advisors are different and speech writers too (although there are plenty who have written for both major parties). What is different of course are the core targets for the parties which have led to the issue with timings of actions - Boris et al will have tried to keep economy going, enable people to work and have a decent freedom of actions to an extent.
> Labour would prob have acted sooner relying on a more constrained fiscal policy stopping businesses and work quicker but I’m unclear as to how they would have helped education of the needy and state sector schools by shutting schools earlier. Overall, Labour would have relied on massive tax changes eventually paying for their actions whereas the Conservatives would be trying to avoid that by having a continuing economy (we’ll still need the tax changes anyway!).
> Loads of mistakes certainly made but the main people to blame for the spread and impact are those who have failed to take precautions and put others at risk. Bloke in queue behind me in the other day moaning to someone else about Boris and just about everything else yet standing there with no mask, getting close than 2m (marked on floors) to the poor bloke he ended up moaning to (who was masked) and saying it (C19) is all rubbish. The girl serving me had lost a member of her family to Covid, Boris (or any leader) can’t be blamed for this type of action. Too many have ignored guidance (a lot of which should have been rules and not guidance)


Amongst other things Labour would have brought in broadband for all. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information.
Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed . Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.


----------



## softtop

If anyone is interested in a lengthy analysis of what was and wasn't available when, and decisions made versus information available it is here: A timeline of the UK government’s response to the Coronavirus crisis


----------



## Cirks

Jacob said:


> Amongst other things Labour would have brought in broadband for all.


No doubt that would help education but what about the laptops for all those families who don't have or can't afford one? What about the schools who don't have the means to fully support and take to remote learning (let alone the teachers and/or the capability and willingness of kids to learn that way)?
If discussing "what would Labour have done differently" I think the aim might be more about discussing the handling of the pandemic rather than what they would have done had they been in power and had many years to roll out the broadband and find the billions it would cost. I'm all in favour of it but it wouldn't have happened to "manage the pandemic".



Jacob said:


> Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.


Again, I don't completely disagree with you but the bloke in the queue would be doing it even if the person at the top said "shut down earlier, stay at home, educate your kids at home, use the broadband we've given you etc". The virus has spread by contact so those ignoring the 'no' or 'limited' contact and not doing all things in their power to protect OTHERS are massively to blame as well as those at the top


----------



## Jacob

Cirks said:


> No doubt that would help education but what about the laptops for all those families who don't have or can't afford one? What about the schools who don't have the means to fully support and take to remote learning (let alone the teachers and/or the capability and willingness of kids to learn that way)?
> If discussing "what would Labour have done differently" I think the aim might be more about discussing the handling of the pandemic rather than what they would have done had they been in power and had many years to roll out the broadband and find the billions it would cost. I'm all in favour of it but it wouldn't have happened to "manage the pandemic".


It's just a detail but relevant as the tories are now trying to catch up on this very issue.
It's a bit pointless arguing that Labour wouldn't have done it any better as we will never know. But we do know that Labour doesn't suffer from an ideological obsession with privatisation and would have made far more use of existing structures and local authorities, rather than farming £billions of work out to their best friends. Local authorities are particularly suited to things like track and trace and services like vaccinations, as they have all the local contacts. Farming it all out to unknown start-up businesses looked irresponsible, to say the least.


----------



## Robbo60

Hindsight is a perfect science! Leave NZ out the whole of Europe is in the dung., just different depths of it. So all the Governments are rubbish? Each country has different Geography (France twice as big but similar population) It does not matter when or what rules you introduce if some of the population ignore them. "Shouldn't have let students go back" - No, students should have followed the rules! How many of the population don't understand what +1 or 6 means.
How many actually stuck to the rules fully on Christmas Day. I have several "responsible" friends who were seeing more than two other households. Parents, Children, Grandchildren
My view is the Government has an impossible task and how many of those taking the moral high ground have ever had to make such massive decisions regarding health and the economy? None (apart from Tony Blaire spouting off - In the words of John Cleese "Don't mention the war!")
Right going to make some shelves


----------



## Spectric

I think one of the problems with the virus is that many people cannot accept something they cannot see and will take risk, IE electricity. If it was a big flesh eating alien on the rampage people would not have needed any instruction or advice as there instincts to survive would have kicked in. Also if the virus was more lethal then people may have took more notice, mentioning it in the same sentence as flu was so misleading and gave people the wrong idea. Had it been really lethal then maybe it would not have even got here, killing faster than it could be transmitted. 

So what after all this pandemic has become our past? The only way we will learn and prepare for the next pandemic is to have a public enquiry into how this one was handled, who advised who and made the big mistakes that caused so much death. In the world of business someone could well have been guilty of corporate manslaughter but I think governments are exempt otherwise they could never have wars.


----------



## Cordy

Received an email from Boris



John,​I know there is now one question at the very top of your mind – how fast can we get these millions of new vaccines into the arms of the most vulnerable.
You have a right to understand exactly how we’re cracking this problem and how we’re going to offer vaccines to everyone in those key groups identified by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation by 15th February. 
This includes everyone 70 or over, older care home residents and staff, all frontline NHS and care staff, and those who are clinically extremely vulnerable - amounting to around 15 million people across the UK.
*Having now delivered nearly 1.5 million vaccinations, more than all of Europe combined, we are throwing everything at this and accelerating our rollout.*
Our tactics are to firstly use the NHS so that by the end of next week there will be:​ Over 1,000 GP led vaccination sites
 223 hospital vaccination sites
 7 giant vaccination centres
 200 first wave community pharmacy sites​If all goes well these together should have the capacity to deliver hundreds of thousands of vaccines per day by January 15th.
Secondly, we have secured enough supply to vaccinate our key groups by the 15th February deadline.
*With the army working hand in glove with the NHS and local councils to set up our vaccine network, using battle preparation techniques to help us keep up the pace.*
And thirdly, thanks to the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine, we have begun greatly expanding our care home vaccinations – with the plan to have offered every elderly care home resident a vaccine by the end of this month.
This vast acceleration of our vaccination programme will now be aided by the British scientific breakthrough of two new drugs, which reduce the risk of death by nearly a quarter, now being deployed across the NHS to fight the virus.
*So John, I can assure you we’re doing everything we can to vaccinate as many people as possible across our whole United Kingdom.*
But in the meantime, I must urge you to:​*Stay at home. Protect our NHS. Save lives.*​Yours sincerely,​







No reply from me to Boris, he's a busy man; doing his best for our Great Country
John


----------



## Billy_wizz

Spectric said:


> I think one of the problems with the virus is that many people cannot accept something they cannot see and will take risk, IE electricity. If it was a big flesh eating alien on the rampage people would not have needed any instruction or advice as there instincts to survive would have kicked in. Also if the virus was more lethal then people may have took more notice, mentioning it in the same sentence as flu was so misleading and gave people the wrong idea. Had it been really lethal then maybe it would not have even got here, killing faster than it could be transmitted.
> 
> So what after all this pandemic has become our past? The only way we will learn and prepare for the next pandemic is to have a public enquiry into how this one was handled, who advised who and made the big mistakes that caused so much death. In the world of business someone could well have been guilty of corporate manslaughter but I think governments are exempt otherwise they could never have wars.


Technically the flu virus is considerably worse than covid it's just it's been here for so long that the human race has become adjusted to it when European explorer's took the flu with them they wiped out hole villages of native populations


----------



## julianf

I think that there have been two main issues with the public following "the rules" 

A) The rules have all been hazy and ill defined. I once sought clarity on an issue from a friend in the police force and they were none the wiser.

B) (and this is more significant, in my opinion) - All parties, but *especially* the one in command and making the rules should have lead by example!

There should have been no far fetched eye test excuses. Regardless of if rules were or were not broken then, the damage done to public confidence by such nonsense has, undoubtedly, cost lives.

I don't agree with what the new leader of the labor party has done regarding the anti-Semitism suspensions etc but I can fully understand why he has done it - to set a clear and indisputable example of zero tolerance.

The government setting the rules would, I suspect, have had a different reaction from the general public if they had shown zero tolerance to discrepancies within their own ranks.

Eye test illegality or otherwise, it's perception that counts, and the perception has been that "if they're not following their own rules..."

It should have all been clear cut with no room for confusion.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Amongst other things Labour would have brought in broadband for all. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information.
> Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed . Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.



Ahh, the something for nothing gimmick.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

julianf said:


> I think that there have been two main issues with the public following "the rules"
> 
> A) The rules have all been hazy and ill defined. I once sought clarity on an issue from a friend in the police force and they were none the wiser.
> 
> B) (and this is more significant, in my opinion) - All parties, but *especially* the one in command and making the rules should have lead by example!
> 
> There should have been no far fetched eye test excuses. Regardless of if rules were or were not broken then, the damage done to public confidence by such nonsense has, undoubtedly, cost lives.
> 
> I don't agree with what the new leader of the labor party has done regarding the anti-Semitism suspensions etc but I can fully understand why he has done it - to set a clear and indisputable example of zero tolerance.
> 
> The government setting the rules would, I suspect, have had a different reaction from the general public if they had shown zero tolerance to discrepancies within their own ranks.
> 
> Eye test illegality or otherwise, it's perception that counts, and the perception has been that "if they're not following their own rules..."
> 
> It should have all been clear cut with no room for confusion.



I agree with 1): The "rules" have become ridiculously labyrinthine over time, so that even intelligent and highly motivated people have found it difficult to fully understand and apply them. * The science is crystal clear, and is dead simple to understand - the virus spreads extremely easily by close contact between one person and another (particularly where there is an elevated chance they will breathe the same air for an extended period) - end of*. I do criticise the government for over-complicating the rules because they have "given in" to the vested interests arguing for their part of society to be considered a special case e.g. paying people to eat out (for heavens' sake) also, the number of people flying in/out of the country over the last year beggars belief.

I agree with 2): Boris lost trust when he failed to do the right thing - quickly - with Dominic Cummings.

I think that Boris has consistently delayed important decisions to tighten restrictions - from Feb 2020 onwards to a few days ago - and is culpable for that.
I think that Boris is responsible for not cracking down (and being seen to) on his chums who have not followed the spirit of the rules - why that Scottish MP who went on public transport etc. while knowing she had C19 is still an MP I don't know.


----------



## numpty1

Government Mismanagement, Misinformation, ignoring advice, now "dung has hit the fan" they don't know which way to turn.
Most of my thoughts have been said.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Boris can't win.

Lots of rules for all possibilities = nanny state, too complex
Simple guidance = inconsistencies, not specific, unclear
Rely on common sense = common sense is the rarest of quaities 
Fundamental point is that the virus is spread by social contact - reduce contacts and reduce spread. It is not complicated.

We can also speculate on how Labour would have fared. Had they won the election in 2019, Corbyn would be PM. 

He would have been equally motivated by political dogma - different to Boris but no less damaging. The overall outcome may have been little different:

the initial problems (March - June) were the result of completely inadequate contingency planning going back decades
reliance upon existing public sector structures and competencies - ministers take responsibility despite a lack of experience, control or competency.
Personally I think Corbyn and Co were a disaster area waiting to happen. Starmer is potentially electable and seems rational and competent - but had Labour won the election he may not even have been in the cabinet.

There are also some very obvious deficiencies in the Boris team - I suspect he has a somewhat split party (over Brexit) and he does not want to alienate more colleagues. He may come to regret not being bolder in firing those who are obviously lacking in competence.


----------



## Lons

Jacob said:


> Amongst other things Labour would have brought in broadband for all. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information.
> Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed . Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.


You can't instantly provide fast broadband services to rural communities, it physically takes time even if the will and wherewithal is in place and to say Labour would have achieved that is naive.

No doubt Johnson has floundered but heaven help us had your mate Corbynge been in charge. . Yes the buck is carried by the guy at the top but your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless, if that really is your opinion and I don't think it can be then it's living in cloud cuckoo land as that guy in the queue is typical of many thousands of irresponsible idiots ignoring commonsense practices because of attitude, ignorance or downright stupidity. If they were sensible we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.


----------



## Jacob

Lons said:


> .... it physically takes time even if the will and wherewithal is in place and to say Labour would have achieved that is naive.


I didn't say that.


> .your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless, ..


I didn't say that either!


----------



## julianf

Labor are typically keen on public spending. 

Those who don't understand economic theory believe it to be frivelous, however Keynesian economics, whilst obviously still arguable, is a long way from frivolity.

The madness is that, in recent generations, labor is the only leadership that has displayed any notable budget surplus whatsoever.

But still they are accused of having the reputation for being poor at house keeping, I guess as Keynesian economic policy does not have any short term benefits for those with significant wealth, and it's arguably those who have the loudest voice?


I would suggest that it's pretty much indisputable that the NHS undergoes better funding under socialist policies. 

Would this funding been at the cost of the rest of the country? Well, that probably comes down to if you are a monetarist or not? It is, again, probably indisputable that the health cost per capita is lowest in the more socialist countries of the world and highest in the most monetarist.

Its certainly looking that the vastly increased cost of, say, America's health service has done nothing to lower their per capita death rate, whilst countries like Germany, who happen to have a much higher per capita ICU bed rate than the UK seem to have faired much better.

There are so many factors to any of this that there will never be a perfect answer, however, it certainly seems that the countries with less "free market" approaches have better coped with the pandemic.


----------



## Spectric

I think countries like China with less free market have done a lot better because when the guy at the top says do this everyone jumps and it is done, none of this freindly advice or it would be nice if you all stopped mixing. Then you have our world beating track and trace system, just a total farce when you compare it to the South Koreans but then it has made some people very rich, and they just happen to have close contacts in government.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> I think countries like China with less free market have done a lot better because when the guy at the top says do this everyone jumps and it is done, none of this freindly advice or it would be nice if you all stopped mixing. Then you have our world beating track and trace system, just a total farce when you compare it to the South Koreans but then it has made some people very rich, and they just happen to have close contacts in government.



You want to live under that kind of government?


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> You want to live under that kind of government?


Well no of course not. We just need govt which can recognise an emergency and take appropriate measures quickly.


----------



## Spectric

Rorschach said:


> You want to live under that kind of government?


In times of national crisis that type of government is needed to ensure containment of the virus and rules are followed. Better to lose some civil rights for a short while than have approaching 100,000 dead and so many lives changed forever. With that sort of power they could instantly have closed the boarders, detained and or deported anyone coming into the country and stopped the virus before it became a pandemic.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> In times of national crisis that type of government is needed to ensure containment of the virus and rules are followed. Better to lose some civil rights for a short while than have approaching 100,000 dead and so many lives changed forever. With that sort of power they could instantly have closed the boarders, detained and or deported anyone coming into the country and stopped the virus before it became a pandemic.



I am glad you aren't in government then, because what you have just said is how tyranny starts.


----------



## Spectric

As I learnt in physics, to stop a large force apply an even larger force. Had I been the PM people may have been in for a big shock but this virus would have been restrained using common sense and not a bunch of rear end licking advisors. Used the military to close all borders and ground all flights in UK airspace, and vessels in british waters. Use detention centres for everyone that came back into the Uk for a month and test negative before release.


----------



## Cozzer

The original question was "How would you rate the uk's handling of this pandemic?"
A better one might've been "How would you rate the uk's _public_ handling of this pandemic?"
Looking out of my front room window, and the traffic flow, I wonder if the supposed lockdown has been abandoned?!
It looks like a normal day out there!
As for "essential shops" opening, a pal of mine runs a lawnmower repair shop - servicing, spares, consumables - and has (allegedly) been given permission to open by the local authorities. 
I think Joe Public are ignoring the simple "stay at home" instructions, whether through stupidity or impatience...and don't get me started about the thicko's who are going to think that they're in the all-clear after having the first jab!


----------



## Rorschach

Cozzer said:


> The original question was "How would you rate the uk's handling of this pandemic?"
> A better one might've been "How would you rate the uk's _public_ handling of this pandemic?"
> Looking out of my front room window, and the traffic flow, I wonder if the supposed lockdown has been abandoned?!
> It looks like a normal day out there!
> As for "essential shops" opening, a pal of mine runs a lawnmower repair shop - servicing, spares, consumables - and has (allegedly) been given permission to open by the local authorities.
> I think Joe Public are ignoring the simple "stay at home" instructions, whether through stupidity or impatience...and don't get me started about the thicko's who are going to think that they're in the all-clear after having the first jab!



Considering at least 75% of transmission occurs within the house, how exactly do you think shutting more shops would help?


----------



## doctor Bob

I wonder why the gov't didn't just consult this woodworking forum before making any decisions, if they had all would have been tickity boo.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The initial strategy was to trace and isolate contacts. On 16th March this was abandoned as the virus had already spread widely in the community, and there were insufficient resources to make the strategy work. Full lockdown was 23rd March.

Thus the root of the problem was a lack of contingency planning, trained resources and testing capacity before covid was even an issue. There are lessons to le learned for the future.

More authoritarian regimes are able to limit travel, impose lockdowns, implement more effective (and intrusive) track and trace. In placing civil and personal liberties above the needs of the whole community, the UK (and most other western democracies) were incapable of getting effective early control over virus spread.

Track and trace will not work well if infections are at a high level. It is administratively demanding, and needs embedded social behaviours and effective policing. The UK has quite a lot of the former, but no capacity for effective enforcement. 

Testing before entry to the UK is now simply "shutting the stable door eons after the horse has bolted". Infection rates in the UK are, and have been, generally higher than elsewhere. Arrivals to the UK are no more likely to spread the virus than someone travelling 20 miles from home.

It is a politically expedient reaction to ill informed public and media pressure.


----------



## JonG

Continually underestimated the virus. Didn’t want to take tough decisions and always reacted rather than preempted. I’m sure we will find out over the coming years that his friends made a lot of money during the last 9 mo the too!


----------



## julianf

Not having a child of school age, i was unaware that schools opened for one single day?

I mean if that is true, as Pie sums up below, its about as much of an answer to this question as is needed - 




(note, various swearing)

Also note the comment at the end about there being 76,000 deaths in the uk. The date of the video is the 6th. Today is the 9th. We passed 80,000 deaths today.


----------



## Billy_wizz

julianf said:


> Labor are typically keen on public spending.
> 
> Those who don't understand economic theory believe it to be frivelous, however Keynesian economics, whilst obviously still arguable, is a long way from frivolity.
> 
> The madness is that, in recent generations, labor is the only leadership that has displayed any notable budget surplus whatsoever.
> 
> But still they are accused of having the reputation for being poor at house keeping, I guess as Keynesian economic policy does not have any short term benefits for those with significant wealth, and it's arguably those who have the loudest voice?
> 
> 
> I would suggest that it's pretty much indisputable that the NHS undergoes better funding under socialist policies.
> 
> Would this funding been at the cost of the rest of the country? Well, that probably comes down to if you are a monetarist or not? It is, again, probably indisputable that the health cost per capita is lowest in the more socialist countries of the world and highest in the most monetarist.
> 
> Its certainly looking that the vastly increased cost of, say, America's health service has done nothing to lower their per capita death rate, whilst countries like Germany, who happen to have a much higher per capita ICU bed rate than the UK seem to have faired much better.
> 
> There are so many factors to any of this that there will never be a perfect answer, however, it certainly seems that the countries with less "free market" approaches have better coped with the pandemic.


The problem with keep throwing money at the NHS is that there is no responsibility to use the money well and you end up with a system that just keeps asking for more! When Tony Blair's government pledged to double the staff lvls of the NHS they never checked if it was practical and on finding there wasn't enough front line staff hospitals padded middle management to achieve what was being demanded by government so you ended with the rediculous situation whare many hospitals ended up doubling there staff but only increased the front line staff by 10-20%


----------



## julianf

Billy_wizz said:


> The problem with keep throwing money at the NHS is that there is no responsibility to use the money well and you end up with a system that just keeps asking for more! When Tony Blair's government pledged to double the staff lvls of the NHS they never checked if it was practical and on finding there wasn't enough front line staff hospitals padded middle management to achieve what was being demanded by government so you ended with the rediculous situation whare many hospitals ended up doubling there staff but only increased the front line staff by 10-20%



I wholly agree that state run enterprises are rarely as "efficient" as private enterprise. But the word efficient is partially misleading, as it does not fully explain the benefactor of the efficiency.

A not-for-profit enterprise might well be less efficient overall, but an enterprise that has to serve shareholders as its primary concern might well (as we clearly see with the American health system) actually display a less favourable user cost.

There is also the consideration that absolute efficiency may not even be wholly necessary, so long as the inefficiencies are re-distributing wealth down the wealth gradient, where its cyclical nature will generate more economic activity than if it remains higher up the scale. I'm not wholly arguing this point, however, it is a commonly considered hypothesis.


----------



## D_W

julianf said:


> Labor are typically keen on public spending.
> 
> Those who don't understand economic theory believe it to be frivelous, however Keynesian economics, whilst obviously still arguable, is a long way from frivolity.
> 
> The madness is that, in recent generations, labor is the only leadership that has displayed any notable budget surplus whatsoever.
> 
> But still they are accused of having the reputation for being poor at house keeping, I guess as Keynesian economic policy does not have any short term benefits for those with significant wealth, and it's arguably those who have the loudest voice?
> 
> 
> I would suggest that it's pretty much indisputable that the NHS undergoes better funding under socialist policies.
> 
> Would this funding been at the cost of the rest of the country? Well, that probably comes down to if you are a monetarist or not? It is, again, probably indisputable that the health cost per capita is lowest in the more socialist countries of the world and highest in the most monetarist.
> 
> Its certainly looking that the vastly increased cost of, say, America's health service has done nothing to lower their per capita death rate, whilst countries like Germany, who happen to have a much higher per capita ICU bed rate than the UK seem to have faired much better.
> 
> There are so many factors to any of this that there will never be a perfect answer, however, it certainly seems that the countries with less "free market" approaches have better coped with the pandemic.



The death rate and infection rate aren't related to the health systems, they're related to the culture before people make their way into the health systems. 
If you can find a correlation, it would likely have much more to do with uniformity of what the population has done under covid (either voluntarily or by force).


----------



## D_W

(Aside from the huge number of infections here, we have another issue that's accounted for a large chunk of the death rates - nursing homes. A first world problem when there's a pandemic, having the economic ability to move the elderly out of the household and into commercialized care on a large scale. Covid doesn't really consider how nice the surroundings are in a care home, just how close together people are and what their age and condition are.)


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> The death rate and infection rate aren't related to the health systems, they're related to the culture before people make their way into the health systems.



The infection rate clearly isn't, that is all about the efficacy of social controls. The death rate is very correlated with health systems (but infection rates feed into that, in terms of how capacities are stretched).


----------



## julianf

I guess the number to look at is fatalities as a function of infections.

But still, its a case of liars, damn liars, and statisticians -

You would imagine, for example, that a disease that kills elderly would show countries where everyone dies young (of something else), in quite a favourable position, even though they probably are not the best of places to live!


----------



## AJB Temple

On the radio yesterday, I was listening to an older lady being negative about Boris. She said, re C19, "we expect our prime minister to have foresight". She appeared to be single issue (covid) focussed, and unwilling to accept that the man has a wide range of responsibilities or that he could not see into the future. 

The blame game achieves nothing. The media is so polarised, and so engaged in analysis by hindsight, that it is hard to find much of value on which to form a view. Certainly the endless statistics are pointless such as daily cases and daily deaths to the exact numeric. I get a sense that we are looking at the trees but not the wood.


----------



## julianf

AJB Temple said:


> The blame game achieves nothing.



You have to have accountability to escape incompetence. Without accountability (which is really just a more "adult" form of blame in negative situations) you just get sucked into a never ending cycle of populism.


----------



## Blackswanwood

No need to worry as help is on hand ...

Happy Mondays star Bez in bid to rival Joe Wicks with lockdown fitness classes Happy Mondays star Bez in bid to rival Joe Wicks with lockdown fitness classes


----------



## Jake

AJB Temple said:


> I get a sense that we are looking at the trees but not the wood.



No-one can predict how it will play out eventually, but there are countries who have a massive lead in fewer excess deaths (and no-one is counting or taking any account at all of the other effects a disease that has lots of signs that it may have chronic but not fatal outcomes could turn out to have).


----------



## andy hamilton

Spectric said:


> The obvious is too little to late, missed opportunities and shambolic. Is this the fault of this government, no it would have been the same with any government because the way the system is setup.
> 
> First mistake, forgetting we are an island nation and not slamming the borders shut as soon as the virus was on the horizon.
> 
> Next mistake, being caught with your pants down. Having gone through other issues like F&M, birdflu etc etc the chances of a human virus were high and even Mr Gates pre warned the planet yet the stockpile of PPE for medical staff and carers was rock bottom, too much cost cutting or just ignorance?
> 
> Then too many cooks in the kitchen, complicated lines of command and not understandng the public. Result confusion, wrong advice and to little enforcement so the public become lost sheep. Then all the sillyness like if you are shielding then your partner can still go too work and bring the virus home.
> 
> Lastly there is a vacine and they drag there heels, to much talking and not enough action. Why not setup an NHS shop on Amazon and let the doctors and such order vacines on Amazon, their distribution and logistics are good and they would have been injecting the next day.


We don't know that it would have been the same with any government, it can't be proved one way or the other so it's irrelevant. The government in charge had full responsibility and made a pig's muck of it, even if we disregard the way they shovelled taxpayers'money to completely unsuitable companies who made an even bigger pig's muck of it. Despite government incompetence and lies, I believe the latest lockdown was the only option and I'm observing the rules for my own health and for others. I neither want to catch Covid or give it to anyone else


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> You want to live under that kind of government?


If you asked poorest people in the U.K. if they’d trade their “freedoms” for becoming middle class and having some wealth I wonder what they’d say.

I think some of them are so entrenched in the life of cheating the system and cash in hand work and whatever, the result might not be so clear.


----------



## Cozzer

Rorschach said:


> Considering at least 75% of transmission occurs within the house, how exactly do you think shutting more shops would help?


How do you think it enters the house in the first place, then? Down the chimney like Father Christmas?
From meeting people outside the house, not observing the rules.
I take it you're against pubs, theatres and restaurants being closed as well?


----------



## julianf

billw said:


> If you asked poorest people in the U.K. if they’d trade their “freedoms” for becoming middle class and having some wealth I wonder what they’d say.
> 
> I think some of them are so entrenched in the life of cheating the system and cash in hand work and whatever, the result might not be so clear.



That sort of implies, to me at least, that the middle class is not "cheating the system and cash in hand work and whatever" 

: )

Maybe they just have accountants to sanitise it a bit more, however, I suspect an all seeing god would find they were no less culpable.


----------



## Lons

_ Jabob said_
_Amongst other things *Labour would have brought in broadband for all*. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information._
_Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed .* Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.*_

The above is exactly what you said in full, the implication being that broadband for all would now be in place - Of course it wouldn't!

In reply to your second point I said_ "your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless" _note the word SUGGEST which is exactly the way it reads.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> The infection rate clearly isn't, that is all about the efficacy of social controls. The death rate is very correlated with health systems (but infection rates feed into that, in terms of how capacities are stretched).



The death rate as a percentage of infections isn't particularly accurate in organized countries (in terms of trying to judge health system efficacy). What you can gauge is the number of patients who are turned away from ICUs, I guess, but a high death rate per confirmed case is more likely to indicate underreporting of covid cases (or people with symptoms who don't feel that ill refusing to go get tested).


----------



## Rorschach

Cozzer said:


> How do you think it enters the house in the first place, then? Down the chimney like Father Christmas?
> From meeting people outside the house, not observing the rules.
> I take it you're against pubs, theatres and restaurants being closed as well?



It gets caught be visiting other houses.

I am following the data and the data showed that covid "secure" places like pubs and restaurants were responsible for less than 3% of transmission. The more you stop people meeting in "safe" places the more they meet in their homes. It's not rocket surgery you know.


----------



## Rorschach

Lons said:


> _ Jabob said_
> _Amongst other things *Labour would have brought in broadband for all*. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information._
> _Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed .* Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.*_
> 
> The above is exactly what you said in full, the implication being that broadband for all would now be in place - Of course it wouldn't!
> 
> In reply to your second point I said_ "your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless" _note the word SUGGEST which is exactly the way it reads.



Stop using his own documented words against him, it's not fair, Trump said so.


----------



## Rorschach

julianf said:


> I guess the number to look at is fatalities as a function of infections.
> 
> But still, its a case of liars, damn liars, and statisticians -
> 
> You would imagine, for example, that a disease that kills elderly would show countries where everyone dies young (of something else), in quite a favourable position, even though they probably are not the best of places to live!



It does, look at the deaths rates in countries in Sub Saharan Africa. I actually had someone tell me we should follow what they are doing because their death rates were so low. I pointed out a disease where the average age of death is 83 isn't going to do much damage in a county where the life expectancy is under 50.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> The one promoted by the approved political party.


bit of a smug answer, Im sure the anti lockdowners will like it

the whole world has chosen social distancing and restrictions in activity to reduce spread.
No government has chosen herd immunity as the option


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> And asteroids, and UFOs and volcanoes (OK, that's us over here), etc. If the government spent enough money to be prepared for all of them, them same whiners going at it now would complain about the wasted money and resources when "you could be giving that money to people who need it right now".



I dont think so, Im sure most people would have approved of a properly funded NHS, not one stripped to the bone.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> They have also done some things well - eg: nightingale hospital construction



Propaganda exercise -straight out of Cummings game planning.

look at the claimed time to build: 9 days
look at the Chinese claimed time to build: 9 days

Nightingale hospitals dont have any staff, so they are useless.


----------



## Jacob

Lons said:


> _ Jabob said_
> _Amongst other things *Labour would have brought in broadband for all*. Heavily derided at the time but now top of the agenda for education and public service information._
> _Besides that there's really no doubt that Johnson has drastically failed .* Easy to blame blokes in queues but the buck stops at the top.*_
> 
> The above is exactly what you said in full, the implication being that broadband for all would now be in place - Of course it wouldn't!


I didn't say it would _now_ be in place - but the project could have been a year further on than now


> In reply to your second point I said_ "your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless" _note the word SUGGEST which is exactly the way it reads.


Your inference, not what I said at all.
Of course we all bear our share but the buck still stops at the top.
The likelihood is that as Johnson steps away from the chaos of his making he will blame everybody and everything; the EU itself, the virus, Trump, Corbyn, the science, aliens from outer space.
Ultimately he will blame the electorate; all those who voted for him, and so will I!


----------



## Droogs

After much thought I will award the UK a medal position for how this has all been handled. I give them the Chinesium medal


----------



## RobinBHM

julianf said:


> That sort of implies, to me at least, that the middle class is not "cheating the system and cash in hand work and whatever"
> 
> : )
> 
> Maybe they just have accountants to sanitise it a bit more, however, I suspect an all seeing god would find they were no less culpable.



weve been fed a diet of blaming "benefit scroungers" for decades by the media.....mostly by media owned by billionaires living in tax havens IE benefit cheats.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob said:


> The likelihood is that as Johnson steps away from the chaos of his making he will blaming everybody and everything; the EU itself, the virus, Trump, Corbyn, the science, aliens from outer space.



Actually once the economic pain of covid and brexit bite, the Tory machine will blame Johnson and get rid of him.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> weve been fed a diet of blaming "benefit scroungers" for decades by the media.....mostly by media owned by billionaires living in tax havens IE benefit cheats.


It used to be "single mothers on benefits" getting most stick. Bring back the single mothers!


----------



## MikeJhn

Since the beginning of this very serious pandemic I have found it incredulous that supposedly intelligent people have used the excuse that the rules are not clear, to enable them to flout them, it's not rocket science, stay in, only go out if it's imperative, visiting grandchildren etc does not count as imperative.


----------



## Rorschach

MikeJhn said:


> it's not rocket science, stay in, only go out if it's imperative



What's imperative for you and imperative for someone else might be very different things.


----------



## Droogs

No Rorschach as you have proven umpteen times what you and so many others consider imperative is mostly just selfishness. imperative is somehting that keeps you alive - food fuel medicine otherwise stay in.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> No Rorschach as you have proven umpteen times what you and so many others consider imperative is mostly just selfishness. imperative is somehting that keeps you alive - food fuel medicine otherwise stay in.



I am glad it is so easy for you.


----------



## Droogs

It is not mate but I have always believed in the greater good unlike some and am prepared to make sacrafices if needed unlike some


----------



## RobinBHM

Droogs said:


> It is not mate but I have always believed in the greater good unlike some and am prepared to make sacrafices if needed unlike some


reducing the rate of infection spread requires a collective effort -sure its a blunt instrument, but if one person goes shopping, goes to the beach so can everybody else.


It is the people busy arguing against lockdowns and against masks etc that cause the damage -they are corrosive to collective effort and they trivialise the tireless work of the ICU nurses trying to keep people very sick people alive.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I am glad it is so easy for you.


I am glad its so easy for the ICU nurses working under extreme pressure trying to keep covid patients alive.


----------



## Artiglio

As a nation of the infantilised , fat ,unfit and devoted to rubbish food, where any risk is seen as too much but always someone else’s responsibility, no governement was going to get it right. Boris and co have done what they think gives them the best chance of winning the next election, ladled out cash as fast as they can, the electorate have happily soaked it up but still want more. 
The nhs is being overrun not so much because of covid but the general state of the nations health and atitude towards it ( which generally is “i’ll do what i want and let society sort the out the consequences”) which has meant that covid has had a field day. 
Idiots having parties and ignoring even basic common sense just add to the pressures but are just an extension of underlying attitudes. It’s where as a society we’ve chosen to be and are now reaping what we’ve sown.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I dont think so, Im sure most people would have approved of a properly funded NHS, not one stripped to the bone.



That's a platitude statement. Platitudes are easy to get buy-in on (like our nutballs here right now "everyone would approve of a review of the votes to make sure election integrity remains intact). 

You literally cannot cover every possible event without increasing spending by some enormous amount and taking quid (what do you call them, quids, quiddies? quid piles?) away from current issues that are actually on peoples' door step. 

Tell me how the news story would go if you had pandemic preparation for all of the different potential problems and someone started doing news reports on the stockpiles of materials as they expired and were thrown away. It would be in the tens of billions at least. 

Platitudes don't anything for anyone unless you can actually lay out feasible plans to work toward them - but don't tell us about the events that have already happened (platitudes are great, because you can make up a specific plan of action for something in the past very easily), but the ones that could happen. 

The first thing I'll be able to quickly do is point out a whole gaggle of other possibilities that aren't covered by your plan of action.


----------



## Spectric

doctor Bob said:


> I wonder why the gov't didn't just consult this woodworking forum before making any decisions, if they had all would have been tickity boo.


Because I would suspect most of the people on forums like this have common sense and want to avoid the virus so they can live to enjoy their pastimes like woodworking, and the government would not think we are PC enough to listen to. Had Borris watched the news leading upto christmas he would have seen the masses in London spreading the virus and ignoring the rules but would still not have reacted until to late.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I am glad its so easy for the ICU nurses working under extreme pressure trying to keep covid patients alive.



And following from above, first the platitude, then the emotional argument or moral highground version of such. The implication in what you're saying is that because you care about pressure on ICU nurses, the only possible continuation is that other people don't.

Does solving the problem stop at complaining, or have you sat down and spent some time looking at how the NHS is funded and decisions are made, and proposed realistic potential changes?


----------



## Jacob

Artiglio said:


> ....
> The nhs is being overrun not so much because of covid but the general state of the nations health and atitude towards it ...... which has meant that covid has had a field day.


NHS over run by govt slowness to act over Covid. Also by unpreparedness after 10 years of utterly pointless austerity and underinvestment. Also understaffed due to under investment in training, deliberate understaffing public bodies everywhere (police, fire etc) to save money and deliberate hostility to immigrant workers.
The bloke in the queue/party may be a twerp but he is being led and misadvised by conflicting and ever changing "guidance".


----------



## doctor Bob

Spectric said:


> Because I would suspect most of the people on forums like this have common sense ............



I doubt it, by the law of averages, I'd say we have the same common sense as the rest of the country, unless we are all special. Why do you think we are special and have more?


----------



## Spectric

RobinBHM said:


> Actually once the economic pain of covid and brexit bite, the Tory machine will blame Johnson and get rid of him.


But is it not better the comedian, bumbling buffoon you know than the devil you don't. I think all the political system needs is a modern day Guy Fawkes to reset it and lets start again. None of todays Mps give me any confidence, old Mr stammer, Anallice and the rest are all in it for there own agenda.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> It is not mate but I have always believed in the greater good unlike some and am prepared to make sacrafices if needed unlike some



Let's not start that one, the holier than thou always falls apart in the end because no matter how "good" you are, there is always a point at which you become selfish.


----------



## Spectric

I would not say special but rather more normal, real people who need to think to use their hands and skills to produce something rather than the smart phone zombies who share trivia and like spoonfeeding and being supported by the state, I know a few of these, no common sense, want to become famous and not have to get a proper 9 to 5 job.


----------



## Spectric

All you need is the will to live to see the future and self preservation will kick in, myself and my partner have been hunkered down since last February completely avoiding the pandemic raging all around. The virus cannot walk, run or fly and is totaly relient on people to carry it between victims so unless the people want to stop this pandemic the government is really powerless.


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> All you need is the will to live to see the future and self preservation will kick in, myself and my partner have been hunkered down since last February completely avoiding the pandemic raging all around. The virus cannot walk, run or fly and is totaly relient on people to carry it between victims so unless the people want to stop this pandemic the government is really powerless.



Lucky for you that the option to do this exists. Not possible for everyone.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM said:


> Nightingale hospitals dont have any staff, so they are useless.



As we are right on the precipice of NHS overload, I think we may find out their actual purpose. Sadly I don't think being transferred from ITU to a Nightingale will be a sign of a good prognosis. Downgrade to the toytown ventilators and cobbled together undertrained and undermanned staffing. A long queue for the twin morgues at the far end. But, still counted as ICU care in the stats for capacity and treatment.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> Downgrade to the toytown ventilators and cobbled together undertrained and undermanned staffing. A long queue for the twin morgues at the far end. But, still counted as ICU care in the stats for capacity and treatment.



You believe it's all done for the gov't to look better then?


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> You believe it's all done for the gov't to look better then?


Big panic on at the start. They realised they'd got it all wrong and charged in head down brain off trying to catch up. Main miscalculation was in not having enough staff - due to earlier austerity policies impossible to correct overnight.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> You believe it's all done for the gov't to look better then?



No - have to have somewhere to put seriously ill patients if you fail in controlling the epidemic. The way they have been portrayed (down to the name) is spin though.


----------



## Jacob

__





COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> No - have to have somewhere to put seriously ill patients if you fail in controlling the epidemic. The way they have been portrayed (down to the name) is spin though.



Would death camps be a better name then, nothing better than honesty in a world wide crisis?
Those pesky WW2 politicians and their propoganda.


----------



## Spectric

Rorschach said:


> Lucky for you that the option to do this exists. Not possible for everyone.


There are many to whom this is an option but they carry on as usual, many in self denial. If you take out all the people who can isolate then it makes it easier for those who cannot. I have seen que's for drive through coffee, Mc junk food, Kentucky junk food and a host of others, this is not essential especially when they end up in local areas to eat as groups.


----------



## doctor Bob

Spectric said:


> ............................. myself and my partner have been hunkered down since last February completely avoiding the pandemic raging all around. The virus cannot walk, run or fly and is totaly relient on people to carry it between victims so unless the people want to stop this pandemic the government is really powerless.



I can't disagree, but mate 24hrs a day, 7 days a week with Mrs Dr Bob, for the love of god man, you do not know her. I have been trying to escape for a good 15 years but she has found tunnel 1 & 2, however the glider in the attic is my real hope to get over the fence.


----------



## Droogs

I thought your were rather proud of that fence Bob?


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> Would death camps be a better name then, nothing better than honesty in a world wide crisis?
> Those pesky WW2 politicians and their propoganda.



Very subtle Bob.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> Very subtle Bob.


So what would you call them Jake, you frown on Nightingale, obviously my suggestion was to portray an extreme, what should they be called to keep people happy but with no spin and to make public accept use of them?


----------



## Droogs

wards of passing would go down well


----------



## Jake

Overflow, Surge, whatever. Not my problem to solve really, but Nightingale is mawkish spin.


----------



## julianf

Jake said:


> As we are right on the precipice of NHS overload, I think we may find out their actual purpose. Sadly I don't think being transferred from ITU to a Nightingale will be a sign of a good prognosis. Downgrade to the toytown ventilators and cobbled together undertrained and undermanned staffing. A long queue for the twin morgues at the far end. But, still counted as ICU care in the stats for capacity and treatment.



At the start of all this, did we not see Italy being quite open about categorising some as unlikely to survive, and queuing them in basic wards for their transition to the afterlife?

I guess the nightingales will either be our version of that, or, on a more cheery note, low level rehab centres. They certainly are not going to be anything close to ICU units.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> Not my problem to solve.



    nice cop out.


----------



## rafezetter

julianf said:


> I think that there have been two main issues with the public following "the rules"
> 
> A) The rules have all been hazy and ill defined. I once sought clarity on an issue from a friend in the police force and they were none the wiser.
> 
> B) (and this is more significant, in my opinion) - All parties, but *especially* the one in command and making the rules should have lead by example!
> 
> There should have been no far fetched eye test excuses. Regardless of if rules were or were not broken then, the damage done to public confidence by such nonsense has, undoubtedly, cost lives.
> 
> I don't agree with what the new leader of the labor party has done regarding the anti-Semitism suspensions etc but I can fully understand why he has done it - to set a clear and indisputable example of zero tolerance.
> 
> The government setting the rules would, I suspect, have had a different reaction from the general public if they had shown zero tolerance to discrepancies within their own ranks.
> 
> Eye test illegality or otherwise, it's perception that counts, and the perception has been that "if they're not following their own rules..."
> 
> It should have all been clear cut with no room for confusion.



The rules have not been "hazy" and "ill defined" AT ALL that's BS speak to point fingers - there is a pandemic and has been for a year now, people who interact with others, for whatever reason, risk a chance of infection; the more interactions the higher the risk.

This is not rocket science.

If this pandemic was smallpox or the bubonic plague you think people would still be being a-holes? NO.

(although the upside of that would be all the a-holes would already be long dead - so there's that, and the pandemic would fizzle out due to no contact with the intelligent isolationists.)

People are being A-holes, because people are people - the morons who thinks it's all a conspiracy, many of the younger generation think because they are young without underlying health conditions that getting covid is about the same as a flu - and because of the fact that some have been asymptomatic, they think they will be as well, have covid with NO ILL EFFECTS AT ALL and can carry on having house parties.

You could set up loudspeakers on every street corner, with TV screens showing local residents in hospital (and dying) from covid and THEY WOULD STILL NOT GIVE A DAMN - or they would find a way to say it's another conspiracy and didn't happen (like the moon landings).

The rules ARE CLEAR, and they have BEEN CLEAR since the beginning - the people who have been careful have stayed in LOCKDOWN as much as they can since march last year REGARDLESS of familial desires or needs as much as is possible. It's also been shown that no matter how careful you are, covid can still be contracted IF YOU ARE AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. Footballers, several people in F1, cricket etc etc etc the list goes on and on.

If you are around other people, EVEN those who are supposed to be in a closed bubble - someone, somewhere will still contract it and spread it.

Isolation is not perfect, but still proven to be the most effective method to reduce the spread - this is a simple, undeniable FACT.

Everyone else have just been chancers and fools who think it won't happen to them, until it does - IMHO it's pretty much a certainty some of the deaths in the last 28 days are a DIRECT RESULT of the idiots who broke the Xmas restrictions, and also likely some deaths attributed to those who adhered to the restrictions of household numbers, but DID NOT take enough precautions in the days leading up to Xmas, and infected TWO OR MORE households instead of just thier own.

Intelligent people don't need to be told that isolating a household and reducing outside interaction as much as possible is the smart thing to do during a pandemic, that's just good self defense, and those that DO need to be told, probably won't pay it more than lip service anyway.

I'm sick of reading armchair politicians blaming Whitehall for the moronic DGAF actions of Jill & Joe Schmo I see out there every.single.time I go out shopping in the last year - as an example, just the other day in Lidl I saw a woman pick up and handle THREE french sticks before choosing a fourth, without using disposable gloves provided. on the counter. (edit: yes we did have words, after she was less than polite, I brought it before a member of staff - I didn't check to see what they did after)

THIS is the BS the Govt is having to contend with, you can't herd people just as you can't herd cats - the only difference being cats can't be herded even if you use threat of deadly force.

If this gets much worse I'd introduce martial law, because clearly the idiots are STILL not getting it one year on - round them up and put them in camps where they can infect each other as much as they want - if they haven't understood that interaction = transmission by now, they never will and we will be forever at thier mercy as the strain continues to evolve and kill more people.

Enough is enough.


----------



## Spectric

rafezetter said:


> (although the upside of that would be all the a-holes would already be long dead - so there's that, and the pandemic would fizzle out due to no contact with the intelligent isolationists.)


I believe that is a process called natural selection, very important if you want a good strong population.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> nice cop out.



Nice selective quoting, very fitting.


----------



## Rorschach

.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Overflow, Surge, whatever. Not my problem to solve really, but Nightingale is mawkish spin.



"I don't like it, change it!"
"What would you prefer?"
"I don't know do I, but not that!"


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> Overflow, Surge, whatever. Not my problem to solve really, but Nightingale is mawkish spin.


    nice cop out.

Is that OK?


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> nice cop out.
> 
> Is that OK?


 I gave you two neutral roots - you can add unit, whatever.


----------



## julianf

rafezetter said:


> The rules have not been "hazy" and "ill defined" AT ALL that's BS speak to point fingers - there is a pandemic and has been for a year now, people who interact with others, for whatever reason, risk a chance of infection; the more interactions the higher the risk.
> 
> This is not rocket science.



The point i sought clarity on was (lockdown v1) - 

I have a friend with mental health issues. He is on the shielding list, with the appropriate letters from the government etc.
I, personally, was in hospital with lung xrays, pnumonia etc the year before last. In another life, I also happen to have a BSc in Biology, so am not totally clueless as to these things.

As my friend had been shielding, and, due to my own health history, we "locked down" from before it was compulsory, both of us would be considered low risk of being carriers.
My friends wife called me and told me that she was more worried that he would top himself than get the virus.

I went round his, at the peak of lockdown, and helped him render his house, in order to give him a break from his insanity.

Was this against the rules?

It marginally increased my risk of death, but decreased his risk of death.
As I say, I was unsure, so I sought advice from another friend who is a police man. 

What would you have said? And would it have been your opinion or would it have been one of the "rules"?


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> I gave you two neutral roots - you can add unit, whatever.



Ok, how about, Nightingale overflow hospital.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> Ok, how about, Nightingale overflow hospital.



You just love the heartstrings don't you Bob. Not sure what Florence has to do with it, maybe replace her name with COVID or pandemic and we'd be in danger of agreeing again.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> You just love the heartstrings don't you Bob. Not sure what Florence has to do with it, maybe replace her name with COVID or pandemic and we'd be in danger of agreeing again.



But from your logic, my local hopital should be called "general illness and death hospital", not Princess Alexandra.


----------



## Lons

Jacob said:


> NHS over run by govt slowness to act over Covid. Also by unpreparedness after 10 years of utterly pointless austerity and underinvestment. Also understaffed due to under investment in training, deliberate understaffing public bodies everywhere (police, fire etc) to save money and deliberate hostility to immigrant workers.
> The bloke in the queue/party may be a twerp but he is being led and misadvised by conflicting and ever changing "guidance".


Good to note that a long enforced absence and cataract operation hasn't helped you to see any clearer Jacob.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> But from your logic, my local hopital should be called "general illness and death hospital", not Princess Alexandra.



Remind me again why Florence Nightingale is famous and revered?

edit: Plus, not much into royalty, remind me who Princess Alexandra was, I CBA to google her.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Remind me again why Florence Nightingale is famous and revered?
> 
> edit: Plus, not much into royalty, remind me who Princess Alexandra was, I CBA to google her.











Was Florence Nightingale an angel of mercy or power-crazed meddler?


A strikingly different picture of Florence Nightingale has emerged from the unpublished letters of one of her bitterest enemies.




www.theguardian.com





They could have called them Mother Theresa Hospitals, it would have been more accurate as she was a truly awful human being.


----------



## Droogs

She spent 4 years in bed writing letters to the editor of The Times and MPs.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> Remind me again why Florence Nightingale is famous and revered?
> 
> edit: Plus, not much into royalty, remind me who Princess Alexandra was, I CBA to google her.


I thnk you are nit picking, the point being, sentiment is in every day life, it's called having a heart, I don't see anything wrong with this.
for example, "mum died in a nightingale hospital or mum died in an overflow hospital". Makes no difference but maybe just maybe a bit more easy for relatives. I suppose if you just want to point score on a forum or defeat the Gov't singlehandedly then yes "surge or overflow" is more appropriate

As for Princess A, no me neither, but I prefer it to "general illness and death hospital".


----------



## Jake

Rorschach, inspired by your good self, perhaps Charlie Darwin units?


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Rorschach, inspired by your good self, perhaps Charlie Darwin units?



I don't know how well that tallies since according to most here C19 definitely isn't survival of the fittest.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> for example, "mum died in a nightingale hospital or mum died in an overflow hospital". Makes no difference but maybe just maybe a bit more easy for relatives



That's a decent point. On the other hand, FN is (rightly or wrongly is not the point here when calling on her legend for spin purposes) famous for (i) saving lots of lives (ii) by introducing successful infection control measures. These things won't do the former and will only be needed in the event of a complete failure of the latter.


----------



## selectortone

.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> I don't know how well that tallies since according to most here C19 definitely isn't survival of the fittest.



I was just trying to channel heartless brutality without going the full Bob 'death camp' route.


----------



## selectortone

I like '_Kompassionate Victorious 47th District Workers Hospital (No Emergencies)'._


----------



## Artiglio

julianf said:


> At the start of all this, did we not see Italy being quite open about categorising some as unlikely to survive, and queuing them in basic wards for their transition to the afterlife?
> 
> I guess the nightingales will either be our version of that, or, on a more cheery note, low level rehab centres. They certainly are not going to be anything close to ICU units.


In my hospital trust area, there were plans in place that in the event things got out of control that ambulance crews would be deciding who was taken in for treatment and who was left at home to fend for themselves. It went ovthe point that only under fifties would be taken in and ICU beds for the under 40’s. As it turned out it came nowhere close to any of that , but the planning was there.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> That's a platitude statement. Platitudes are easy to get buy-in on (like our nutballs here right now "everyone would approve of a review of the votes to make sure election integrity remains intact).
> 
> You literally cannot cover every possible event without increasing spending by some enormous amount and taking quid (what do you call them, quids, quiddies? quid piles?) away from current issues that are actually on peoples' door step.
> 
> Tell me how the news story would go if you had pandemic preparation for all of the different potential problems and someone started doing news reports on the stockpiles of materials as they expired and were thrown away. It would be in the tens of billions at least.
> 
> Platitudes don't anything for anyone unless you can actually lay out feasible plans to work toward them - but don't tell us about the events that have already happened (platitudes are great, because you can make up a specific plan of action for something in the past very easily), but the ones that could happen.
> 
> The first thing I'll be able to quickly do is point out a whole gaggle of other possibilities that aren't covered by your plan of action.



It isn't a platitude, the NHS is stripped to the bone.

I wasn't talking about pandemic contingency planning, I was talking about a real lack of capacity in the NHS system due to a decade of under investment.


----------



## julianf

RobinBHM said:


> It isn't a platitude, the NHS is stripped to the bone.
> 
> I wasn't talking about pandemic contingency planning, I was talking about a real lack of capacity in the NHS system due to a decade of under investment.



Underfund
State it's broke
Sell off cheap to your mates

"The NHS just haemorages money, so much wastage"

Vs

"Private health has very little waste, but costs more"

I think train tickets in the UK are somthing like 3x the world average? Some of the entities making profit from out train service are other countries nationalised services?

I've always thought - if a government can't run a nationalised train service, what on earth are they doing pretending they're fit for running the rest of the country?


----------



## Jacob

julianf said:


> ....
> 
> I've always thought - if a government can't run a nationalised train service, what on earth are they doing pretending they're fit for running the rest of the country?


They could run a train service but ideology prevents them. And not doing it makes loads of dosh for their mates, which is another ideological commitment.


----------



## Artiglio

Jacob said:


> They could run a train service but ideology prevents them. And not doing it makes loads of dosh for their mates, which is another ideological commitment.


In some ways it was worse when we had british rail, to keep suppliers going there were sytems where contracts were handed out on either “competitive“ or “allocated” basis , not surprisingly the allocated comtracts generally ran up bigger bills which in turn were used to justify the prices in competitive contracts. Hardly a system for getting best value.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> It isn't a platitude, the NHS is stripped to the bone.
> 
> I wasn't talking about pandemic contingency planning, I was talking about a real lack of capacity in the NHS system due to a decade of under investment.



Unused capacity is contingency planning. 

We have a lot of unused beds at hospitals here, too. Actually, we'd have been in the same position if not for profit health systems weren't in such a war for directing patients. That war has emerged over the last 15 or 20 years and gobs of older community hospitals have been torn down and surgery directed to "surgery centers" that have no inpatient beds to get away from the low negotiated reimbursements that hospitals agreed to (that's a little crooked, eh?. There's a new hospital built somewhere near me (within half an hour) at least once per year in the last 10 or 15 years, though.


----------



## Sean33

Robbo60 said:


> Hindsight is a perfect science! Leave NZ out the whole of Europe is in the dung., just different depths of it. So all the Governments are rubbish? Each country has different Geography (France twice as big but similar population) It does not matter when or what rules you introduce if some of the population ignore them. "Shouldn't have let students go back" - No, students should have followed the rules! How many of the population don't understand what +1 or 6 means.
> How many actually stuck to the rules fully on Christmas Day. I have several "responsible" friends who were seeing more than two other households. Parents, Children, Grandchildren
> My view is the Government has an impossible task and how many of those taking the moral high ground have ever had to make such massive decisions regarding health and the economy? None (apart from Tony Blaire spouting off - In the words of John Cleese "Don't mention the war!")
> Right going to make some shelves


Couldn't agree more. One thing for sure is history will tell us what would have been the right course of action to take. Going forwards got to say i am amazed at how the government is doing at getting the vaccine out there, I can only compare this to what is going on in Europe but vaccinating more than the whole of Europe by a long margin and similar numbers to testing, dont often applaud the government but i will this time.


----------



## julianf

Artiglio said:


> In some ways it was worse when we had british rail, to keep suppliers going there were sytems where contracts were handed out on either “competitive“ or “allocated” basis , not surprisingly the allocated comtracts generally ran up bigger bills which in turn were used to justify the prices in competitive contracts. Hardly a system for getting best value.



Again, there is all sorts of wastage in nationalised industries. But the cost to the tax payer / user is still lower even with the wastage. So i guess its how you define "a system for getting best value".

I cant be bothered to look up the numbers now to verify, but I've certainly heard it said that government (tax payer) contributions to the rail service are greater now then when the service was fully nationalised. The cost to the ticket buyer is larger. And foreign railways are even allowed to make a profit from our system, which, in the context of the wave of "coming over ere stealing our jobs"... Well it wasn't on the front page of the Daily Mail in the run up to the referendum, that's for sure.

My point is that simply removing waste by privatisation is often touted as a method to lower cost, but the actual, observed evidence does not really support that.


----------



## Artiglio

Julianf

The railway system is probably not a good example when it comes to costs and privatisation, to some extent its a victim of its own success, but to increase capacity on lines with the demand is nigh on impossible in any practical manner ( we’d effectively have to build other lines alongside existing ones but that still wouldn’t deal with the issues of finding additional terminus capacity in big cities.)
The NHS suffers similarly in that there are always new advances in medicine , which invariably are ever more expensive, yet at the same time as a nation we have for several years seen a decline in life expectancy, which rather suggests ,that despite ever better medical intervention , we don’t value the bodies that nature has bestowed upon us and abusenthem too much. So more people need ever more expensive medical interventions for longer. But in addition as a nation we are less efficient and so don’t generate the wealth needed to supply the services we’d like. 
As a nation we’ve become too reliant on low skill low wage employment for too many people , we in turn supplement the incomes of those in such jobs ( as we should , not everyone can or will make a good living) , however this has tilted the economy the wrong way, creates demand for cheap labour and discourages investment in automation, skills etc.
Way off the OP, but it has all lead society to where it is today.


----------



## Billy_wizz

RobinBHM said:


> It isn't a platitude, the NHS is stripped to the bone.
> 
> I wasn't talking about pandemic contingency planning, I was talking about a real lack of capacity in the NHS system due to a decade of under investment.


Or decades of waist! It's funny how it's mostly the front line staff that have been reduced not the overbloated middle manager and non medical section! Or why it takes 4 people to assess that I need a gromit
1 doctor,1nurse,1 paper filler and someone to take me from the waiting room to an observation room that I could see from the waiting room!


----------



## John Brown

I don't know if the other lot would have done any better than the shower in power, but I always think being the government is a bit like playing pool when you're drunk. The skillful bit is taking credit when things go right, and blaming the cue/sloping table/distracting noise when things go badly.
Let's face it, politicians don't really have to do a great deal in "normal" times, so it's probably unfair and unrealistic to expect a bunch of privileged public school educated pratts to deal with a real crisis.

Cummings should have been kicked out immediately, though.
Ditto Jacob Rees-Mogg. Travelling between tiers because he has to attend Latin mass... What a thoroughly odious creep!


----------



## rafezetter

Spectric said:


> I believe that is a process called natural selection, very important if you want a good strong population.




Well yes, but apparently we have to protect "the stupid" who kicked off this second wave and are becoming super spreaders - "coz human rights", regardless of the human rights of those they infect and kill..

As was shown in NZ - it WAS possible to almost entirely eradicate covid from a community, *if* everyone adhered to the same behaviour as those who were / are at high risk of death after infection. It has a SHORT lifespan measured in days on surfaces, that were easily treated to kill it - it.. it really blows my mind the staggering levels of stupidity people have been displaying - THE PEOPLE not Whitehall.

Now it's mutated and the vaccine means people are being *even less* vigilant, so covid is here to stay in perpituity and be another yearly (or even bi-annual) problem like the flu, but even more deadly - thank you, stupid people, good work liberal lefties. 

History WILL blame you all.


----------



## rafezetter

julianf said:


> The point i sought clarity on was (lockdown v1) -
> 
> I have a friend with mental health issues. He is on the shielding list, with the appropriate letters from the government etc.
> I, personally, was in hospital with lung xrays, pnumonia etc the year before last. In another life, I also happen to have a BSc in Biology, so am not totally clueless as to these things.
> 
> As my friend had been shielding, and, due to my own health history, we "locked down" from before it was compulsory, both of us would be considered low risk of being carriers.
> My friends wife called me and told me that she was more worried that he would top himself than get the virus.
> 
> I went round his, at the peak of lockdown, and helped him render his house, in order to give him a break from his insanity.
> 
> Was this against the rules?
> 
> It marginally increased my risk of death, but decreased his risk of death.
> As I say, I was unsure, so I sought advice from another friend who is a police man.
> 
> What would you have said? And would it have been your opinion or would it have been one of the "rules"?



Strictly? Yes. Morally, absolutely not, and I would have said to go as well but taking extra precautions (see below). I am one of those same people, but self manage in other non medicated ways.

However we both know that people have been bleating about "hazy rules" since last march, and that both of you are clearly not part of the "stupid" group to which I refer. There are always outliers and situations that can be properly managed with some forethought, even if you didn't go right away but told him you had to isolate for a week because the wife went shopping 2 days ago, that would probably have given him enough comfort until you could go there in person.

People didn't do this - they quoted the same reasons for a lockdown breach (often flat out lying as it became a good "loophole" excuse) and then visited _right away_, and passed the virus, because they didn't take extra precations - this is a *fact*.

There are ALWAYS ways to self manage poor mental health (even severe cases) for those who need it, trust me I know that of which I speak, I could write a book on it. Just a few months ago, between July (June?) and October I had a friend of 35 years living with me in my TWO ROOMS (I live in a HMO) sleeping on my sofa, who was supremely suicidal (and made what I referred to as his "death bag" full of pills and nytol and cough medicine), now he is back with his wife and according to him, "permanently stable, no longer a risk" and I can see that it's not a front, the danger has passed, I can see the man I knew before. (this can be independatly verified by another ex-forumite Eric the Viking.)

It was a general reply to all those whom have said as much directly and indirectly - like our very own rorshach, who seems to think my post above is funny and has openly said "let old people die as long as I can keep making money, my economic sitution is more important" [paraphrased but close] I've got screencaps - wanna see?

Has he been a spreader? probably not; does he share the mentality of those who have? Emphatic yes.


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> Well yes, but apparently we have to protect "the stupid" who kicked off this second wave and are becoming super spreaders - "coz human rights", regardless of the human rights of those they infect and kill..
> 
> As was shown in NZ - it WAS possible to almost entirely eradicate covid from a community, *if* everyone adhered to the same behaviour as those who were / are at high risk of death after infection. It has a SHORT lifespan measured in days on surfaces, that were easily treated to kill it - it.. it really blows my mind the staggering levels of stupidity people have been displaying - THE PEOPLE not Whitehall.
> 
> Now it's mutated and the vaccine means people are being *even less* vigilant, so covid is here to stay in perpituity and be another yearly (or even bi-annual) problem like the flu, but even more deadly - thank you, stupid people, good work liberal lefties.
> 
> History WILL blame you all.



We heard the NZ line here in the US, too. It's naive to think that you could lock down a gigantic economy that was already inundated with covid (be it britain or the US, or italy or whatever else) vs. NZ who had a couple of cases or australia who had a couple of cases and not much else. But if you're into pointing fingers at someone else, have at it. 

Have you read the accounts of "all of the people" you're talking about re: the spanish flu? Are we villainizing them?

Covid was here to stay no matter what. it would take literally a couple of cases to make sure that it never went away - even without realizing that there are unstable parts of the globe where it would never be managed in the first place.


----------



## D_W

julianf said:


> And foreign railways are even allowed to make a profit



The nerve!!! They should volunteer!!


----------



## Rorschach

rafezetter said:


> "let old people die as long as I can keep making money, my economic sitution is more important" [paraphrased but close] I've got screencaps - wanna see?



Yeah I wanna see!


----------



## Blackswanwood

Billy_wizz said:


> Or decades of waist! It's funny how it's mostly the front line staff that have been reduced not the overbloated middle manager and non medical section! Or why it takes 4 people to assess that I need a gromit
> 1 doctor,1nurse,1 paper filler and someone to take me from the waiting room to an observation room that I could see from the waiting room!


Waist or Waste?


----------



## Misterdog

John Brown said:


> I don't know if the other lot would have done any better than the shower in power,



Well over 20,000 died under the last Labour government from the flu in 1999.

A virus for which we have had a vaccine since the 1940's.

I would suggest that one shower is little better than another shower.
Though many are born under one colour of umbrella which prevents them from seeing beyond it. (Red or Blue)


----------



## Amateur

PerryGunn said:


> I don't think there have been obvious 'right' answers to the pandemic, as evidenced by the number of different strategies that have been tried worldwide.
> 
> It's very easy to look at everything that's happend with the benefit of hindsight and say '_They should have done this_', '_Couldn't they see that..._' or '_If only they'd <insert option here> before <something>_' but I don't think that any alternative UK government would have handled things any better given the information that they had at the time.
> 
> I'm just thankful that I'm not one of the people who had/have to make the decisions that try to walk the tightrope between too many deaths and severe economic damage.



spot on.
I think Boris has done a good job.
The outcome is in the public's hands.
They know far more than anybody sat behind a key board complaining and moaning.
Anybody who runs a business knows how difficult it is to please everyone.
Boris didn't want to put folk under stringent rules and was relying on the public to be sensible.
Unfortunately that's not worked.

When you look at the rest of the world we have done pretty well.
Look at Europe.
It's a mess.
Even Germany, who were quoted by the same people attacking our governments as the way to do things, have now fallen into panic mode.
Where are these people now?
Still attacking our efforts.
I
Look at Japan
A state of emergency.
People need to understand logistics, medicine, how businesses work, litigation parameters before they start ragging this country, or roll up their sleeves and get stuck in to help.
Watching the BBC or reading any rag isn't going to give you enough Information to make an informed decision unless you've already joined conspirators anonymous, or the anarchists group.


----------



## Cozzer

Rorschach said:


> It gets caught be visiting other houses.



Exactly!
So don't!
Don't visit other houses!
That means you. That means me.
That's what "*Stay at home*" means!



Rorschach said:


> I am following the data and the data showed that covid "secure" places like pubs and restaurants were responsible for less than 3% of transmission. The more you stop people meeting in "safe" places the more they meet in their homes. It's not rocket surgery you know.



There is _NO_ safe place.


----------



## Jacob

Misterdog said:


> Well over 20,000 died under the last Labour government from the flu in 1999.
> 
> A virus for which we have had a vaccine since the 1940's.
> 
> I would suggest that one shower is little better than another shower.
> Though many are born under one colour of umbrella which prevents them from seeing beyond it. (Red or Blue)


I can tell which shower you vote for! 




__





Deaths due to coronavirus (COVID-19) compared with deaths from influenza and pneumonia, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics


Comparison of deaths from the coronavirus (COVID-19) with deaths from influenza (flu) and pneumonia. Includes deaths by date of death occurrence and breakdowns by sex and age.



www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## Misterdog

Rorschach said:


> I am following the data and the data showed that covid "secure" places like pubs and restaurants were responsible for less than 3% of transmission.



Good that people are following 'the data', 3% of cases would only add 1,600 positive tests per day.
Or 48,000 per month. Who may then spread it to say 3 other people
150,000 per month.

It's a no brainer in my book, reopen the pubs .


----------



## julianf

rafezetter said:


> Strictly? Yes.



That's what i would have thought also, however, its not the correct answer.
Providing the support "bubble" was exclusive, and with the preceding isolation period, the true answer is, no.


But then you get into things like driving from London to Durham, without the isolation period. I would suggest that to be against the rules, but, apparently that is ok, as its a child care issue.

Or making a trip to the Barnards Castle - again, i would think no, but, again, I'm wrong. Entirely acceptable if you want to test your eyesight (by operating heavy machinery in a typically dangerous situation).


I'm not wanting to conflict with you, but i have to go back to my previous statement that - 



julianf said:


> A) The rules have all been hazy and ill defined.
> 
> [AND]
> 
> It should have all been clear cut with no room for confusion.


----------



## Rorschach

Listening to the Radio today it is clear that a large section of people (including Police officers) cannot distinguish between LAW and GUIDANCE. 

This is mostly relating to the story of the two ladies in Derbyshire. They were not following GUIDANCE but they were not breaking the LAW and this is where there is confusion.


----------



## NormanB

Rorschach said:


> Listening to the Radio today it is clear that a large section of people (including Police officers) cannot distinguish between LAW and GUIDANCE.
> 
> This is mostly relating to the story of the two ladies in Derbyshire. They were not following GUIDANCE but they were not breaking the LAW and this is where there is confusion.


Equally, it highlights those of a mendacious mindset to test the limits of the rules rather than understanding what exactly is the problem and behaving within the spirit or aim of the rules. It is a pity the virus does not discriminate against stupid because it would be a great way of improving the gene pool. Unfortunately that is not the case.


----------



## Rorschach

NormanB said:


> Equally, it highlights those of a mendacious mindset to test the limits of the rules rather than understanding what exactly is the problem and behaving within the spirit or aim of the rules. It is a pity the virus does not discriminate against stupid because it would be a great way of improving the gene pool. Unfortunately that is not the case.



It's not about the spirit of the law, that isn't how the law works.


----------



## julianf

NormanB said:


> Equally, it highlights those of a mendacious mindset to test the limits of the rules rather than understanding what exactly is the problem and behaving within the spirit or aim of the rules.



Sorry, are you talking about covid, or tax avoidance now?


Both examples above will be responsible for thousands and thousands of fatalities.

My main point, which i alluded to previously also - 

Its endemic in our society. 

(for clarity, I'm now talking the concept of rule stretching, not the virus isnt also!)


----------



## julianf

I read yesterday that the UK now has the highest infection rate, per capita, of anywhere in the world.

Another trail blazing record there.


----------



## Misterdog

julianf said:


> I read yesterday that the UK now has the highest infection rate, per capita, of anywhere in the world.
> 
> Another trail blazing record there.



Or maybe we are just testing more than anywhere else.

I read that.

We have definitely administered more vaccines than anywhere else in Europe.
750,000 more people than in Germany.

My 93 YO mother is booked in on Thursday, my friends father was jabbed on Saturday and his mother is booked in on Thursday, so not fake news then.









COVID-19: Which European country has the fastest vaccine roll out?


Israel and the UK are the countries that have administered the most vaccine doses to date while France and the Netherlands are among the slowest countries.




www.euronews.com





 

Though if I wished to show an anti Tory bias, I could say, we could have done it faster and saved lives, we could have done it cheaper and saved money.

Opinions may vary.


----------



## Misterdog

julianf said:


> The rules have all been hazy and ill defined.



Unlike Keir Starmer, who yesterday said that nurseries and pre-schools should 'probably' close.

Nothing hazy or ill defined there.


----------



## Misterdog

Terry - Somerset said:


> Personally I think Corbyn and Co were a disaster area waiting to happen.



Though imagine how clear all the statistics would have been with Dianne Abott as Home Secretary.

Abott (sic) as clear as in Russia where they have just added 120,000 to the death toll due to a 'book keeping' error.









Covid-19: Russia admits to understating deaths by more than two thirds


Russia’s true death toll from the novel coronavirus pandemic is not about 57 000, as official figures claim, but more than 180 000, the country’s deputy prime minister, Tatiana Golikova, conceded at a press conference. Russia’s claims of an extraordinarily low mortality have been widely...




www.bmj.com


----------



## Droogs

Well that has always been a possibility if you buy the wrong sort of book in Russia


----------



## Misterdog

On another forum I'm on the site owner claims that Putin is a Fascist ( the Putin who worked for the KGB for 18 years.)
If this were true you might think that he and BJ/Trump would have got on like a house on fire.
I think there is a desire to write communism out of the history books, because a failed form of socialism does not look good to some.

Though anything right of centre can be called fascism.

If the UK population had ever experienced dictatorship, then there might be less political bickering about the democracy we are privileged to enjoy.


----------



## Spectric

Misterdog said:


> Though imagine how clear all the statistics would have been with Dianne Abott as Home Secretary.


Not that clear if she spent too much time under Corbyns desk! Lets say she got to her position but not on a ladder.


----------



## D_W

Misterdog said:


> Though imagine how clear all the statistics would have been with Dianne Abott as Home Secretary.
> 
> Abott (sic) as clear as in Russia where they have just added 120,000 to the death toll due to a 'book keeping' error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid-19: Russia admits to understating deaths by more than two thirds
> 
> 
> Russia’s true death toll from the novel coronavirus pandemic is not about 57 000, as official figures claim, but more than 180 000, the country’s deputy prime minister, Tatiana Golikova, conceded at a press conference. Russia’s claims of an extraordinarily low mortality have been widely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bmj.com



To be fair, that's a pretty small error margin for Russia.


----------



## D_W

julianf said:


> (for clarity, I'm now talking the concept of rule stretching, not the virus isnt also!)



is "Rule stretching" a legal definition? We generally write laws in a clear manner with clear punishments if compliance is important. Rule stretching sounds like something someone would use when it's their opinion that something is important and it's not the opinion of everyone else. But the implication is that rule stretching is "more devious and less noble" than law breaking.


----------



## julianf

D_W said:


> is "Rule stretching" a legal definition? We generally write laws in a clear manner with clear punishments if compliance is important. Rule stretching sounds like something someone would use when it's their opinion that something is important and it's not the opinion of everyone else. But the implication is that rule stretching is "more devious and less noble" than law breaking.



Fox hunting.
Tax evasion.

Two sets of laws which are often "stretched" - in the sense that the boundaries of the written text are considered to be somthing to be worked around, rather than to be followed "in spirit"


----------



## julianf

Misterdog said:


> Unlike Keir Starmer, who yesterday said that nurseries and pre-schools should 'probably' close.
> 
> Nothing hazy or ill defined there.



Some might say that blaming the party that is not in power, for the faults of the party that is power, is somewhat "clutching at straws".


----------



## doctor Bob

I see no one blaming labour.


----------



## Jacob

Spectric said:


> Not that clear if she spent too much time under Corbyns desk! Lets say she got to her position but not on a ladder.


You obviously find Diane Abbott very exciting, you mention her quite often.
She made one clumsy mistake years ago on a TV prog, just like hundreds of other MPs have done over the years, not to mention Johnson himself.
It's kept Sun readers in a frenzy of excitement ever since, poor things!
In fact she's a very clever and highly qualified woman with a very successful career as an MP and highly rated by her constituents.
Wouldn't you fancy having Liz Truss under your desk, or Gavin Williamson perhaps? Freshen up your fantasies?


----------



## Misterdog

julianf said:


> Some might say that blaming the party that is not in power, for the faults of the party that is power, is somewhat "clutching at straws".



Merely quoting the opposition leaders words, not apportioning blame, I'll leave to others more qualified than myself.



> Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC this morning that nursery schools should be shut down amid growing fears that the coronavirus is spreading out of control. Speaking to Andrew Marr, the Labour leader said nursery schools should *"probably close"* but added that he wants to talk to scientists about it. He said that many British people are "surprised" that primary schools are closed while nursery school are exempt.



Clear as mud.


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> You obviously find Diane Abbott very exciting!
> In fact she's a very clever and highly qualified woman. She made one clumsy mistake years ago on a TV prog, just like hundreds of other MPs have done over the years, not to mention Johnson himself.
> It's kept Sun readers in a frenzy of excitement ever since, poor things!



Sounds like you are a big fan.


----------



## doctor Bob

Just the one mistake ...................... your maths is as bad as hers.
She won't feature in any labour plans for a while now unless there is an uprising in the party lead by Jacob the great.


----------



## D_W

julianf said:


> Fox hunting.
> Tax evasion.
> 
> Two sets of laws which are often "stretched" - in the sense that the boundaries of the written text are considered to be somthing to be worked around, rather than to be followed "in spirit"



Perhaps you may want to consider that law written rigidly often tangles people who weren't breaking it in spirit in the first place. I know that doesn't fit in the whole conspiracy theory thing where the rich just want to use you as a subject to make themselves richer. 

In the states, the theories bandied about like this are often promoted by people who don't actually do anything productive, just as the folks who do the most complaining about the rich paying more taxes often receive a credit each year rather than paying taxes (because their income is so low that accumulated tax credits end up providing them with refunds greater than they paid in). 

I find this a little bit odd, but as a matter of understanding human nature and the near complete inability for anyone to attempt to justify the counter to their opinion - not that satisfying. 

Or to be more clear, one of the things that makes me a political independent is the fact that I can usually come up for a rational argument, reason or ethic for someone who favors the opposite of my opinion. Rather than just accuse them of misdeeds. That's naive and juvenile.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> Just the one mistake ...................... your maths is as bad as hers.
> She won't feature in any labour plans for a while now unless there is an uprising in the party lead by Jacob the great.


One interview Labour's Diane Abbott was asked to resign over interview blunder


----------



## D_W

doctor Bob said:


> Just the one mistake ...................... your maths is as bad as hers.
> She won't feature in any labour plans for a while now unless there is an uprising in the party lead by Jacob the great.



I know fairly little about UK politics, but when we heard Corbyn was in by some set of circumstances, most of us here who are a bit more pragmatic pictured the same thing we do with sanders - easy time being a critic from the outside. Complete inability to do anything once you're on the hook. Is that the way it went with corbyn? That's usually followed by consipiracy theories explaining away incompetence once the critic is out of power. 

This is a lot like the pro wrestling angle where a heel stirs the pot and creates a bunch of tension, loses a match, and then the next time they cut a promo, they scream "I didn't lose a match, you're lying". 

Denial of reality - even when it's scripted. 

I'll admit, I don't know what actually happened with corbyn, just that idealists can only exist in most cases when they're marketing something (their brand of criticism) vs. doing something that could be subject to others' criticism.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> One interview Labour's Diane Abbott was asked to resign over interview blunder



It's interesting just how closely this narrative (knowing nothing about who this person is) fits what I said about corbyn. Do something stupid, blame someone (or something else). 

Apparently, it took an investigation with the brother to find out that the more likely scenario (she had no clue what her proposal would cost, didn't care, and isn't capable of providing a reasonable estimate on the spot) wasn't true. 

But coming back later with an excuse (after considering all possible ideas and then picking one based on how it would sound) will generally satisfy the fans and squash the critics ("I can't believe you'd criticize her over something that happened due to her Type 2 diabetes....you're just vindictive!!!").


----------



## andy hamilton

Rorschach said:


> It gets caught be visiting other houses.
> 
> I am following the data and the data showed that covid "secure" places like pubs and restaurants were responsible for less than 3% of transmission. The more you stop people meeting in "safe" places the more they meet in their homes. It's not rocket surgery you know.


How does it get into houses in the first place? Without knowing what percentage of the population visited pubs and restaurants in the brief period they were open, your 3% figure is misleading. You could argue that jumping off cliffs accounts for less than 0.5% of UK deaths, but it would be misleading to conclude that it's a safe thing to do


----------



## Jake

Misterdog said:


> On another forum I'm on the site owner claims that Putin is a Fascist ( the Putin who worked for the KGB for 18 years.)



The site owner is right, what on earth else do you think Putin is?


----------



## gregmcateer

billw said:


> Singapore did it very well, but the whole country is about the size of Manchester and has no land borders.



And if you even look at a stick of chewing gum they'll cut yer nuts off


----------



## Spectric

Jacob said:


> You obviously find Diane Abbott very exciting, you mention her quite often.
> She made one clumsy mistake years ago on a TV prog, just like hundreds of other MPs have done over the years, not to mention Johnson himself.
> It's kept Sun readers in a frenzy of excitement ever since, poor things!
> In fact she's a very clever and highly qualified woman with a very successful career as an MP and highly rated by her constituents.
> Wouldn't you fancy having Liz Truss under your desk, or Gavin Williamson perhaps? Freshen up your fantasies?


It is no good being all that if you come across as incompetant and way out of your depth but it is unfortunate that todays MPs all seem to have various issues, maybe just that today with all the technology they can nolonger hide it but I have absolutely no faith or confidence in any politician of today and something needs to change. The last politician I had any admiration for was Blair, life during his terms was good but we needed that having suffered from thatcher, who single handedly did more destruction to the UK than the Luftwaffe. Then Labour thought we have had the best so lets compete with the torries for the worst and along came Corbyn straight out of the history books and completly out of touch with reality, and that was the end of Labour for me like it was for so many others and I can fully understand why the younger generations no longer take interest in politics and won't until a major shake up. One minute they claim to want to be carbon free, next minute agree to a new coal mine. Talk about protecting the enviroment and then lets give the developers the power to cover it with housing sounds like one u turn after another. If I was the PM all project decisions would be based on one simple criteria, they have to deliver the most benefit to the most people and not just support a few who are going to financially gain. HS2 will create the Northern powerhouse, no the Victorians created the northern powerhouse that fueled the industrial revolution and since then consecutive governments have just laid waste to it. HS2 will just increase the catchment area for people to work in London and then more areas will become unaffordable to the people to live and yet despite the controversy and enviromental damage they still pursue it, why probably because they have a lot of freinds with money invested in the project. By the way I was born in the south.


----------



## mikej460

Spectric said:


> Then Labour thought we have had the best so lets compete with the torries for the worst and along came Corbyn


No, Brown came next and by totally mis-managing the impending recession he almost financially ruined the country which then let the Tories in, resulting in years of austerity that crippled the NHS and Social Care.

Corbyn was just too far left, a total socialist and like you 'straight from the history books'.

Blair was good though, a great stateman, but so far up Bush's bum he could see his tonsils...which was his undoing as he took us to war based on a lie.


----------



## Misterdog

Jake said:


> The site owner is right, what on earth else do you think Putin is?



Was Stalin a fascist as well then ? you might think that he and Hitler would have been great friends if so.



> Putin worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, Its main functions were foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence, operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State border of the USSR, *guarding the leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party *




Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia

My step mother was incarcerated in a Russian labour camp for 10 years, Russian labour camps were not the soft option that prison is, our family had no idea whether she was alive or dead.....

Still with the simplicity of the modern world all that is required is to change a 0 to a 1 or vice-versa.
So changing Communism into Fascism is simple.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Corbyn sat on a referendum fence for four years - not so much a leader as a political balancing act. John McDonnell was the brains. Most (not all) of his shadow cabinet were limited ability sycophants - hungry for political power but bereft of real talent. 

I had some regard for Blair, probably as he was so close to the centre ground. Clever, able, positive etc. But he blotted his copybook with fabricated weapons of mass destruction, dodgy dossier followed by war in the Middle East. Brown was honest but uninspiring.

Starmer has potential but is now frequently reverting to opposition stereotype - too early or too late; too much or too little, too fast or too slow; etc. Rather disappointing but streets ahead of Corbyn. 

The opposition are not responsible for the actions of the party in power. But they are the opposition because they failed to persuade voters they were a coherent, plausible, convincing alternative.


----------



## rafezetter

Cozzer said:


> How do you think it enters the house in the first place, then? Down the chimney like Father Christmas?
> From meeting people outside the house, not observing the rules.
> I take it you're against pubs, theatres and restaurants being closed as well?



Cozzer - in answer to your last question the answer is YES - when the first lockdown happened Rorshach was extremely vocal about how the lockdown was unnecessary, how businesses (including his NON ECONOMICALLY VITAL business) should be allowed to continue trading and were financially affected and pretty much every other reason he could find to throw at it.

None of which stuck in the face of self evidenced reduction of transmission figures from lockdown - he was also pretty much the only forumite to openly say he's happy to let old people die to save the economy - one good thing about the fact historical posts cannot be edited on this forum now is that if anyone desires to go through his post history on the topic of covid, he will be revealed for all to see as a rather despicable human being - or at the very least to vehemently adhere to views not commonly held by the rest of socially conscious society, you could be forgiven for thinking he's just a harmless troll but from all evidence (as you've seen) he actually believes the nonsense he's spouting.

However he's still living in the same house as he was then, he's not been forced to sell the family silver to financially survive (unlike others) and is clearly doing fine; sure his personal finances have taken a hit - haven't we all - Bboo ffing Hoo, still doesn't give him and others the right to essentially condemn INNOCENT** people to death.

** the guilty superspreaders - yeah, happy to shoot them in the face in front of their families and social group, maybe that way they'll get the message. Why families and social groups? Because personal observance shows when a group of several young people are together, or families it's uncommon to see one of them without a mask - peer pressure, but I see a whole bunch of solitary people and couples not wearing masks and I beleive the mentality of "wearing masks vs not" is a group socially reinforced behaviour, parents don't so teenagers don't, and if they are not wearing masks it's a safe bet they are not sanitising either.

Sanitising stations are still everywhere, is there a queue to use it in the local supermarket? Nope, most seem to walk right on past.

Rorshach - I'm sure you'll accuse me of a troll hunt and report this post to the mods but the truth is 3 words "hoist, own, petard" - all I'm doing is shining a spotlight on it, that's the problem of saying stuff publically, some of us will remember and remind others of the stupidity displayed; this is the internet and this is the rules of game now, your own post history shows most of what you say on the topic of covid should be treated with derision and disregarded as self serving BS.

Mods, happy for you to factcheck my claims in rorshachs history before you delete this - you would be astounded and apalled.

Jacob - Broadband for all by now? Are you serious? We don't even have broadband for all areas when it's financially viable for private enterprise - what on earth makes you think the govt can afford to spend hundreds of billions bringing broadband TO ALL - do you even understand the mechanics of that statement? There are still places in the UK that don't even have a landline! If the Govt tried a "TO ALL" policy, they will fail, and spectacularly and create a new kind of poverty "internet poverty" where people will blame lack of internet for thier own personal failures, because it's "the govts job to give it to us" instead of doing something like relocating to an area with good coverage if thier job or childrens education required it.

You've clearly not even remotely thought this through - you don't even think HST is a good idea! (note; I agree the handling of it has been rubbish, but the premise is sound and has been proven to be VERY beneficial in many other poorer nations like Turkey whom already have a HST, and you only have to look at Japan to see HST's are a no brainer.)


----------



## Rorschach

@rafezetter I wouldn't ask the mods to delete your posts, they are the best best entertainment on this forum. You remind me of someone else on another forum I visit, they also entertain me greatly. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Jacob

rafezetter said:


> .....
> 
> Jacob - Broadband for all by now? Are you serious? We don't even have broadband for all areas when it's financially viable for private enterprise - what on earth makes you think the govt can afford to spend hundreds of billions bringing broadband TO ALL ......


It's about updating the existing system, hardly revolutionary. Fibre is steadily replacing copper already. We have it here in rural Derbyshire. Compared to other infrastructure proposals it's pretty cheap, which is why all sorts of odd places are already at it Internet in South Korea - Wikipedia 97%
Japan 99% etc etc


----------



## Jake

Misterdog said:


> Was Stalin a fascist as well then ? you might think that he and Hitler would have been great friends if so.



Stalin was clearly a communist. Hitler and he were pretty tight for a while, similar worldviews (if polar opposite ideologies) and happy to carve up Europe until Hitler welched on the deal. 



> Still with the simplicity of the modern world all that is required is to change a 0 to a 1 or vice-versa. So changing Communism into Fascism is simple.



It's not actually all that big a pivot, all the authoritarian structures are the same. Quick step across the end of the horseshoe. Grab all the state owned property into the hands of the few, change a few initials and away you go.


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> You obviously find Diane Abbott very exciting, you mention her quite often.
> She made one clumsy mistake years ago on a TV prog, just like hundreds of other MPs have done over the years, not to mention Johnson himself.
> It's kept Sun readers in a frenzy of excitement ever since, poor things!
> In fact she's a very clever and highly qualified woman with a very successful career as an MP and highly rated by her constituents.
> Wouldn't you fancy having Liz Truss under your desk, or Gavin Williamson perhaps? Freshen up your fantasies?



One clumsy mistake ?, then sent her son to a private school (new party policy or just for the privileged few?).









Education: Dear Diane Abbott... - Socialist Worker


Poet Michael Rosen slams New Labour's education agenda.




socialistreview.org.uk





Ms Abbott made Jonathan Aitken, the former Conservative cabinet minister who served a prison sentence for perjury, her son's godfather.

As to her sons behaviour involving assault of police and NHS workers, having crystal meth delivered to his mothers home, while she was shadow home secretary, and subsequent sectioning. Google is your friend.

The perfect politician.


----------



## rafezetter

D_W said:


> We heard the NZ line here in the US, too. It's naive to think that you could lock down a gigantic economy that was already inundated with covid (be it britain or the US, or italy or whatever else) vs. NZ who had a couple of cases or australia who had a couple of cases and not much else. But if you're into pointing fingers at someone else, have at it.
> 
> Have you read the accounts of "all of the people" you're talking about re: the spanish flu? Are we villainizing them?
> 
> Covid was here to stay no matter what. it would take literally a couple of cases to make sure that it never went away - even without realizing that there are unstable parts of the globe where it would never be managed in the first place.



So we isolate them, why should the rest of the planet pay the price?

Let's get real people, this is a dry run for a more virulent pandemic that WILL happen sometime down the line - we've been overdue for decades and with international travel being what it is and humanity spreading as we are, and worldwide pollution being what it is - it's a goddamn certainty.

Yes you could have "locked down" or otherwise better managed even a gigantic economy like the USA, because the USA is still just a bunch of SMALLER economies, just like everyplace else.

As I said covid lasts only DAYS without a host and is currently EASILY killed on surfaces etc - the absolute ideal scenarios would have been to lock everything down for a month, and I mean everything, enforced with martial law and internment camps - yes I'm being wholly serious - if covid had been ebola, that's exactly what would have happened and I defy you to say different; once you accept that drastic situations require drastic action, it's a simple direct correlation.

If time could be turned back and humanity offered the above scenario for a month or two worldwide, compared to the now perpetual threat of covid and the economic cost (so far) that is going to generations to balance - what do you think the answer would be?

Humanity COULD have been entirely covid free by now - instead we've now folded this new virus into the yearly death count alongside the flu, and we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing how it will evolve and mutate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - history will judge us all - we COULD have got a handle on this, but we instead allowed the bleeding hearts "show me the money / it's against my constitional rights / I have the right to my freedom / blah / blah / blah" people to condemn us all.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Spectric said:


> It is no good being all that if you come across as incompetant and way out of your depth but it is unfortunate that todays MPs all seem to have various issues, maybe just that today with all the technology they can nolonger hide it but I have absolutely no faith or confidence in any politician of today and something needs to change. The last politician I had any admiration for was Blair, life during his terms was good but we needed that having suffered from thatcher, who single handedly did more destruction to the UK than the Luftwaffe. Then Labour thought we have had the best so lets compete with the torries for the worst and along came Corbyn straight out of the history books and completly out of touch with reality, and that was the end of Labour for me like it was for so many others and I can fully understand why the younger generations no longer take interest in politics and won't until a major shake up. One minute they claim to want to be carbon free, next minute agree to a new coal mine. Talk about protecting the enviroment and then lets give the developers the power to cover it with housing sounds like one u turn after another. If I was the PM all project decisions would be based on one simple criteria, they have to deliver the most benefit to the most people and not just support a few who are going to financially gain. HS2 will create the Northern powerhouse, no the Victorians created the northern powerhouse that fueled the industrial revolution and since then consecutive governments have just laid waste to it. HS2 will just increase the catchment area for people to work in London and then more areas will become unaffordable to the people to live and yet despite the controversy and enviromental damage they still pursue it, why probably because they have a lot of freinds with money invested in the project. By the way I was born in the south.


When Thatcher got in the country was bankrupt and if you're house is going to be repossessed then you sell what's in it to save it the union's where rampant and used to getting everything they wanted so while I don't agree with all her decisions she dragged the country out of a pretty dark hole! As for Tony yes but no but yes I don't like your question so will waffle and redirect until the interview host gets bored and move on put the NHS in a wage black hole by doubling the staff numbers when there weren't enough of the right staff creating an over padded unneeded middle management staff sector that drains money from frontline staff and services then he got his mates to build hospitals for free on the agreement that they got the service contracts rinsing the NHS of huge amounts over what a hospital would cost and payments still going up or working families tax credit that pushed inflation to match the new spending potential whilst trapping millions on the need for government hand outs and allowing large businesses to rake in the profits keeping wages artificially low because middle Britain will pick up the tab! Whilst rushing headlong into a major new dept spiral at the point most intelligent people could see a crash coming? Yes great man hope you enjoyed your 10-15 Blair years because we're all still paying for it


----------



## Lons

And of course Brown having already flogged off the gold reserves and misappropriated pension funds left the coffers completely bare, something the departing party boasted about (allegedly).
Brown was hopeless but at least a bit more honest


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> So we isolate them, why should the rest of the planet pay the price?
> 
> Let's get real people, this is a dry run for a more virulent pandemic that WILL happen sometime down the line - we've been overdue for decades and with international travel being what it is and humanity spreading as we are, and worldwide pollution being what it is - it's a goddamn certainty.
> 
> Yes you could have "locked down" or otherwise better managed even a gigantic economy like the USA, because the USA is still just a bunch of SMALLER economies, just like everyplace else.
> 
> As I said covid lasts only DAYS without a host and is currently EASILY killed on surfaces etc - the absolute ideal scenarios would have been to lock everything down for a month, and I mean everything, enforced with martial law and internment camps - yes I'm being wholly serious - if covid had been ebola, that's exactly what would have happened and I defy you to say different; once you accept that drastic situations require drastic action, it's a simple direct correlation.
> 
> If time could be turned back and humanity offered the above scenario for a month or two worldwide, compared to the now perpetual threat of covid and the economic cost (so far) that is going to generations to balance - what do you think the answer would be?
> 
> Humanity COULD have been entirely covid free by now - instead we've now folded this new virus into the yearly death count alongside the flu, and we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing how it will evolve and mutate.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again - history will judge us all - we COULD have got a handle on this, but we instead allowed the bleeding hearts "show me the money / it's against my constitional rights / I have the right to my freedom / blah / blah / blah" people to condemn us all.



Does this kind of absolute certainty only happen with COVID or does it occur everywhere?


----------



## D_W

Misterdog said:


> One clumsy mistake ?, then sent her son to a private school (new party policy or just for the privileged few?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education: Dear Diane Abbott... - Socialist Worker
> 
> 
> Poet Michael Rosen slams New Labour's education agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> socialistreview.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ms Abbott made Jonathan Aitken, the former Conservative cabinet minister who served a prison sentence for perjury, her son's godfather.
> 
> As to her sons behaviour involving assault of police and NHS workers, having crystal meth delivered to his mothers home, while she was shadow home secretary, and subsequent sectioning. Google is your friend.
> 
> The perfect politician.



Thanks for the background - the summary information and then "corbyn requested she step down" (while she blamed the issue on another nebulous faction) didn't make that much sense. Some politicians aren't that loyal, but someone missing a figure due to blood sugar issues generally doesn't yield stepdown requests from anyone.


----------



## NormanB

Rorschach said:


> It's not about the spirit of the law, that isn't how the law works.


I never implied that it was - did I? I said it was about people’s behaviour.


----------



## NormanB

julianf said:


> I read yesterday that the UK now has the highest infection rate, per capita, of anywhere in the world.
> 
> Another trail blazing record there.


Do you see the correlation of your consecutive posts? Ironic?


----------



## Chippyjoe

"How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic ? "

Pretty damn good considering what's happened.


----------



## julianf

NormanB said:


> Do you see the correlation of your consecutive posts? Ironic?



Eh? Most of my posts on this topic have been on the subject of how i rate the uk's handling of the pandemic.

I know that youre implying something, but, you will have to forgive me, but im not entirely sure what?


----------



## julianf

Misterdog said:


> Or maybe we are just testing more than anywhere else.



I agree - when I'm gaming, and I want to increase my percentage of winning rolls, I just roll more dice.


----------



## Misterdog

> Another team looked at human genomic datasets for possible explanations for the strikingly lower rates of COVID-19 mortality in East Asia that has been the geographic origin of several modern coronavirus epidemics. Their results suggest that ancient coronavirus-like epidemics drove adaptations in East Asians between 25,000-5,000 years ago. As they colorfully put it: “An arms race with an ancient corona-like virus may have taken place in ancestral East Asian populations.” The winter surge shows that even in Japan, face masks did not prevent infection and transmission. This too strongly suggests that an exceptionally low death rate despite a high proportion of elderly must be due to genetic factors, health factors (e.g. little obesity) or pre-existing immunity.











The West should envy Japan’s COVID-19 response


The virus is not unprecedented, but the draconian societal shutdowns are. Who would have expected Western democracies to mimic authoritarian China?




www.japantimes.co.jp





So genetics is probably the cause of higher mortality in Europe, not government response. Plus our relatively overweight and unhealthy population.

Japan has done little testing, little in the way of lockdown, had shortages of PPE and yet has an astonishingly low death toll (3900) - so far.

Their population is still very critical of government response though.

Worryingly they have found a new strain thought to have come from Brazil.

And the 'UK' strain.


> Regarding the two cases of the British strain detected Sunday, the two individuals in their 20s had dined with a 30-something man who tested positive after arriving from the U.K. The man, who initially tested negative upon arrival, was supposed to be in quarantine at home for two weeks. Around 10 people attended the meal.



The man, who initially tested negative upon arrival, - woopee, I'm Covid free so no rules for me ????


----------



## thetyreman

Misterdog said:


> The West should envy Japan’s COVID-19 response
> 
> 
> The virus is not unprecedented, but the draconian societal shutdowns are. Who would have expected Western democracies to mimic authoritarian China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan has done little testing, little in the way of lockdown, had shortages of PPE and yet has an astonishingly low death toll (3900) - so far.



yes but japanese are amongst the healthiest people in the world, they are also very sensible, polite, respectful and follow rules, which is probably the real reason, more people doing what they are told means greater control, we could learn a thing or two here from them.


----------



## Rorschach

thetyreman said:


> yes but japanese are amongst the healthiest people in the world, they are also very sensible, polite, respectful and follow rules, which is probably the real reason, more people doing what they are told means greater control, we could learn a thing or two here from them.



Not another one that "it must be our fault because we are all awful".


----------



## thetyreman

Rorschach said:


> Not another one that "it must be our fault because we are all awful".



that's right, people aren't following the rules.


----------



## Rorschach

thetyreman said:


> that's right, people aren't following the rules.



I'll give you a triple eye roll this time!


----------



## Misterdog

thetyreman said:


> yes but japanese are amongst the healthiest people in the world, they are also very sensible, polite, respectful and follow rules, which is probably the real reason, more people doing what they are told means greater control, we could learn a thing or two here from them.



Far more to it than that though.
Their population is double that of ours, they have far greater population density and one of the highest old age demographics in the world.
If previous Coronavirus episodes have conferred some kind of immunity, it remains to be seen how these new strains which are affecting younger people will spread.

Still these small details of science should not prevent the one- upmanship available to some in blaming our government.


----------



## thetyreman

Rorschach said:


> I'll give you a triple eye roll this time!



eyeroll all you want


----------



## NormanB

Misterdog said:


> Or maybe we are just testing more than anywhere else.
> 
> I read that.
> 
> We have definitely administered more vaccines than anywhere else in Europe.
> 750,000 more people than in Germany.
> 
> My 93 YO mother is booked in on Thursday, my friends father was jabbed on Saturday and his mother is booked in on Thursday, so not fake news then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID-19: Which European country has the fastest vaccine roll out?
> 
> 
> Israel and the UK are the countries that have administered the most vaccine doses to date while France and the Netherlands are among the slowest countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.euronews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though if I wished to show an anti Tory bias, I could say, we could have done it faster and saved lives, we could have done it cheaper and saved money.
> 
> Opinions may vary.


Don’t focus on the new positive cases which are partly as a result of increased testing as many of those positives may not be a problem.

However a proportion of them will be ‘a problem’ and the metrics to focus on are:
a. Hospital admissions.
b. ICU admissions.
c. Numbers of patients on mechanical ventilation.

These figures are updated daily (Gov.Uk) and represent hard data and the size of THE problem.

THE problem will not be ameliorated by the vaccine for at least a month and there will be a lot of collateral deaths in the meanwhile both from Covid and non Covid patients.


----------



## NormanB

gregmcateer said:


> And if you even look at a stick of chewing gum they'll cut yer nuts off


As some used to say Singapore is like Disneyland - with the death penalty.


----------



## Rorschach

thetyreman said:


> eyeroll all you want



I will thank you, it seems to be the only response to people in this country who love nothing more than to denigrate their fellow citizens.


----------



## D_W

thetyreman said:


> yes but japanese are amongst the healthiest people in the world, they are also very sensible, polite, respectful and follow rules, which is probably the real reason, more people doing what they are told means greater control, we could learn a thing or two here from them.



It'd be difficult for anyone in western society to suddenly become like the japanese, chinese or south koreans. Doing something against the flow in japan is grounds for extreme shaming (and perceived shame on the basis of the doer). They have sayings like "the nail that sticks out will be hammered down", but rather than our jokes here in the west ("the beatings will continue until morale improves"), they take that seriously.


----------



## Cozzer

thetyreman said:


> that's right, people aren't following the rules.


Correct.
They apparenty didn't follow the rules...erm, sorry..."guidance" in Lebanon either, particularly when they eased off for Christmas and New Year.
(Ring any bells?)

They've just announced a lockdown commencing 0500 this Thursday.
Curfew.
A_* total*_ curfew.
Not even supermarkets allowed to open.
*For 11 days.*
If you haven't food in, tough. It's deliveries only.
Dog walking? Nah....
Need to go and see Auntie Bertha? Forget it, mate.
Toothache? You'll have to live with it, pal...
There are a few exemptions, apparently. Very few.

Perhaps the answer lies here - behave yourselves, cut out bleating about pubs etc. not being allowed to open, and generally stop being complete twits to everybody else.



p.s. No. I didn't use "twits"!


----------



## Rorschach

Cozzer said:


> Correct.
> They apparenty didn't follow the rules...erm, sorry..."guidance" in Lebanon either, particularly when they eased off for Christmas and New Year.
> (Ring any bells?)
> 
> They've just announced a lockdown commencing 0500 this Thursday.
> Curfew.
> A_* total*_ curfew.
> Not even supermarkets allowed to open.
> *For 11 days.*
> If you haven't food in, tough. It's deliveries only.
> Dog walking? Nah....
> Need to go and see Auntie Bertha? Forget it, mate.
> Toothache? You'll have to live with it, pal...
> There are a few exemptions, apparently. Very few.
> 
> Perhaps the answer lies here - behave yourselves, cut out bleating about pubs etc. not being allowed to open, and generally stop being complete twits to everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. No. I didn't use "twits"!



Maybe you should move to the Lebanon? Sounds delightful.


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> I will thank you, it seems to be the only response to people in this country who love nothing more than to denigrate their fellow citizens.


----------



## rafezetter

D_W said:


> Does this kind of absolute certainty only happen with COVID or does it occur everywhere?



If you are asking if I beleive with absolute certainty that there WILL be another pandemic of some other biological agent, then yes, 100%.

History has shown they occur with alarming regularity - now granted that for the majority of the historical ones, ignorance played by far the biggest factor on the death toll.

In 2020 we knew better, we knew HOW the virus was transmitted, we know with a good degree of accuracy it's lifespan without a host, and even to the degree of differing lifespan according to environment and different surfaces, and most importantly, how to kill it from surfaces and how NOT to transmit it.

Yet it still got away from us - with approximately TWO MILLION dead and rising, because of "the stupid" - and I DO NOT MEAN those in charge, I place the blame for it's continued spread, last year and this, on the "common man" - the information was there to know, but as I said as the end of the day - even the most ignorant fool knows that infections are spread via contact with people and where they have been. I find it impossible to beleive anyone whom has had a cold at any point in their lives does not know this.

Why they thought Covid somehow DID NOT follow this long known pattern is unfathomable.

So once again human ignorance and stupidity is to blame for a significant portion of the Covid death toll, and humanity has learned bascially nothing from the deaths of the previous millions. Have I got much faith for humanity making better choices the next time? No.

..and I'm beating the same drum, and still no-ones listening..

Do I continue GAS or do I give up?


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> I will thank you, it seems to be the only response to people in this country who love nothing more than to denigrate their fellow citizens.



Ok I'll bite - so if we don't denigrate those superspreaders (basically everyone ignoring "the rules") in the hope they stop, what should we be doing instead? - Offer to "talk nicely" to them in the hope they change thier ways (having shown no indication of it for the last 12 months), maybe give them some free coupons for an online meditation class, and a delivery of a Kale smoothie?

Do you think those of us doing the denigrating are ENJOYING this? Or do you think we'd much prefer not having to because there are no superspreaders, everyone's been careful and covid is now already in the past; we had a good Xmas with our families, loved ones and are already getting back to rebuilding that which has been damaged by the pandemic?

Ask me - which one do you think I and all those "denigrators" you are yourself denigrating (hypocrite btw) want? More opportunity to denigrate or our ffing lives back?

Here's a suggestion - if you beleive so fervently that you are in the right - how about you post the views you've posted here on your social media account - allow your family and peers to read it, from your own lips; you do yours I'll do mine and we'll compare notes, waddya say? 

Are you prepared to be judged by those closest to you? I am.


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> Maybe you should move to the Lebanon? Sounds delightful.



If they really are doing a full curfew style lockdown, could well be one of the first places to see drastic reduction of covid cases per capita - I'll remind you of this post in a few weeks shall I?

Want to lay any bets?


----------



## Rorschach

rafezetter said:


> Do you think those of us doing the denigrating are ENJOYING this?



Absolutely, you love it, I see people like you all the time you just can't help yourself. In your view everyone aside from you and your family are awful people responsible for terrible things, stupid and uncaring. You love to do them down for anything you perceive to be wrong.



rafezetter said:


> Here's a suggestion - if you beleive so fervently that you are in the right - how about you post the views you've posted here on your social media account - allow your family and peers to read it, from your own lips; you do yours I'll do mine and we'll compare notes, waddya say?
> 
> Are you prepared to be judged by those closest to you? I am.



Yep, already have on multiple occasions and had good discussions about it. Some agree, some disagree.


----------



## RobinBHM

Two sets of laws which are often "stretched" - in the sense that the boundaries of the written text are considered to be somthing to be worked around, rather than to be followed "in spirit"
[/QUOTE]

Speed limits


----------



## RobinBHM

Lockdowns do work
The harder and faster they are, the more effective they are and the less economic damage they do

The anti lockdowners have made them less effective
Esp the anti lockdowners MPs ( many from the ERG) who have influenced Johnson's decisions.


I hope this new variant has completely shut up the uninformed people that claim "it's no worse than flu"


----------



## Jacob

Not to forget that first amongst anti lock downers was Johnson.
Sometimes "leadership" is required so it's ironic that this man with Churchill fantasies should be so lacking in that respect. 
And of course very misleading to those who had any faith in his judgement, on this and on brexit too. The two events most demanding of leadership since WW2 in the hands of an silly person


----------



## Misterdog

rafezetter said:


> If they really are doing a full curfew style lockdown, could well be one of the first places to see drastic reduction of covid cases per capita - I'll remind you of this post in a few weeks shall I?
> 
> Want to lay any bets?



Though I shall remind you in 20/30 years time of the economic cost when we will still be paying back the debt.


----------



## Misterdog

Anyone who saw Newsnight last night would have seen the farce of the EU vaccine procurement. Getting the 27 states to agree to purchase the vaccine collectively, has caused delays meaning they are way down the queue.
They have ordered some vaccine (from one of the member states) that will not be available until the end of the year, at the earliest.

Though those shrouded under the red flag will be unable to see any positives from this. They will still be saying that there will be medicine shortages if we leave the EU. (lies ? )


----------



## Jacob

Misterdog said:


> Anyone who saw Newsnight last night would have seen the farce of the EU vaccine procurement. Getting the 27 states to agree to purchase the vaccine collectively, has caused delays meaning they are way down the queue.
> They have ordered some vaccine (from one of the member states) that will not be available until the end of the year, at the earliest.
> 
> Though those shrouded under the red flag will be unable to see any positives from this. They will still be saying that there will be medicine shortages if we leave the EU. (lies ? )


We have shortages already, across the board for many things, heavily reported. Not necessarily for drugs but that will be the case sooner or later, as we have built barriers to trade with our largest trade partners, for no obvious reason.


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> We have shortages already, across the board for many things, heavily reported. Not necessarily for drugs but that will be the case sooner or later, as we have built barriers to trade with our largest trade partners, for no obvious reason.



We have plenty of vaccine though. And are administering it far quicker than our EU neighbours.



> South Holland District Council leader Coun Gary Porter has posted a tweet to suggest that a "unconfirmed but trusted source" has said the roll out will begin on Saturday, January 16.



It's a shame you are unable to give any credit to our government though.


----------



## Jacob

Misterdog said:


> ..It's a shame you are unable to give any credit to our government though.


Time will tell. 
At the moment many people wouldn't credit them with the ability to arrange a booze-up in a brewery, for obvious reasons


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> At the moment many people wouldn't credit them with the ability to arrange a booze-up in a brewery, for obvious reasons



Though as the former Labour leader spent four years trying to formulate a position on Brexit, one can only imagine how successful he might have been at dealing with this pandemic.
Maybe we would still be waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to be nationalised for the 'good of the people' before any vaccine could be made available.


----------



## Misterdog

There are currently people suing government for 'failing to educate their children'. 
There are also people suing government for 'forcing' children to go to school where they may catch the virus.

How would Labour party deal with this ?
As they did with Brexit, keep half the schools open and close the other half, thereby keeping all voters happy... 

These are unprecedent times. There are no 'correct' or easy answers, only a fool would think otherwise.


----------



## Jacob

Misterdog said:


> ..
> 
> How would Labour party deal with this ?
> ..


We'll never know and it's not the issue!


----------



## Rorschach

Misterdog said:


> Though I shall remind you in 20/30 years time of the economic cost when we will still be paying back the debt.



He'll be one of the unaffected though, as most are on this forum. Go to a forum where the members are affected and you will see a different story.


----------



## doctor Bob

Apparantly 94% of us believe we are acting more in accordance to the rules than most other people.


----------



## rafezetter

Misterdog said:


> Though I shall remind you in 20/30 years time of the economic cost when we will still be paying back the debt.



Please let's not have another round of rorshach style "better off dead than poor" comments - it didn't end well for him then, it won't end well now. His comments earned him quite a few replies branding him a "despicable human being".

here's just an example of one: Hancock's Half Hour

I've made it clear multiple times that if we had had a hard lockdown (as is being tested now in Lebanon) early last year we would already be rebuilding, because covid would have been starved to a point of being much more easily managed, and the Nightingale centres (plus other quarantine centres) could have housed those infected.


I've called rorschach out on this multiple times and now he's sending me PM's trying to goad me into proving it - whelp - as he desires:

Hancock's Half Hour - no explanation required.

Hancock's Half Hour - a reply.

Hancock's Half Hour - my personal reply to that post (for full disclosure)

Hancock's Half Hour - a post by RogerS who also says he beleives rorschach is saying "let the old die" (bottom paragraph)

Hancock's Half Hour - Here he doubles down on his "save the economy, not lives" crusade.

Hancock's Half Hour - and another.

Hancock's Half Hour - LOL this didn't work out as he thought. 

Hancock's Half Hour - and another reply

BINGO - I knew it was here somewhere - Hancock's Half Hour - second paragraph

here is the important line: *"I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen."* (in reference to reducing the economic losses for people)

Read it and deny it rorshach - I could go on but I think that's enough.

oh go on then - Hancock's Half Hour - another reply to rorschachs post

and on and on - that entire thread is FULL of other members tearing apart rorschachs claims of "evidence" the lockdown was pointless and then trying to recant a previous statement, EVEN when he's been bloody quoted back to himself!

Mods - before you think this is a witchhunt - rorshach PM'd me with: "Still waiting to see those screen caps you said you had, I'd like to see how accurate your paraphrasing is. "

all I've done is oblige and I'm only on PAGE 18 of that 60 page thread - I;ve read on soem more pages and there's plenty more like it:









Hancock's Half Hour


My mother is 65, in good health and not fat, my step father is 88, been fighting cancer for the last 30 years but otherwise in excellent health, not fat. They have both already been exposed to C19 on a foreign holiday earlier this year, we don't know if they caught it, tests were not available...




www.ukworkshop.co.uk






Interestingly rorschach asked these questions: Hancock's Half Hour

then another member invited him to put his own cards on the table: Hancock's Half Hour

here he attempts to recant a previous (let them all die) statement (which I have proven above) : Hancock's Half Hour

rorschachs "cards" - Hancock's Half Hour - not exactly the kind of business that needs protecting at the cost of lives.

- another interesting viewpoint " I think those that suffer least are the ones claling for lockdown" Hancock's Half Hour

and then admits his position despite previously claiming he had not: Hancock's Half Hour

and a reply: Hancock's Half Hour

Still not even halfway through the thread but i think I've proved my point rorschach.

EVERYTHING you said has been proven wrong - Covid kills the young and old, more old than young granted, but your beleif that's the lockdown was unnecessary has been flawed from day 1 - the last lockdown was almost a success - many countries that followed lockdown rules were down to only a few hundred new cases per day. 

It's also now a moot point that lifting the lockdown too early caused this second wave - because it allowed the mutuated strain to get a foothold - and now we are at obscene levels of infections and deaths.

Your move.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Apparantly 94% of us believe we are acting more in accordance to the rules than most other people.



Yes I just heard on the news that compliance matches that of lockdown 1. The media don't like that though.


----------



## Misterdog

rafezetter said:


> Your move.



So you see it as only one or the other and that there is no balance possible.

If we all go back to living in caves in isolation, then there would be far less viral transmission.
Government will of course be expected to supply us with wooly mammoths and firewood.

We will of course complain bitterly that the wood has not been dried correctly and that the mammoth is er too wooly.


----------



## doctor Bob

I actually think the distancing is better.


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> He'll be one of the unaffected though, as most are on this forum. Go to a forum where the members are affected and you will see a different story.




Um "unaffected?" I invite you to look at my finances for the last year. Guess how much money has come through my accounts for the last 12 months - go on have a guess.... I'll tell you, LESS THAN £4,500 - the majority of which was the three self employed bailouts from the Govt. £1215, £1063 and £1063.

How do I know this? I've just submitted last years taxes.

Still feeling smug?

I'm a HANDYMAN (as I've mentioned before). How much work do you think I've been doing in other peoples house in the last 12 months as a handyman?

A lot, A little or ZERO?

Dr Bob and others have been lucky enough to keep working because it's "essential" in so far as a new Kitchen is essential - but the kind of work a "Handyman" does is the kind of work that has often already been put off and put off - and isn't so "essential" that people are happy to have me enter thier home.

I HAVE stated this before on this forum, multiple times with phrases like "I've lost a LOT of money, but I STILL put life before money", but by all means don't let inconvenient things like that get in the way of your agenda.

I also made a post whereby I said, openly, that were it a choice between myself and a person with a family, or younger person who needed a ventilator and only 1 was available, I would refuse it - In the scheme of the planet, I have no value - no dependants, no significant other, and no meaningful family.

So if you insist on trying to villify ME (especially in light of my above post exposing you for all to see) you're going to lose, badly - and if you persist, I'll dig out and link my post.

The game is over rorschach - you've been exposed and are trying to cast doubt and villify the one person you cannot.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> I actually think the distancing is better.


Yes I get a sense of everybody taking it more seriously. Hardly been out myself but each time I do it seems a bigger issue. Quite right too.


----------



## rafezetter

Misterdog said:


> So you see it as only one or the other and that there is no balance possible.
> 
> If we all go back to living in caves in isolation, then there would be far less viral transmission.
> Government will of course be expected to supply us with wooly mammoths and firewood.



It's hard to see it any other way - covid travels by contact (interpersonal or surfaces an infected has touched) - remove that, remove transmission, ask any medical professional, I shouldn't even have to state that, every human over the age of about 4 should know that instinctually by now.

My viewpoint is we should have had a hard lockdown from the start - as close to a 100% quarantine for a SHORTER duration. If the UK and other countries did that from February, we might already have been out of it by June, where the numbers of new cases could well have been in low double digits - some countries came VERY close to that.

You have to think of it the same way Surgeons treat Gangrene - they DO NOT WAIT to see how far it goes up the leg before amputation - they take it off with a good margin to ensure no recurrence.

I absolutely fail to see how there is any other option, and as I also said elswhere, if Covid had been a more virulent pathogen like Ebola - a hard lockdown, with enforced curfew etc etc would have been the ONLY viable option and people would have been HAPPY ABOUT IT - even the morons.

I cannot understand why people are so obtuse - sorry wait - yes I can; "greed is good".

Why you** and other misguided souls continue to cling to the notion that human beings as a species can be trusted to make the smart choice, even in the face of overwhelming worldwide evidence to the contrary, in pretty much EVERY FACET of our "civilized" human lives, and EVEN after 12 months of misery and death, largely caused by "the stupid" is baffling beyond any comprehension I can muster.

**so it seems anyway

There is no viable argument for a "limited" lockdown - that trainwreck has already happened when they eased it - there is only either acceptance and resignation we've lost control, OR harsher measures in one last attempt to eradicate Covid before it becomes a more deadly perennial event like the flu.

There's no "yeah but maybe" option here, and if you think there is, you're part of the problem.

If there really was a deity watching over humanity - they would take away our trainset and put us back in the corner doing fingerpainting as about the only bloody thing we can be trusted with.

Or have another flood and start again, and honestly I wouldn't blame it.

Please - I do not want to end the BS with rorschach only to start again with someone else.

If you really want to read peoples views on covid and "shoulda, woulda, coulda" Read the entirety of the Hancocks half hour thread I've quoted parts of - do that before replying, it's all there.


----------



## Cozzer

Rorschach said:


> Maybe you should move to the Lebanon? Sounds delightful.



What a charmer you are.
(By the way, it's Lebanon. Not "the" Lebanon.


----------



## Rorschach

@rafezetter I know you think you have "outed" me but those statements were all still clearly visible for everyone to see. By implying they were screenshots it made it seem like you had some super secret I was trying to hide but you had the evidence. Not the case at all.
I stand by the statements I made, not aware of any backtracking there, just some clarification as some people read what they want to read as opposed to what is actually written. The evidence has been born out, the people who I said would die, have died and that is true all across the world. Thanks for continuing to entertain though.


----------



## Misterdog

How far would total lockdown go ?

Food production facilities ?
Hospitals ?
Supermarkets ?
Electricity power generating plants ?
Refuse collection ?

Etc...Etc.

Sounds like the 1970's.


----------



## Wrongfoot

I think the UK governments are handling this poorly, with more of an eye on political ratings and managing party divisions than statecraft. I think this is particularly so in Westminster.

As a recent example I can't imagine a business which was proactively handling things well having to make announcements at 8pm for people to enact the following day. I can imagine a shambles of a national government reacting politically to announcements from devolved governments (which I think surprised them only because they aren't talking to them) deciding they'd better follow suit quickly or they might look bad.

I can't properly judge the UK people as they have to work within the rules of their government and were/are on the receiving end of mixed messages all year. Obviously there are some bad actors ignoring everything how that compares with the people of other nations is difficult to to say. I don't see much evidence of more complacency in this latest lockdown, but I live where there's a low population density so it's harder to see a change.


----------



## Rorschach

Cozzer said:


> What a charmer you are.
> (By the way, it's Lebanon. Not "the" Lebanon.



My apologies for not checking my predictive text.


----------



## julianf

Interesting quiz on lockdown rules here -









Quiz: How much do you know about the new Covid rules?


A top police office has said it's "preposterous" people don't know lockdown rules - so test yourself.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Spectric

rafezetter said:


> Yet it still got away from us - with approximately TWO MILLION dead and rising, because of "the stupid" - and I DO NOT MEAN those in charge, I place the blame for it's continued spread, last year and this, on the "common man" - the information was there to know, but as I said as the end of the day - even the most ignorant fool knows that infections are spread via contact with people and where they have been. I find it impossible to beleive anyone whom has had a cold at any point in their lives does not know this.


Yes I do believe that the overall quality of society has degenerated over the years and we are now in a period of devolution and many people really do not have the inteligence to ascertain a situation and make rational decisions that may involve some self sacrifice. Watching a program the other day on a USAF airbase in Norfolk used in the last war, the bomber crews were mostly kids, twenty one was old and survival rates were low yet they made the sacrifice and as men tower over that same age group today.

So if you know that the worst effect of the virus is death yet we cannot control it and people won't change or do things differently to stop the spread and the leaders seem to always want the economy protected at all cost then what hope have we on doing anything about global warming because that will require far greater changes to all our lives.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> Yes I get a sense of everybody taking it more seriously. Hardly been out myself but each time I do it seems a bigger issue. Quite right too.


This is a trick, Jacob agreeing with me, haven't worked out the plan yet but I'm not falling for it


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> @rafezetter I know you think you have "outed" me but those statements were all still clearly visible for everyone to see. By implying they were screenshots it made it seem like you had some super secret I was trying to hide but you had the evidence. Not the case at all.
> I stand by the statements I made, not aware of any backtracking there, just some clarification as some people read what they want to read as opposed to what is actually written. The evidence has been born out, the people who I said would die, have died and that is true all across the world. Thanks for continuing to entertain though.




You claimed - repeatedly that you had not said "let the old and infirm die" whenever I mentioned it - but my links prove it's right there (including the link where you eventually admit it after it was quoted back to you by Lons), you've also continually claimed that the lockdown was a pointless exercise that saved no-one from an unnecessary covid death.

Exibit A): "I am not heartless or selfish, I might be a cad. I want the vast majority of people in country to be safe, happy, healthy and comfortable. I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen. 10% of over 80's die every year regardless and we don't blink at that. " (linked from my post above)

Once you got called on that multiple times by several members....

Exhibit B): "Not true at all, please find where I said that?
I want to see the elderly protected as much as possible, I have stated this numerous times. If you are old or vulnerable, stay at home (if you want to). What I think is madness is that the rest of the country was forced into lockdown. " (linked from my post above)

So YES you DID try to cover up what you said and you did try to spin what you said into something less callous - you can try saying "oh I've got nothing to hide" but your own posts show different.

As you're now seemingly doubling down on those statements, above - are you certain, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence that this is still the case?

Has Covid so far *only* killed "the old and those who will die soon anyway" - and despite the lockdown has Covid managed to kill a significant portion of people who have been taking strong isolation measures?

Admitting "the old etc" have died, while wholly ignoring many hundreds of thousands worldwide who WERE NOT part of the prescribed category, is to my mind, on a par with the holocaust deniers. A great deal of people OUTSIDE your parameters are dead, yet you still continue to claim you "were right".


----------



## rafezetter

Misterdog said:


> How far would total lockdown go ?
> 
> Food production facilities ?
> Hospitals ?
> Supermarkets ?
> Electricity power generating plants ?
> Refuse collection ?
> 
> Etc...Etc.
> 
> Sounds like the 1970's.



oh come on - now you're reaching and you bloody know it.


----------



## Deadeye

Ok, I'll bite this time.

There's a lot of blame to go around - and not all of it belongs to the Government. "The UK" has done better than many but worse than several...and spotting some of the errors doesn't/didn't require hindsight.

There are some good points:
- the often-vilified pharma industry has achieved something approaching a scientific miracle in the speed with which they have understood the viral proteins, created effective vaccines, and run large scale (tens of thousands of people) properly managed (trials to bring them safely to market.
- the NHS crisis response in secondary care (hospitals) has been innovative, swift and largely effective. The majority of staff have, and continue to, plug gaps in effective process by hard work.
- many members of the public have borne sacrifices - both financial and of personal liberty - with diginity in favour of the greater good. People living on their own that shielded have been extraordinary in their patience. There has been a large cohort willing to volunteer to help.
- the Job Retention Scheme was swiftly implemented and helped a great many firms and people

On the other side of the equation:
- Lockdown policy has been incoherent, indecisive and chaotic. A medly of events like sending schools back for a single day, U-turn on masks, not clarifying a set distance for stay-at-home-exercise. However, the biggest and most unforgiveable has been the serial delay in doing necessary but uncomfortable things. The first lockdown was shockingly late, as was the second, as was the Christmas guidance, as is the current escalation. The lack of early, firm action has allowed a second wave, killed many people and caused exacerbated economic harm.
- Many (the majority?) of GPs really have not risen to the challenge, abdicating to hospitals. The funding model for these private contractors needs to change to one based on health status of their population.
- In the lull after the first wave largely came under control (Jluy to September) the NHS sighed with relief but did not use the time well to addreess the growing burden of harm accruing in the waiting lists. Screening, cancer waits, elective procedures, even ophthalmology appointments did not restart. The various Royal Colleges carry a lot of blame for this. Their responses varied from transformational innovation to flat-earth obstructiveness.
- The vaccine roll out is underperforming and it is no consolation that others are doing even worse. Think about how many people vote in a day; or receive a delivery; or fill up with petrol. There are many ways in which this could have been accellerated but the logistics and planning are woeful. The same level of woeful as seen in test and trace and PPE supply.
- A significant proportion of the population have either disregarded guidance or actively sought out loopholes to justify continuing as they are. These people have my lasting contempt, along with those that spread misinformation regarding the disease or the vaccine. Those refusing the vaccine are leeching on the protection provided by the rest of society; if there are too many of them it won't exist.
- Support for businesses and the self-employed was both too much and too little. It missed many needy and worthy people, but was subject to very significant fraud. Poorly controlled and badly executed.

I carry some bias: my son is rota-ed to do 70 hours this week as an A&E doctor and I still do a few days in the hospital each month.
But, hey, you asked my opinion, right?


----------



## doctor Bob

Misterdog said:


> How far would total lockdown go ?
> 
> Food production facilities ?
> Hospitals ?
> Supermarkets ?
> Electricity power generating plants ?
> Refuse collection ?
> 
> Etc...Etc.
> 
> Sounds like the 1970's.



Do you think flares and crimpolene cardigans would be made compulsory.


----------



## Misterdog

Deadeye said:


> U-turn on masks



Though to be fair that was merely following The World Health Organisation recommendations. (Who have also made mistakes)

Apart from one or two points, you are mostly correct with your assessment in my opinion.

Maybe we will learn lessons for next time.


----------



## rafezetter

Deadeye said:


> Ok, I'll bite this time.
> 
> There's a lot of blame to go around - and not all of it belongs to the Government. "The UK" has done better than many but worse than several...and spotting some of the errors doesn't/didn't require hindsight.
> 
> There are some good points:
> - the often-vilified pharma industry has achieved something approaching a scientific miracle in the speed with which they have understood the viral proteins, created effective vaccines, and run large scale (tens of thousands of people) properly managed (trials to bring them safely to market.
> - the NHS crisis response in secondary care (hospitals) has been innovative, swift and largely effective. The majority of staff have, and continue to, plug gaps in effective process by hard work.
> - many members of the public have borne sacrifices - both financial and of personal liberty - with diginity in favour of the greater good. People living on their own that shielded have been extraordinary in their patience. There has been a large cohort willing to volunteer to help.
> - the Job Retention Scheme was swiftly implemented and helped a great many firms and people
> 
> On the other side of the equation:
> - Lockdown policy has been incoherent, indecisive and chaotic. A medly of events like sending schools back for a single day, U-turn on masks, not clarifying a set distance for stay-at-home-exercise. However, the biggest and most unforgiveable has been the serial delay in doing necessary but uncomfortable things. The first lockdown was shockingly late, as was the second, as was the Christmas guidance, as is the current escalation. The lack of early, firm action has allowed a second wave, killed many people and caused exacerbated economic harm.
> - Many (the majority?) of GPs really have not risen to the challenge, abdicating to hospitals. The funding model for these private contractors needs to change to one based on health status of their population.
> - In the lull after the first wave largely came under control (Jluy to September) the NHS sighed with relief but did not use the time well to addreess the growing burden of harm accruing in the waiting lists. Screening, cancer waits, elective procedures, even ophthalmology appointments did not restart. The various Royal Colleges carry a lot of blame for this. Their responses varied from transformational innovation to flat-earth obstructiveness.
> - The vaccine roll out is underperforming and it is no consolation that others are doing even worse. Think about how many people vote in a day; or receive a delivery; or fill up with petrol. There are many ways in which this could have been accellerated but the logistics and planning are woeful. The same level of woeful as seen in test and trace and PPE supply.
> - A significant proportion of the population have either disregarded guidance or actively sought out loopholes to justify continuing as they are. These people have my lasting contempt, along with those that spread misinformation regarding the disease or the vaccine. Those refusing the vaccine are leeching on the protection provided by the rest of society; if there are too many of them it won't exist.
> - Support for businesses and the self-employed was both too much and too little. It missed many needy and worthy people, but was subject to very significant fraud. Poorly controlled and badly executed.
> 
> I carry some bias: my son is rota-ed to do 70 hours this week as an A&E doctor and I still do a few days in the hospital each month.
> But, hey, you asked my opinion, right?



The line about the GP's is wholly unfair and is clearly based on your bias, if this were true, even fractionally, it would be headline news. If you think GP's even BEFORE the pandemic weren't REGULARLY pulling 60 hour weeks you're monumentally ill informed. This information is coming direct from a 40+ year serving GP who CANNOT RETIRE YET because there is no-one to take her place and she's got a conscience, she's been of retirement age for 2 years now, *desperate* to retire before the workload drags her under, but as I said, feels she cannot.

Oh and thier funding got MASSIVELY cut to the point she stopped being a director - because they couldn't afford a directors salary, so she took a demotion and a PAY CUT - this IS FACT.

Couch your words more carefully in the future please.


----------



## Deadeye

rafezetter said:


> The line about the GP's is wholly unfair and is clearly based on your bias, if this were true, even fractionally, it would be headline news. If you think GP's even BEFORE the pandemic weren't REGULARLY pulling 60 hour weeks you're monumentally ill informed. This information is coming direct from a 40+ year serving GP who CANNOT RETIRE YET because there is no-one to take her place and she's got a conscience, she's been of retirement age for 2 years now, *desperate* to retire before the workload drags her under, but as I said, feels she cannot.
> 
> Oh and thier funding got MASSIVELY cut to the point she stopped being a director - because they couldn't afford a directors salary, so she took a demotion and a PAY CUT - this IS FACT.
> 
> Couch your words more carefully in the future please.



I'm aware GPs say they "are on their knees". I'm also aware of the supply problem. It's not headline news because politicians and the media have fetishised the NHS to the extent that it's beyond criticism. Hell, most of the public don't even understand that GPs are private businesses.

Of course being private businesses, especially if the partnership agreement includes goodwill payment and a share of a building, can bring disentanglement issues. 
GPs were very quick to cancel face to face appointments and start referring anything that sounded important. And they were very slow to restart when things quietened down. That's in part because most of what they earn comes in whether they see patients or not.

Not sure what the "Director" business is - the titles people give themselves in a private business is up to them. As far as the health system goes, they're GPs. It's the part of the service that has improved least over the past 2 decades...so my assessment remains unchanged.


----------



## Rorschach

rafezetter said:


> You claimed - repeatedly that you had not said "let the old and infirm die" whenever I mentioned it - but my links prove it's right there (including the link where you eventually admit it after it was quoted back to you by Lons), you've also continually claimed that the lockdown was a pointless exercise that saved no-one from an unnecessary covid death.
> 
> Exibit A): "I am not heartless or selfish, I might be a cad. I want the vast majority of people in country to be safe, happy, healthy and comfortable. I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen. 10% of over 80's die every year regardless and we don't blink at that. " (linked from my post above)
> 
> Once you got called on that multiple times by several members....
> 
> Exhibit B): "Not true at all, please find where I said that?
> I want to see the elderly protected as much as possible, I have stated this numerous times. If you are old or vulnerable, stay at home (if you want to). What I think is madness is that the rest of the country was forced into lockdown. " (linked from my post above)
> 
> So YES you DID try to cover up what you said and you did try to spin what you said into something less callous - you can try saying "oh I've got nothing to hide" but your own posts show different.
> 
> As you're now seemingly doubling down on those statements, above - are you certain, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence that this is still the case?
> 
> Has Covid so far *only* killed "the old and those who will die soon anyway" - and despite the lockdown has Covid managed to kill a significant portion of people who have been taking strong isolation measures?
> 
> Admitting "the old etc" have died, while wholly ignoring many hundreds of thousands worldwide who WERE NOT part of the prescribed category, is to my mind, on a par with the holocaust deniers. A great deal of people OUTSIDE your parameters are dead, yet you still continue to claim you "were right".



You get better all the time.

Yes I am absolutely certain that the vast vast majority of people who have died are people who would have died at some point in 2020/21, probably of a respiratory virus.


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> You get better all the time.
> 
> Yes I am absolutely certain that the vast vast majority of people who have died are people who would have died at some point in 2020/21, probably of a respiratory virus.



Early in the year here after the first wave, the average life expectancy lost for someone dying of covid was about 11 years. While there are plenty of nursing home occupants, there was also a large cohort of diabetics and folks with otherwise manageable heart disease in their 50s and 60s. 

These kinds of things are easy to calculate, because you can keep mortality records by age, disease and severity. It's not a superstitious type number. The real answer could be 9 or 13 or something if you could know absolutely everything, but it wouldn't have been 1 on average for the cohort of deaths.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> The evidence has been born out



Your claims were misleading and wrong the first time and they are still wrong now.

Every government in the world has chosen to use non medical interventions to reduce the infection spread.....but you and the other anti lockdowners still think you know better.


Anybody who still thinks it's "no worse than flu" should go and volunteer in an ICU Covid ward


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You get better all the time.
> 
> Yes I am absolutely certain that the vast vast majority of people who have died are people who would have died at some point in 2020/21, probably of a respiratory virus.



Yes because of massive global restrictions to reduce the infection rate.
Restrictions you keep arguing against.....so you are contradicting yourself.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> there was also a large cohort of diabetics and folks with otherwise manageable heart disease in their 50s and 60s



That's the thing....there are millions of people who live perfectly normal lives yet have chronic health conditions that make them very vulnerable to Covid.

In general the vulnerable a person is, the more concerned they will be and the more likely they will be more vigilant to social distance and limit their risk.....I would argue without government restrictions to limit spread, many many people would be dying. And if hospital capacity is overwhelmed the chance of recovery goes down.


----------



## D_W

I'm sure deaths would be higher without restrictions. In the united states, the excess mortality last year was about 400-500k. I'd imagine covid was slightly undercounted (suicide deaths and some other things are apparently up a little bit, but they don't make a large part of that number). 

When we were locked down initially, numbers were lower. The ultimate managing here hasn't be whether or not all deaths would be eliminated, it's been partially done at the state and county level based on the number of service businesses going out of business and from a push from some groups (surprisingly, much white hair showing up at restaurants, too) wanting to not be living locked down. It's fair to say that a lot of the white haired crowd is aware of the risk and they want to take it. 

I think they're in the weeds, but am not much for censoring peoples opinions or labeling them for having them. The bar used here - at least it seems - is the capacity level at hospitals. When the projections based on case rate show hospitals getting above about 75% of capacity or some such number, we get locked down again. But not the entire state - just the areas where the numbers are up. 

What's "right" is above my pay grade.


----------



## Jacob

.


Jacob said:


> It's about updating the existing system, hardly revolutionary. Fibre is steadily replacing copper already. We have it here in rural Derbyshire. Compared to other infrastructure proposals it's pretty cheap, which is why all sorts of odd places are already at it Internet in South Korea - Wikipedia 97%
> Japan 99% etc etc


Just spotted today: "......The UK ranks 35th out of 37 countries assessed by the OECD for the proportion of fibre in its total fixed broadband infrastructure. As of September 2019, only 10 per cent of UK properties had access to full-fibre connections....."
To be fair, partial fibre (as mine is, as far as I understand it) is an improvement, but being 35th is shameful, for the 6th wealthiest country in the world


----------



## julianf

Another record breaking day - 

*1,564 new deaths* 

More in a single day since the whole thing started.


----------



## billw

Can’t wait for the mental health pandemic that’s coming.


----------



## Droogs

Don't worry I'm sure Rorsach will prove they would have all died this year anyway


----------



## Noel

Another new variant appearing, Brazilian this time. Think that’s 3 now after the English/Kent one and the S African one.
Virus is getting canny.


----------



## Jake

There have been a few studies now suggesting that cells in the testes are vulnerable to COVID so it might affect fertility (including post-mortem showing severe damage after fatal disease in older men). We still only know bits and pieces about this disease and its effects (other than death, which I would say is undeniably obvious but that seems not to be the case).

I do wish some people could get over the complete logical fallacy of thinking that because the average age of death from COVID is not dissimilar to the average age of death there is not much loss of life expectancy.


----------



## Jameshow

Jake said:


> There have been a few studies now suggesting that cells in the testes are vulnerable to COVID so it might affect fertility (including post-mortem showing severe damage after fatal disease in older men). We still only know bits and pieces about this disease and its effects (other than death, which I would say is undeniably obvious but that seems not to be the case).
> 
> I do wish some people could get over the complete logical fallacy of thinking that because the average age of death from COVID is not dissimilar to the average age of death there is not much loss of life expectancy.


Therefore we may well get a drop in life expectancy???

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach

Well it will all come out in the wash eventually and we'll see what really happened.

I hope I won't hear any complaints about tax rises etc that will be coming soon, maybe an increase in inheritance tax, maybe a capital tax on your property before you die? While I doubt it will happen I do hope that we will see some greater taxation on the elderly and not burden the young once again.


----------



## Droogs

Sorry Noel but Brazillian Covid made me snigger a little.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> There have been a few studies now suggesting that cells in the testes are vulnerable to COVID so it might affect fertility (including post-mortem showing severe damage after fatal disease in older men). We still only know bits and pieces about this disease and its effects (other than death, which I would say is undeniably obvious but that seems not to be the case).
> 
> I do wish some people could get over the complete logical fallacy of thinking that because the average age of death from COVID is not dissimilar to the average age of death there is not much loss of life expectancy.


life expectancy is forward looking and is different than age adjusted death rate in the past. I don't think life expectancy will be affected much in terms of population death rates. Life expectancy for individuals may change a lot. 

As far as the studies about possible complications, people should realize that COVID is not the only disease that may have lingering after effects. Severe flu and infections, etc, can all trigger long-term negative effects that aren't acute symptoms. 

Talking about the "mights" is not useful. From the start, the mights have muddied the actual is -that the disease is spread primarily by droplets and primarily in enclosed spaces. The rest of the rubbish hinders prevention of spreading (the incessant hand washing and people being overly cautious outside and staying in their houses or babbling on about aerosols and live virus on surfaces 18 days later). 

The might stuff is just fear mongering. Likely does or is proven to is plenty.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Well it will all come out in the wash eventually and we'll see what really happened.
> 
> I hope I won't hear any complaints about tax rises etc that will be coming soon, maybe an increase in inheritance tax, maybe a capital tax on your property before you die? While I doubt it will happen I do hope that we will see some greater taxation on the elderly and not burden the young once again.


ere!! I'm elderly and my 3 kids are all much better off than I ever was! Tax them I say!


----------



## D_W

Droogs said:


> Sorry Noel but Brazillian Covid made me snigger a little.



Without going back and reading what that is, it *must* be loss of body hair without affecting hair on the head, eyebrows or eyelashes.


----------



## Sandyn

Jacob said:


> Just spotted today: "......The UK ranks 35th out of 37 countries assessed by the OECD for the proportion of fibre in its total fixed broadband infrastructure.



We could have been the world leader. In 1990. I worked for a company which was designing and manufacturing a fibre multiplexing system for BT. It was part of a system to provide fibre in every home in the UK. It was called the Common System Architecture (C.S.A.).
BTs fibre roll out was stopped by Thatcher and her government. I couldn't believe how stupid it was to stop it.
What happened in the 30 years since, telecoms businesses have teased out bandwidth to maximise their profits. We were all shafted mega style.

quote from article 
"""
At that time, the UK, Japan and the United States were leading the way in fibre optic technology and roll-out. Indeed, the first wide area fibre optic network was set up in Hastings, UK. But, in 1990, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided that BT's rapid and extensive rollout of fibre optic broadband was anti-competitive and held a monopoly on a technology and service that no other telecom company could do.

"Unfortunately, the Thatcher government decided that it wanted the American cable companies providing the same service to increase competition. So the decision was made to close down the local loop roll out and in 1991 that roll out was stopped. The two factories that BT had built to build fibre related components were sold to Fujitsu and HP, the assets were stripped and the expertise was shipped out to South East Asia.""""


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> ere!! I'm elderly and my 3 kids are all much better off than I ever was! Tax them I say!



You are in a minority then (depending on the age of your children).


----------



## Droogs

Jake said:


> There have been a few studies now suggesting that cells in the testes are vulnerable to COVID so it might affect fertility (including post-mortem showing severe damage after fatal disease in older men). We still only know bits and pieces about this disease and its effects (other than death, which I would say is undeniably obvious but that seems not to be the case).
> 
> I do wish some people could get over the complete logical fallacy of thinking that because the average age of death from COVID is not dissimilar to the average age of death there is not much loss of life expectancy.




OOh spooky. I was discussing a short story I read a few (20 odd) years ago about a pandemic that rage but only seemed to affect grown up and they sent their children out into the world to run everything and then found out by doing so they had made all their kids infertile


----------



## Droogs

Rorschach said:


> Well it will all come out in the wash eventually and we'll see what really happened.
> 
> I hope I won't hear any complaints about tax rises etc that will be coming soon, maybe an increase in inheritance tax, maybe a capital tax on your property before you die? While I doubt it will happen I do hope that we will see some greater taxation on the elderly and not burden the young once again.


Bring it on - i haven't earned enough to pay any


----------



## Jameshow

Sandyn said:


> We could have been the world leader. In 1990. I worked for a company which was designing and manufacturing a fibre multiplexing system for BT. It was part of a system to provide fibre in every home in the UK. It was called the Common System Architecture (C.S.A.).
> BTs fibre roll out was stopped by Thatcher and her government. I couldn't believe how stupid it was to stop it.
> What happened in the 30 years since, telecoms businesses have teased out bandwidth to maximise their profits. We were all shafted mega style.
> 
> quote from article
> """
> At that time, the UK, Japan and the United States were leading the way in fibre optic technology and roll-out. Indeed, the first wide area fibre optic network was set up in Hastings, UK. But, in 1990, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided that BT's rapid and extensive rollout of fibre optic broadband was anti-competitive and held a monopoly on a technology and service that no other telecom company could do.
> 
> "Unfortunately, the Thatcher government decided that it wanted the American cable companies providing the same service to increase competition. So the decision was made to close down the local loop roll out and in 1991 that roll out was stopped. The two factories that BT had built to build fibre related components were sold to Fujitsu and HP, the assets were stripped and the expertise was shipped out to South East Asia.""""


Boy I dislike that woman... 

What was her involvement in ending hs225 development? 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Bring it on - i haven't earned enough to pay any



That's only income tax, though I suspect there may be changes there too.


----------



## Noel

Droogs said:


> Sorry Noel but Brazillian Covid made me snigger a little.



A little lightness in these times is welcome.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> life expectancy is forward looking and is different than age adjusted death rate in the past. I don't think life expectancy will be affected much in terms of population death rates. Life expectancy for individuals may change a lot.



The average person dying at 83 or whatever it is of COVID has ten or so years of life expectancy left. They are all on the right hand side of the average.



> The might stuff is just fear mongering. Likely does or is proven to is plenty.



There are several studies saying might. The one I read was a does, albeit in a small sample of 5 men who died from COVID but severe damage - all basically destroyed functionally. I know as a yank you will not understand the precautionary principle, much more nail your balls to the wall and expect them to work mighty fine.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> The average person dying at 83 or whatever it is of COVID has ten or so years of life expectancy left. They are all on the right hand side of the average.



So if you live to 83, you have 10 years of life expectancy left, that's why no-one dies age 83 then? My father died at age 75, his life expectancy was 12 years, but he still died at 75.


----------



## D_W

OK, you guys have a misunderstanding of how life expectancy is gauged here. 

Someone age 83 has remaining life expectancy that puts their expected age at death above the average. They have already lived to 83, so they are a subset. 

But it's also true that someone age 83 with CHF or dementia doesn't have a 10 year life expectancy, and someone in an extremely healthy subset would have a greater life expectancy. 10 sounds a little high at age 83, but we don't need to look to find out for sure if it's 7 or 11, it doesn't matter which. 

The aggregation that brings together a number like I provided earlier (11) is based on cohorts (so someone age 58 with chronic high blood pressure probably expects to live more than 11 years, but less long than the average 58 year old. You take the cohorts that each person is in and put it together. 

Since covid kills people in higher risk classes, it's fair to say that if the same death age occurred for classes with no pre-existing conditions, the average life years lost would be greater than 11 (but if you took data from the healthy cohort, there would be fewer deaths).


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> So if you live to 83, you have 10 years of life expectancy left, that's why no-one dies age 83 then? My father died at age 75, his life expectancy was 12 years, but he still died at 75.



Let's make it simpler - if you take 20 people and on a continuous basis, they die uniformly between 0 and 20 years, then the average is 10. That doesn't make the one who drew the short straw less dead, but if the cohort is created objectively, the data would predict the average accurately if you repeated the experiment some number of times.


----------



## Rorschach

D_W said:


> Let's make it simpler - if you take 20 people and on a continuous basis, they die uniformly between 0 and 20 years, then the average is 10. That doesn't make the one who drew the short straw less dead, but if the cohort is created objectively, the data would predict the average accurately if you repeated the experiment some number of times.



I understand, I was making the point that just because someone dies at 83, doesn't mean they should have died 10 years later. Making that argument is silly as in any other year we don't say an 83 year old shouldn't have died yet.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> ere!! I'm elderly and my 3 kids are all much better off than I ever was! Tax them I say!



Why don't they give more away, then they could fully give to causes they support. I guess they are not fully fledge lefties.
Are your daughters or sons very hairy, that's the only true sign of a proper lefty, take Blair or Keir, far too groomed, corbyn or foot very grubby and hairy.


----------



## Jake

And if everyone then dies at ten, they lose no average life expectancy at birth.


----------



## doctor Bob

Poor pipper, died at 95 had his whole life ahead of him ...................


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> I understand, I was making the point that just because someone dies at 83, doesn't mean they should have died 10 years later. Making that argument is silly as in any other year we don't say an 83 year old shouldn't have died yet.



That's correct. My point was that the life expectancy taken off for each individual *should* be adjusted for their health conditions (the CDC in the US can do this kind of thing pretty easily - they collect death information by cause and while it does get faffed with a bit and finalized later, it's pretty reliable. Within the accuracy needed for discussion, the precision is way beyond good enough.)

The stories that provide change in life expectancy are never written in a way that someone who works with life expectancy may like to see it done, but I'm hoping that the quotes were from someone who knows what they're doing and not something the writer met on twitch.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I understand, I was making the point that just because someone dies at 83, doesn't mean they should have died 10 years later. Making that argument is silly as in any other year we don't say an 83 year old shouldn't have died yet.



You claim that the "vast vast majority of people dying from Covid would've done so in 20/21 anyway".

To reach that conclusion, you must have used some methodology to establish what their life expectancy would've been had they hadnt succumbed to Covid.

What methodology did you use? (Beyond "it suits my argument).


----------



## Jake

He uses the false equivalence between average life expectancy at birth and average age of death of COVID.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> You claim that the "vast vast majority of people dying from Covid would've done so in 20/21 anyway".
> 
> To reach that conclusion, you must have used some methodology to establish what their life expectancy would've been had they hadnt succumbed to Covid.
> 
> What methodology did you use? (Beyond "it suits my argument).



Life expectancy is one factor, it's old people that are dying and we had a good winter for flu etc the previous year. A large proportion of the deaths are also people from care homes, average stay in a care home is less than 3 years (depending no your source it ranges from 18 months to 30 months).


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> He uses the false equivalence between average life expectancy at birth and average age of death of COVID.



Life expectancy for those born now is 83, for those dying now at 83 life expectancy was a lot younger when they were born, they have done well to get this far.

EDIT: Life expectancy for someone born in 1931 was under 60 for a male.




__





How has life expectancy changed over time? - Office for National Statistics






www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Life expectancy is one factor, it's old people that are dying and we had a good winter for flu etc the previous year. A large proportion of the deaths are also people from care homes, average stay in a care home is less than 3 years (depending no your source it ranges from 18 months to 30 months).



Around half are from care homes....that leaves a lot who aren't....what do estimate their life was shortened by due to Covid.

The most vulnerable, require high levels of care.....so it's not surprising those in care homes have a high incidence.

The many millions of people with chronic health conditions yet live normal lives.....are far more able to shield as they don't need much contact. 

Those that are vulnerable but have to work are at significant risk.....if there was no lockdown and herd immunity many many more of those would die.

You may not like the truth, but lockdowns are the only option to minimise Covid deaths.


----------



## D_W

Not to make light of the situation, but I knew a woman who lived to her mid 90s, no health issues at all....and you're expecting me to say she fell over dead from covid in three minutes...

....she wishes .

she outlived both of her kids, didn't wait quite long enough for covid (but with her luck and health, probably would've had a mild case - an unusually fit older lady with good flexibility and no obesity, etc).

When the natural process didn't work fast enough, she turned her oven on for a few hours and lit it. She'd have loved covid. The local police report said that maybe she got confused because she left behind evidence that she turned her oven on, went to her bedroom and then came back and lit


Rorschach said:


> Life expectancy for those born now is 83, for those dying now at 83 life expectancy was a lot younger when they were born, they have done well to get this far.
> 
> EDIT: Life expectancy for someone born in 1931 was under 60 for a male.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has life expectancy changed over time? - Office for National Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ons.gov.uk



What was life expectancy for someone aged 5?


----------



## Jacob

Sandyn said:


> We could have been the world leader. In 1990. I worked for a company which was designing and manufacturing a fibre multiplexing system for BT. It was part of a system to provide fibre in every home in the UK. It was called the Common System Architecture (C.S.A.).
> BTs fibre roll out was stopped by Thatcher and her government. I couldn't believe how stupid it was to stop it.
> What happened in the 30 years since, telecoms businesses have teased out bandwidth to maximise their profits. We were all shafted mega style.
> 
> quote from article
> """
> At that time, the UK, Japan and the United States were leading the way in fibre optic technology and roll-out. Indeed, the first wide area fibre optic network was set up in Hastings, UK. But, in 1990, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided that BT's rapid and extensive rollout of fibre optic broadband was anti-competitive and held a monopoly on a technology and service that no other telecom company could do.
> 
> "Unfortunately, the Thatcher government decided that it wanted the American cable companies providing the same service to increase competition. So the decision was made to close down the local loop roll out and in 1991 that roll out was stopped. The two factories that BT had built to build fibre related components were sold to Fujitsu and HP, the assets were stripped and the expertise was shipped out to South East Asia.""""


Thanks for that. Very interesting. Next question has to be; why didn't Bliar pick it up?


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> Poor pipper, died at 95 had his whole life ahead of him ...................



At least he might get to die in a nicely named Nightingale hospital to warm the heartstrings of his (great)(grand)children right Bob?


----------



## Jacob

Handy calculator here. I've got 11 years apparently. What is my life expectancy? And how might it change? - Office for National Statistics


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> You may not like the truth, but lockdowns are the only option to minimise Covid deaths.



I am fully aware that lockdowns will lower C19 deaths for as long as the lockdown is in effect. You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
My problem is how much do they reduce deaths and how much other damage do they cause? Is the damage caused worth it? In my opinion, no.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> At least he might get to die in a nicely named Nightingale hospital to warm the heartstrings of his (great)(grand)children right Bob?



Depends how he died, I imagined he overdosed on crack cocaine and loose women ................... or bored to death by internet warriors.


----------



## doctor Bob

Rorschach said:


> I am fully aware that lockdowns will lower C19 deaths for as long as the lockdown is in effect. You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
> My problem is how much do they reduce deaths and how much other damage do they cause? Is the damage caused worth it? In my opinion, no.



The problem is if your hobby is "having an arguement on a forum" then some people won't even have noticed the lockdown.


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> My apologies for not checking my predictive text.


Well predictive is one word for you I guess the words I'd use would be deleted


----------



## Droogs

As to how well the UK has handled this pandemic, i think the following fraction says it all

1 out of every 660 of the human beings in the UK alive working, playing and loving their families at the start of 2019, has now officially been classed as having died of Covid-19. that is how well I think we have done.


----------



## Lons

RobinBHM said:


> Your claims were misleading and wrong the first time and they are still wrong now.
> 
> Every government in the world has chosen to use non medical interventions to reduce the infection spread.....but you and the other anti lockdowners still think you know better.
> 
> 
> Anybody who still thinks it's "no worse than flu" should go and volunteer in an ICU Covid ward


Even better that they should catch it and discover the possibility that due to complications even if they survive they may have sustained damage which has effectively knocked years off their lives.

Is it any wonder that people died in care homes? They are generally just a big house or hotel if a posh one, residents in close proximity for meals and activities, staff and visitors in and out so a fertile breeding ground for infection. My MiL is still pretty fit at 93 and when her home got a couple of cases they confined all to their rooms, after 4 weeks the home was clear.
On the other hand my BiL very fit and reasonably healthy caught it and after 3 weeks on a ventilator died, they said even had he made it the damage done would make him an invalid.. my daughter's friend died last week no health issues whatsoever before Covid - aged 36.


----------



## harryc

Yup amazing effort by Boris and his Eton chums hoorah.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I am fully aware that lockdowns will lower C19 deaths for as long as the lockdown is in effect. You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
> My problem is how much do they reduce deaths and how much other damage do they cause? Is the damage caused worth it? In my opinion, no.



What is your alternative to lockdown?.....you seem to think there is an alternative.

Why would you think if there was no lockdown that the damage caused by lockdown wouldn't still happen?


The common argument is " more people are dying from other acute health problems, like heart issues and cancer" 

But that is not logical. No lockdown would mean hospitals are more overloaded, how would that help capacity for non Covid treatments in hospitals?


And your argument the Covid only kills people on average over 83 or whatever is false.

Without lockdown, far more younger vulnerable people would die


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> What is your alternative to lockdown?.....you seem to think there is an alternative.
> 
> Why would you think if there was no lockdown that the damage caused by lockdown wouldn't still happen?
> 
> 
> The common argument is " more people are dying from other acute health problems, like heart issues and cancer"
> 
> But that is not logical. No lockdown would mean hospitals are more overloaded, how would that help capacity for non Covid treatments in hospitals?
> 
> 
> And your argument the Covid only kills people on average over 83 or whatever is false.
> 
> Without lockdown, far more younger vulnerable people would die


 
We'll never know because we never tried any alternatives.


----------



## NormanB

Rorschach said:


> We'll never know because we never tried any alternatives.


Sweden did


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> We'll never know because we never tried any alternatives.


Thank you for admitting your whole argument for non lockdown is built on guesswork and unknowns.


So your argument is this:

Lockdowns aren't worth it because of all the economic damage and other health problems it creates but you can't contrast it with your preferred alternative of no lockdown, as that can't be quantified.

Mmm, it's not a strong argument is it?


----------



## RobinBHM

NormanB said:


> Sweden did


Which wasn't successful.....and they now have lockdowns


----------



## Rorschach

NormanB said:


> Sweden did



They did but they themselves admit that their protection of their care homes was inadequate and a lot of lives were lost there at the beginning.
They have certainly had a lot more freedom in the last 10 months however and were never overwhelmed as some said they would be. Some here though don't put a lot of value in freedom which is very disturbing, it's lucky they aren't in charge as things could be even worse than they are now.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for admitting your whole argument for non lockdown is built on guesswork and unknowns.
> 
> 
> So your argument is this:
> 
> Lockdowns aren't worth it because of all the economic damage and other health problems it creates but you can't contrast it with your preferred alternative of no lockdown, as that can't be quantified.
> 
> Mmm, it's not a strong argument is it?



Yeah that's ok, no-one can ever suggest a path is wrong because we didn't know where the other path would lead, that's a sensible argument for government. What you have just said is "what we have done must be the best option because we didn't try anything else"

You are almost as entertaining as rafezetter sometimes


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> We'll never know because we never tried any alternatives.


Your argument is based on wishful thinking....."lockdown is horrible, the alternative must've been better."


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> , it's lucky they aren't in charge as things could be even worse than they are now


No

That applies to you and other anti lockdowners.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Your argument is based on wishful thinking....."lockdown is horrible, the alternative must've been better."



Your argument is based on wishful thinking. You can't possibly entertain the idea that there might be a better alternative because if that is true, that means the deaths that happened and the damage that will come could have been avoided/lessened. The idea we could be taking the wrong approach is inconceivable to you, that's your coping mechanism in this.
We both think the current situation is awful, but I think we could have done better, you think we could have done worse.


----------



## Sandyn

Jacob said:


> Very interesting. Next question has to be; why didn't Blair pick it up?


I think it's just shortsightedness of all governments to be able to plan far into the future. They are too busy playing short term politics.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> Do you think flares and crimpolene cardigans would be made compulsory.


Or LBDs?


----------



## Nigel Burden

Lons said:


> Even better that they should catch it and discover the possibility that due to complications even if they survive they may have sustained damage which has effectively knocked years off their lives.
> 
> Is it any wonder that people died in care homes? They are generally just a big house or hotel if a posh one, residents in close proximity for meals and activities, staff and visitors in and out so a fertile breeding ground for infection. My MiL is still pretty fit at 93 and when her home got a couple of cases they confined all to their rooms, after 4 weeks the home was clear.
> On the other hand my BiL very fit and reasonably healthy caught it and after 3 weeks on a ventilator died, they said even had he made it the damage done would make him an invalid.. my daughter's friend died last week no health issues whatsoever before Covid - aged 36.



My wife has been called in to work today as three carers were sent home after a positive lateral flow test.

They locked down immediately in the first wave with residents confined to their rooms and no visitors. They managed to keep covid out until November but now have it in the home despite the measures taken. Fortunately non of the residents had it badly and were not hospitalised, some were asymptomatic. It probably entered the home via one of the staff as my wife said some of them were still socialising, eighteenth birthday parties etc. and ignoring the guidelines.

Nigel.


----------



## Droogs

Rorschach said:


> They did but they themselves admit that their protection of their care homes was inadequate and a lot of lives were lost there at the beginning.
> They have certainly had a lot more freedom in the last 10 months however and were never overwhelmed as some said they would be. Some here though don't put a lot of value in freedom which is very disturbing, it's lucky they aren't in charge as things could be even worse than they are now.


That is due to the fact that Swedes unlike you have a general understanding of their own social responsibility to others and are more than willing for the most part to be compliant with the general advise to social distance unlike all the fannies swamping the beaches of the UK during the summer


----------



## Ditch 08

Just had a nightmare and Labour JC won the last election and his brother was Health Sec. 

No C-19, no pandemic, no need to wear face masks, life was as normal. That is apart from dead people in the street.

Luck I woke up and BJ is still in power.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> That is due to the fact that Swedes unlike you have a general understanding of their own social responsibility to others and are more than willing for the most part to be compliant with the general advise to social distance unlike all the fannies swamping the beaches of the UK during the summer



Oh no, you're one of them Bournemouth beach haters aren't you. What a shame you don't have any evidence to back up increases in infection due to it.









EXCLUSIVE: Bournemouth beach crowds did not lead to Covid spike | Local Government Chronicle (LGC)


The influx of an estimated 500,000 people to Bournemouth’s beaches last month did not lead to an increase in cases of Covid-19, the chief executive of




www.lgcplus.com





As an aside, how do you know how I behave in public? I wear a mask and social distance, I have limited contact with all but essential people since March. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I don't comply and do my part.


----------



## Droogs

Oh my appologies Rorschach, I didn't realize you were a hypocrite rather than just an internet troll. If I had known *you don't actually* practice the sh 1te you preach and are in fact just a Linsday Graheme wannabe, then I would have replied to all your posts in a much more understanding way


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Oh my appologies Rorschach, I didn't realize you were a hypocrite rather than just an internet troll. If I had known *you don't actually* practice the sh 1te you preach and are in fact just a Linsday Graheme wannabe, then I would have replied to all your posts in a much more understanding way



Where have I advocated people break the law? Please do find it.

There is a difference between arguing for a change and breaking the law. Are you saying you want me to go around without a mask coughing on people? Having parties, testing my eyesight etc? I don't think so. I will continue to argue for the rules and policy to be changed, but until then I will comply with the law as I do in every other area in life.


----------



## Jacob

Ditch 08 said:


> Just had a nightmare and Labour JC won the last election and his brother was Health Sec.
> 
> No C-19, no pandemic, no need to wear face masks, life was as normal. That is apart from dead people in the street.
> 
> Luck I woke up and BJ is still in power.


Yebbut it's not a nightmare and it's worse than your wildest dreams:
Gavin Williamson 
Secretary of State for Education 
Liz Truss
Secretary of State for International Trade
Michael Gove
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Leader of the House of Commons 

And that's just tip of the ****berg!


----------



## billw

Ditch 08 said:


> Luck I woke up and BJ is still in power.



Things you never thought you'd hear, part 154.


----------



## billw

Just as an aside, the BBC news just reported that in November there were nearly 4.5m people waiting for routine treatments on the NHS. Bloody hell. It's not a good time to fall ill.

It's things like this that are going to be worse than the virus itself.


----------



## Woodmatt

They seem to have got just about everything wrong,too slow to act,to loose with restrictions/lock down,too little preparation for this or any major outbreak of any sort.Having said all that I spoke with a relative in Canada yesterday and their government are hoping to get all over seventies vaccinated by late October which is some eight months after the UK so maybe our government are getting that bit right


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Yeah that's ok, no-one can ever suggest a path is wrong because we didn't know where the other path would lead



So the basis of your argument is quite simply: 
lockdowns are a hunch, anti lockdowns are a hunch.

And you are saying: "I am very very certain, that anti lockdown is a better hunch."

By the way, there is no binary lockdown versus anti lockdown.

There is no single lockdown: lockdowns are really a combination of non pharmaceutical interventions. (NPI)

And a detailed study does show NPIs are effective:

"The emerging picture reveals that no one-size-fits-all solution exists, and no single NPI can decrease _Rt_ below one. Instead, in the absence of a vaccine or efficient antiviral medication, a resurgence of COVID-19 cases can be stopped only by a suitable combination of NPIs, each tailored to the specific country and its epidemic age. These measures must be enacted in the optimal combination and sequence to be maximally effective against the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thereby enable more rapid reopening"









Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour


Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.




www.nature.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I am fully aware that lockdowns will lower C19 deaths for as long as the lockdown is in effect



Oh I see

So you are using a non sequitur in your argument against lockdowns.

This is your argument:

1 we have a lockdown
2 Covid goes up, comes down, more or less goes away
3 another wave happens.
4 Rorschach concludes we must not have lockdowns because they aren't a permanent solution.

If you listened to viroligists, who have been saying the same thing for a year: they have been saying lockdowns are not a permanent solution, they are used to stop the bath tub overflowing. We have to repeat them until there is a vaccine.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> Depends how he died, I imagined he overdosed on crack cocaine and loose women ................... or bored to death by internet warriors.



I do love me some passive-aggressive internet warrior.


----------



## Jelly

Rorschach said:


> We'll never know because we never tried any alternatives.



And you've clearly not tested any alternatives to being alive, _yet I seriously doubt you find that a persuasive argument to try not being so..._



Many of your economic arguments could just as easily make the case that we should have closed our borders far earlier, implemented a much more stringent lockdown, legislated to provide a buffer against personal and business defaults and held the line until such time the virus was effectively defeated; then cracked on rebuilding our economy with the tried and tested approaches which made the new deal and the Marshall plan so successful.

Of course, that is an alternative which a number of antepodean and East Asian countries have tried... Which seems to have been far less damaging than the UK's half baked approach, or the US's confused and inconsistent free-for-all.


It's notable that the countries which have faired best are not those which are richest, or have the most resources, but those where there's a cultural norm of collective responsibility and placing the best interests of your community above narrow self-interest.

Which leads me to ask:
*What exactly is it that makes you think that serving the short term interests of individuals is superior to the longer term interests of the community as a whole anyway?*​
I'm firmly of the opinion that the rise and rise of mindless individualism and short term thinking is a cancer which left unchecked will see humanity's own hubris destroy itself.


----------



## Rorschach

Some people are very annoyed considering they are on the "winning side"


----------



## doctor Bob

Jelly said:


> I'm firmly of the opinion that the rise and rise of mindless individualism and short term thinking is a cancer which left unchecked will see humanity's own hubris destroy itself.



I like that. What should we do?
I'd like to think I do my bit especially for local community, however I have a business and would like to still have a business in a year. I'd also like to keep some of my life savings, not all but some of it. I'd also like to keep my guys jobs going.


----------



## billw

Jelly said:


> It's notable that the countries which have faired best are not those which are richest, or have the most resources, but those where there's a cultural norm of collective responsibility and placing the best interests of your community above narrow self-interest.



*ding*


----------



## Jelly

doctor Bob said:


> I like that. What should we do?
> 
> I'd like to think I do my bit especially for local community, however I have a business and would like to still have a business in a year. I'd also like to keep some of my life savings, not all but some of it. I'd also like to keep my guys jobs going.



I think the horrible truth is that right now there are no good answers, and the best any of us can really do is chase after the nebulous and elusive "Least Bad Option" wherever we find it.

It's mildly depressing, when I read it back put it like that.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Where have I advocated people break the law? Please do find it.



Is there a prize for finding it?


----------



## Jelly

Blackswanwood said:


> Is there a prize for finding it?



Yes.

You've won a slight reduction in your faith in humanity!


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Is there a prize for finding it?
> 
> View attachment 100954



That's why the mods said the post was deleted, I was asking a questions about legislation but I can't recall the wording, long time ago now.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jelly said:


> I think the horrible truth is that right now there are no good answers, and the best any of us can really do is chase after the nebulous and elusive "Least Bad Option" wherever we find it.
> 
> It's mildly depressing, when I read it back put it like that.



That's a little bit wishy washy in comparison to your previous post.


----------



## Jelly

doctor Bob said:


> That's a little bit wishy washy in comparison to your previous post.



When we're talking about population level trends it's fairly easy to identify what a better or worse approach would be...

When it comes down to an individual level, and especially when a business is involved it's much greyer because so much is shaped by circumstances.

If I was an anthropologist with a background in comparative studies of East-Asian and British culture I might have a better grasp of the fine details of what has made some cultures more resilient, and how we could make small changes to our social attitudes to our collective mutual benefit... But I'm very much a numbers guy unfortunately.



For what it's worth:

From a personal perspective I've been scrupulously avoiding unnecessary situations which involve close contact with others and minimising social contacts (which has been tough as I live alone), even when the government gave us more leeway in the summer, and ensuring when I am out in public that I give others space and following good hygiene protocols (after years working in environments with acute toxins, good hygiene practices are quite natural to me now). I've also made a conscious effort to use small and local businesses as much as possible when purchasing things and convinced others around me to do the same, that's not much but it's the best thing I can do if I want to see those businesses survive so I can benefit from their services in the future.

By contrast I see people looking for loopholes to justify continuing as they are, flagrantly disregarding the rules when it suits them, and taking any relaxation in restrictions as a green light to just go nuts... That's the minority of people who are screwing the entire nation over right now.



In a business context it's much more difficult, as without a more supportive approach from central government there are operations which are not truly necceary that businesses are forced to continue running in order to avoid failing (and leaving their workforce on the dole).

I'm fortunate that the business I'm in has been somewhat sheltered as we provide essential services, and has a large SHQ team and substantial reserves and resources so it's been very easy for us to both mitigate risk to employees and customers, and maintain the business as a going concern... Many smaller businesses are simply not that fortunate.


----------



## billw

Jelly said:


> If I was an anthropologist with a background in comparative studies of East-Asian and British culture I might have a better grasp of the fine details of what has made some cultures more resilient, and how we could make small changes to our social attitudes to our collective mutual benefit... But I'm very much a numbers guy unfortunately.



In brief, many societies in Asia have traits such as "collectivism" - the group comes before the individual, you don't argue openly in public for fear of disrupting group harmony. Also they're "face" or "honor" cultures which means how an individual sees themselves is dictated by how others see them so they are careful to act in a way that will not bring shame on themselves or their family. 

Those cultures often have other traits such as deference to superiors, expecting to be told what to do rather than arguing about it, and such like.

On the whole it means that instructions to wear a mask, stay home, etc etc are more likely to be obeyed because they're instructions from authorities, and people don't want to be seen as the ones flaunting the rules.

These are generalisations of course, there are still people who don't adhere to them, but far far less than individualistic nations such as the UK and US.

Reasons for not wearing a mask here - "I don't want to", "it's my right not to", "I don't think they work" - generally reasons that centre around what the individual thinks and screw everyone else.

As for changing that - *sucks air through teeth* - probably not going to happen.


----------



## billw

BTW - I should point out this doesn't make one culture "better" than the other.


----------



## Noel

doctor Bob said:


> Depends how he died, I imagined he overdosed on crack cocaine and loose women ................... or bored to death by internet warriors.





Jelly said:


> When we're talking about population level trends it's fairly easy to identify what a better or worse approach would be...
> 
> When it comes down to an individual level, and especially when a business is involved it's much greyer because so much is shaped by circumstances.
> 
> If I was an anthropologist with a background in comparative studies of East-Asian and British culture I might have a better grasp of the fine details of what has made some cultures more resilient, and how we could make small changes to our social attitudes to our collective mutual benefit... But I'm very much a numbers guy unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth:
> 
> From a personal perspective I've been scrupulously avoiding unnecessary situations which involve close contact with others and minimising social contacts (which has been tough as I live alone), even when the government gave us more leeway in the summer, and ensuring when I am out in public that I give others space and following good hygiene protocols (after years working in environments with acute toxins, good hygiene practices are quite natural to me now). I've also made a conscious effort to use small and local businesses as much as possible when purchasing things and convinced others around me to do the same, that's not much but it's the best thing I can do if I want to see those businesses survive so I can benefit from their services in the future.
> 
> By contrast I see people looking for loopholes to justify continuing as they are, flagrantly disregarding the rules when it suits them, and taking any relaxation in restrictions as a green light to just go nuts... That's the minority of people who are screwing the entire nation over right now.
> 
> 
> 
> In a business context it's much more difficult, as without a more supportive approach from central government there are operations which are not truly necceary that businesses are forced to continue running in order to avoid failing (and leaving their workforce on the dole).
> 
> I'm fortunate that the business I'm in has been somewhat sheltered as we provide essential services, and has a large SHQ team and substantial reserves and resources so it's been very easy for us to both mitigate risk to employees and customers, and maintain the business as a going concern... Many smaller businesses are simply not that fortunate.



On a related theme I think many seem to think that once vaccinated, or half vaccinated, it's hug time and go on holiday with a bunch of strangers time. 
And that is not the best thing to do, at least for some time.


----------



## doctor Bob

Noel said:


> On a related theme I think many seem to think that once vaccinated, or half vaccinated, it's hug time and go on holiday with a bunch of strangers time.
> And that is not the best thing to do, at least for some time.



The issue is how long, do we hole up for 20 years, probably not, is 10 acceptable, 5....... at somepoint people being people will start to say, each for themselves, human nature. I think I have a good moral compass, I think I have compassion to others, I have spent time helping others but we all have a breaking point, am I prepared to hole up for say 10 years, I doubt it.


----------



## Misterdog

Woodmatt said:


> I spoke with a relative in Canada yesterday and their government are hoping to get all over seventies vaccinated by late October which is some eight months after the UK so maybe our government are getting that bit right



Though the EU are around 3/4 weeks behind us because all 27 member states had to agree on which vaccines to buy, how much to order, and how much to pay.
By the time they had agreed all that they were at the back of the queue.
(sounds like their Brexit negotiations ? ) 

Imagine how the Germans feel when the Pfizer vaccine is developed in Germany but the UK rolls it out before them. - not happy.

Of course during the first wave the lets bash BJ mob constantly pointed to Germany as a model of perfection..
And political blinkers prevent the mob for giving any credit. 






__





Germans vexed as coronavirus vaccine rollout lags


In northern state, hottest ticket in town is an appointment to get a jab.




www.politico.eu


----------



## Jacob

Misterdog said:


> Though the EU are around 3/4 weeks behind us because all 27 member states had to agree on which vaccines to buy, how much to order, and how much to pay.
> By the time they had agreed all that they were at the back of the queue.
> (sounds like their Brexit negotiations ? )
> 
> Imagine how the Germans feel when the Pfizer vaccine is developed in Germany but the UK rolls it out before them. - not happy.
> 
> Of course during the first wave the lets bash BJ mob constantly pointed to Germany as a model of perfection..
> And political blinkers prevent the mob for giving any credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germans vexed as coronavirus vaccine rollout lags
> 
> 
> In northern state, hottest ticket in town is an appointment to get a jab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.eu


If it really is a success due to brexit then it's the very first one to appear out of the fog. The only one so far! But I expect it's not that simple.


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> But I expect it's not that simple.





why is europe so slow at rolling out the vaccine - Google Search


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> If it really is a success due to brexit then it's the very first one to appear out of the fog. The only one so far! But I expect it's not that simple.



have you swallowed a bitter pill?


----------



## Misterdog




----------



## Jelly

Jacob said:


> If it really is a success due to brexit then it's the very first one to appear out of the fog. The only one so far! But I expect it's not that simple.



It is as you correctly identified, not that simple:

In principle the EU states were free to act individually to approve and order the vaccine faster than the central EU bodies were doing)

However because they normally use a centralised regulatory approval body for medicines, the individual states did not have established procedures or independently functioning bodies for doing so...

_Unlike the UK who had always maintained the MHRA_ and an independent British Pharmacopoeia, thus had that in place to work independently (and much much faster).

That's not actually related to Brexit, and owes more to the close symbiosis of MHRA, NICE, the NHS and Britain's Pharmaceutical Industry; which made maintaining an independent regulator of our own for decades make sense.



I will grant the brexiteers that in one respect it does highlight how clunky EU central bodies can be... 

But by the same token it shows how we were often the nation who led the charge in developing EU regulations and standards, because we could show the way, something that British politicians invariably forgot when the regulations we had been instrumental in creating were unpopular or misrepresented at home.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

An extreme covid "solution" is not tenable.

Total lockdown would apparently minimise deaths at a huge cost to the economy. "Apparently" as we are unable to quantify consequential deaths from delayed treatments, mental disease, economic hardship etc.

"Let it rip" would result in a much larger death toll (say 150-500k). The NHS would be completely overwhelmed. Many infected would not be treated - a difficult choice - let die, pump full of drugs, etc.

A compromise solution is needed to minimise the consequences of two equally unattractive outcomes. 

Asserting that all lives are valued and must be saved at any cost is simplistic and naive. Using selective statistics on life expectancy is to cynically overestimate the impact.

Placing the needs of the economy above life is the bahaviour of the single minded selfish and self obsessed.

Both are morally bankrupt.

Protect the NHS is a broadly compromise strategy which until the virus mutated had some prospect of working (and may still do (just!)


----------



## D_W

Terry - Somerset said:


> An extreme covid "solution" is not tenable.
> 
> Total lockdown would apparently minimise deaths at a huge cost to the economy. "Apparently" as we are unable to quantify consequential deaths from delayed treatments, mental disease, economic hardship etc.
> 
> "Let it rip" would result in a much larger death toll (say 150-500k). The NHS would be completely overwhelmed. Many infected would not be treated - a difficult choice - let die, pump full of drugs, etc.
> 
> A compromise solution is needed to minimise the consequences of two equally unattractive outcomes.
> 
> Asserting that all lives are valued and must be saved at any cost is simplistic and naive. Using selective statistics on life expectancy is to cynically overestimate the impact.
> 
> Placing the needs of the economy above life is the bahaviour of the single minded selfish and self obsessed.
> 
> Both are morally bankrupt.
> 
> Protect the NHS is a broadly compromise strategy which until the virus mutated had some prospect of working (and may still do (just!)



Death rates by age group are a pretty good way to quantify the deaths you're referring to. death rates in general, age adjusted, don't change much year to year without something like covid - generally fluctuating within a range of 0-3%, and more in the middle of that than at the ends. If the numbers are significant, they'll be easy to see. 

We're apparently seeing them here - but they are a small fraction of the excess covid deaths. 

what we don't see is the financial misery - no easy solution, though.


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> That's why the mods said the post was deleted, I was asking a questions about legislation but I can't recall the wording, long time ago now.


I responded at the time and my post was also deleted as it quoted your statement that you would ignore the requirement on numbers allowed to meet indoors. There was no question about the legislation just your proposed breaking of it.......


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You can't possibly entertain the idea that there might be a better alternative because


That is precisely your problem.,..you don't like rules imposed by government so you can't entertain the idea there is no better alternative.

That is why you don't look at both sides of the debate.
Unlike me.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Some people are very annoyed considering they are on the "winning side"


Are you sure?

You are the one debating with ad hominems....a sure sign of somebody angry and lacking counter argument.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> That is precisely your problem.,..you don't like rules imposed by government so you can't entertain the idea there is no better alternative.
> 
> That is why you don't look at both sides of the debate.
> Unlike me.



I can entertain a better alternative, but because it isn't YOUR alternative, you don't like it


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> You are the one debating with ad hominems....a sure sign of somebody angry and lacking counter argument.



Definitely


----------



## doctor Bob

Jelly said:


> It is as you correctly identified, not that simple:
> 
> In principle the EU states were free to act individually to approve and order the vaccine faster than the central EU bodies were doing)
> 
> However because they normally use a centralised regulatory approval body for medicines, the individual states did not have established procedures or independently functioning bodies for doing so...
> 
> _Unlike the UK who had always maintained the MHRA_ and an independent British Pharmacopoeia, thus had that in place to work independently (and much much faster).
> 
> That's not actually related to Brexit, and owes more to the close symbiosis of MHRA, NICE, the NHS and Britain's Pharmaceutical Industry; which made maintaining an independent regulator of our own for decades make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> I will grant the brexiteers that in one respect it does highlight how clunky EU central bodies can be...
> 
> But by the same token it shows how we were often the nation who led the charge in developing EU regulations and standards, because we could show the way, something that British politicians invariably forgot when the regulations we had been instrumental in creating were unpopular or misrepresented at home.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> That is precisely your problem.,..you don't like rules imposed by government so you can't entertain the idea there is no better alternative.
> 
> That is why you don't look at both sides of the debate.
> Unlike me.



Arrh the old "I'm considerably better than thou arguement".


----------



## Lons

Petehpkns said:


> I responded at the time and my post was also deleted as it quoted your statement that you would ignore the requirement on numbers allowed to meet indoors. There was no question about the legislation just your proposed breaking of it.......


So did I, he really is a piece of work!


----------



## Rorschach

Petehpkns said:


> I responded at the time and my post was also deleted as it quoted your statement that you would ignore the requirement on numbers allowed to meet indoors. There was no question about the legislation just your proposed breaking of it.......



Do you have a screenshot? I'd like to see the evidence rather than being convicted on a "that's what I thought he said".


----------



## doctor Bob

I really hope this thread hasn'tbecome sad enough that people need to take screen shots of stuff.


----------



## NormanB

D_W said:


> Death rates by age group are a pretty good way to quantify the deaths you're referring to. death rates in general, age adjusted, don't change much year to year without something like covid - generally fluctuating within a range of 0-3%, and more in the middle of that than at the ends. If the numbers are significant, they'll be easy to see.
> 
> We're apparently seeing them here - but they are a small fraction of the excess covid deaths.
> 
> what we don't see is the financial misery - no easy solution, though.


Your theory holds good until health services are overwhelmed a clear and present danger in some parts of the UK. When that happens the collateral damage is actually the non COVID deaths through ‘medical neglect’ and while that is happening the COVID deaths will be increasing by ‘medical neglect’ too - in this context neglect = no capacity to provide clinical intervention.


----------



## Droogs

Really Rorscach, you ask for screenshot evidence to prove you wrong and then like a comment berating you for doing so. do you actually read things?


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Really Rorscach, you ask for screenshot evidence to prove you wrong and then like a comment berating you for doing so. do you actually read things?



Yes I'd love a cup of tea thanks.


----------



## Yorkieguy

Setting aside the interminable pointless Brexit argy bargy, the UK government have been pilloried over its handling of Covid-19 when in reality, there has been widespread disregard for even simple measures such as wearing a mask. Every other person who wears one has it only over their mouth. All the protestations of 'the rules aren't clear' are just lame excuses and every question about 'can I do this or that?' is motivated by a desire to push the boundaries. 'Stay home unless your journey is essential' in unequivocal. Likewise, when told we can 'exercise locally', how hard is that to understand? To my mind, 'local'' means as soon as you set foot out of your front door - it doesn't mean drive ten miles to a beauty spot or a beach along with thousands of like minded individuals.

Some will blame the government for 'lack of enforcement' while other say they're 'living in a police state'. These are just ways to deflect from accepting personal responsibility.

One thing the UK does deserve credit for is the vaccine rollout. My wife and I (both over 80), were vaccinated yesterday. Drove 20 mins to the vaccine centre, arrived 10am for out 10.10 appointment. 100 cars in the car park, lots of free spaces, all very well organised - vaccinated at 10.10 on time, had to sit for 15 mins to make sure all was well, given an appointment for our second jabs, and back home within the hour. 

The vaccination hub was at Beverley Racecourse. We could have celebrated by going into Beverley town centre to join the throng of hundreds of others strolling around with no social distancing, masks hanging under the chins, browsing so called 'essential' shops for non-essential items, going into one of several coffee shops for a takeaway coffee, have a sit on a bench. But we didn't - not because we didn't want to, but because we're told not to. Not wanting to sound pompous or self righteous - just saying if everyone had bought into this, many who are no longer with us would still be alive. 

Anyway, here we go then - UK has vaccinated more than any EU country by a large measure and deserves praise for that. Sure, there are 'war stories' about people having to wait hours or drive miles to a centre, but the UK has vaccinated more in one day than France has done. In total more than ten times as many, and almost five times the number of vaccinations per 100 people than Germany. (At the present rate of progress, if 50% of the population of France do eventually decide to have the vaccine, it will just under 8 years to administer).



Country​Number of vaccinations per 100 people​​​Number of vaccinations​Last updated​U.K.​4.94​​​3,356,229​Jan. 13​


Germany​1.01​​​842,455​Jan. 13​

France​0.49318,216Jan. 14

So why has it taken so long for France to put the plan into action? It is not as if the authorities did not have time to prepare. And it is certainly not a question of a lack of vaccine. In fact, more than a million Pfizer doses are already in cold storage, waiting to be used.

The primary reason for the delay seems to be the cumbersome, over-centralised nature of France's health bureaucracy. A 45-page dossier of instructions issued by the ministry in Paris had to be read and understood by staff at old people's homes.

Each recipient then had to give informed consent in a consultation with a doctor, held no less than five days before injection. The lengthy procedure is in theory to save lives - those of patients who might have an adverse reaction. But as the critics have been arguing, delay in inoculating the population is also costing lives.

Another problem in France is the high level of scepticism towards vaccination - product of a more general suspicion of government. Polls suggest as many as 58% of the public do not want to be given the jab. The effect - critics say - has been to make the government unduly cautious. When urgency was required, the authorities were reluctant to move fast for fear of galvanising the anti-vaxxers. French TV reported on one care home where just 70 of 250 residents had given their consent. One resident said: “We don’t know what’s in their vaccine.”

The [French] government plans to set up a “citizens’ collective” of 35 people chosen at random to determine how worries about the vaccine can be addressed.

That should speed things up then?

Why Covid-19 vaccine rollout is so slow in France

David.


----------



## D_W

NormanB said:


> Your theory holds good until health services are overwhelmed a clear and present danger in some parts of the UK. When that happens the collateral damage is actually the non COVID deaths through ‘medical neglect’ and while that is happening the COVID deaths will be increasing by ‘medical neglect’ too - in this context neglect = no capacity to provide clinical intervention.



Curious as to how these other deaths won't show up in the excess mortality totals. If you have covid deaths separated out of the excess and still a lot of excess, you can the figure out then what age groups the deaths are in and find the cause.

There was initially a lot of deferring of elective and other procedures here in the states , but we have so much non icu capacity in the states that hospitals have made a point of not deferring any longer. It was actually a financial threat. The elderly are deferring dental work, though.


----------



## doctor Bob

Yorkie guy has it right.
I took my 87 year old parents last weekend for their Jab. Bear in mind it was full of an age group in wheel chairs, mobility scooters, mental confusion, yet it was efficient and exceptionaly sympathetic.

When we get to more mobile age groups we will be even swifter, we are right up there with the top countries.
For once, stop whinging (he who cast the first stone and all that) join the enthusiasm for the vaccine.
I find this defeatest, depressionism draining. I find it sad that peoplecan't accept that we are doing well (just that) but bring in negative issues as to why we are doing well.
I get it but be more rounded, it's like a bandwagon came through and you all felt compulsed to jump aboard.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Identifying collateral damage from covid is plausible where the impact can readily be identified as occuring at a similar time - eg: deaths resulting from heart attacks within (say) 3 days of the initial attack.

It is far more problematic where the impact may be delayed for several months or years - eg: a failure in cancer screening or treatment.

In those cases it may be very difficult to reliably link the consequences of covid induced pressure on NHS with the delayed collateral damage.


----------



## Misterdog

If all the energy spent trying to blame government was directed into helping the fight against this disease, we would all be back to some form of normality sooner.
Though this is just wishful thinking as some see that their role in life is to criticise anything government does.
In the mistaken belief that they are actually making some kind of difference.

Actions/words etc.


----------



## Spectric

Hi all 

Unfortunately the buck stops at the top, in a time of national crisis you need strong leadership providing good instruction and the will to enforce. This government has been weak and indecisive so many times that a public enquiry must happen, maybe Borris has long Covid that has changed his mental ability. Imagine if this had been a really serious disease, this country would have been decimated. The one area they continue to get so wrong is failing to shut the gate in time, they tell everyone that next week they will stop travel from country X, so what happens is everyone rushes to beat the deadline and they keep doing it. Why not have detention centres where the police/military detain everyone coming into the country for three weeks and are only released when proven safe, if they had done this in February we would be living a normal life now. In times like this people have to accept that they cannot have normality and it is Ok if you throw say a 100 people to the lions if it saves a 1000 lives, ie treat the blatant rule breakers like looters.


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> Do you have a screenshot? I'd like to see the evidence rather than being convicted on a "that's what I thought he said"


Clearly not, the post and my response were deleted. It doesn’t seem credible that the moderators saw fit to remove the post given you were simply asking a question re “legislation”. Forums welcome posts and is their business model, so why would they discourage ‘questions’......


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> .......I find it sad that people can't accept that we are doing well .......


It's mainly because we aren't doing well. We are even worse than USA in terms of deaths per capita.


----------



## Jameshow

Spectric said:


> Hi all
> 
> Unfortunately the buck stops at the top, in a time of national crisis you need strong leadership providing good instruction and the will to enforce. This government has been weak and indecisive so many times that a public enquiry must happen, maybe Borris has long Covid that has changed his mental ability. Imagine if this had been a really serious disease, this country would have been decimated. The one area they continue to get so wrong is failing to shut the gate in time, they tell everyone that next week they will stop travel from country X, so what happens is everyone rushes to beat the deadline and they keep doing it. Why not have detention centres where the police/military detain everyone coming into the country for three weeks and are only released when proven safe, if they had done this in February we would be living a normal life now. In times like this people have to accept that they cannot have normality and it is Ok if you throw say a 100 people to the lions if it saves a 1000 lives, ie treat the blatant rule breakers like looters.



Since I am relatively young perhaps you can suggest a politician in the modern era say since Churchill who you are sure could have done a better job???


Cheers James


----------



## Jameshow

Jacob said:


> It's mainly because we aren't doing well. We are even worse than USA in terms of deaths per capita.



Not supprising when you compare our population density. 

Cheers James


----------



## Droogs

Jameshow said:


> Since I am relatively young perhaps you can suggest a politician in the modern era say since Churchill who you are sure could have done a better job???
> 
> 
> Cheers James


There are 2 I would put forward and neither will be popular. MT and TB both had the strength of will to ensure that what needed to be done would have

You have no idea how much I don't like admitting that


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> Curious as to how these other deaths won't show up in the excess mortality totals. If you have covid deaths separated out of the excess and still a lot of excess, you can the figure out then what age groups the deaths are in and find the cause.
> 
> There was initially a lot of deferring of elective and other procedures here in the states , but we have so much non icu capacity in the states that hospitals have made a point of not deferring any longer. It was actually a financial threat. The elderly are deferring dental work, though.



30k of the English excess deaths were "at home". So in some respects a lot of deaths were because hospital wasn't available to people for deaths that may have been preventable but don't expect any chat about that.

The data on chances of people dying from covid has been out there for ages. Its very low under 70 and a lot higher over 80 but then again still very low. The Diamond Princess was a great example of this.


----------



## Selwyn

Jameshow said:


> Since I am relatively young perhaps you can suggest a politician in the modern era say since Churchill who you are sure could have done a better job???
> 
> 
> Cheers James



Western Europe is dealing with it all pretty much the same. But it is now a endemic seasonal disease so why wouldn't they. I don't expect any politican to do better than any other - Aleksander Lukashenko maybe!


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> It's mainly because we aren't doing well. We are even worse than USA in terms of deaths per capita.


Vaccine Jacob, context.............


----------



## Jelly

Jameshow said:


> Since I am relatively young perhaps you can suggest a politician in the modern era say since Churchill who you are sure could have done a better job???
> 
> 
> Cheers James



Depending on your political persuasion:
Nye Bevan or Margaret Thatcher would be the obvious suggestions.

However, I think Blair, Brown and Cameron would all have been significantly more effective than Boris has been, that's not to say they would have handled it well, but less badly.


----------



## Noel

Petehpkns said:


> Clearly not, the post and my response were deleted. It doesn’t seem credible that the moderators saw fit to remove the post given you were simply asking a question re “legislation”. Forums welcome posts and is their business model, so why would they discourage ‘questions’......



Indeed.


----------



## Jameshow

But you cannot do things which the infrastructure dosen't allow like mass testing without the labs to do it. Which we didn't have in march.

PPE supply was a big issue and a disaster created over the past 20yrs implemented by logistics experts with just in time theory. 

The tracking element was a disaster and Dido Harding has been sharing a desk with Gavin at the back of the class.

The rest of the decisions have been in the majority based on science and when that comes available...

Just my dumb assessment....

Cheers James


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Jameshow said:


> Not supprising when you compare our population density.
> 
> Cheers James


I reckon we're as dense (and as susceptible to bibble on social media) as they are, on average....


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Jameshow said:


> But you cannot do things which the infrastructure dosen't allow like mass testing without the labs to do it. Which we didn't have in march.
> The tracking eliment was a disaster and Dido Harding have been sharing a desk with Gavin at the back of the class.
> 
> The rest of the decisions have been majority based on science and when that comes available...
> 
> Just my dumb assessment....
> 
> Cheers James


It's easy to diss track n trace, but it's important to remember that everything they do is *after* someone has managed to get themselves infected...


----------



## Droogs

I agree with you on this Dr Bob but it is not really due to the government but more I would say to the professionals within the NHS


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> 30k of the English excess deaths were "at home". So in some respects a lot of deaths were because hospital wasn't available to people for deaths that may have been preventable but don't expect any chat about that.
> 
> The data on chances of people dying from covid has been out there for ages. Its very low under 70 and a lot higher over 80 but then again still very low. The Diamond Princess was a great example of this.



OK, my point above still was the claim that nobody will be able to quantify the impact on lack of non-covid care. If it results in deaths, they will show up and can be counted (as in quantified). 

Not much necessary care has been avoided here, but this is the land of elective medical work (if you need orthopedic surgery here, you'll get it right away - there's no management of utilization like there is in nationalized systems, but that kind of stuff had been cut back originally). 

Not sure about the death totals, etc, but if there's a big excess of deaths (by that, I don't mean every death from neglect to complete medical treatment - there is some of that all the time - but the amount above and beyond normal), it'll be easy to find right away after the main causes are weeded out. CDC records death by cause here in the states, so the cohort of unknown cases is pretty small. If it stays small, and the other death rates (heart disease, cancer, etc) don't change much, then it's more perceived consequences than actual.


----------



## Misterdog

> When the coronavirus struck, the British government repeatedly said it was among the best-prepared countries in the world – with some justification. As recently as October, an international review of pandemic planning ranked the UK the second best prepared country in the world (behind the US).












Covid-19: did the UK government prepare for the wrong kind of pandemic?


Britain’s highly rated disease preparation failed on coronavirus – possibly because ministers followed a plan for flu




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> There are 2 I would put forward and neither will be popular. MT and TB both had the strength of will to ensure that what needed to be done would have
> 
> You have no idea how much I don't like admitting that



Eh gads, we agree on something!


----------



## Rorschach

Misterdog said:


> Covid-19: did the UK government prepare for the wrong kind of pandemic?
> 
> 
> Britain’s highly rated disease preparation failed on coronavirus – possibly because ministers followed a plan for flu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



This was pointed out earlier in this discussion and I brought it up as well but it was dismissed by people here who expect governments to be prepared for every possible eventuality.


----------



## MikeJhn

No matter who was or is in charge, they were on a "hiding to nothing", being "stuck between a rock and a hard place", can't think of anymore metaphors to add, but I think the sentiment is true.


----------



## Misterdog

Off topic.

When it comes to detailing the statistics, I've not seen better than the LA Times.


https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/


----------



## Spectric

Jameshow said:


> Since I am relatively young perhaps you can suggest a politician in the modern era say since Churchill who you are sure could have done a better job???


That is the problem, all the leaders have to work within the constraints of the system but maybe Blair would have made the hard decisions and also people now believe they have total freedom to do as they please whenever they want to, but far to many are incapable of actually comprehending a situation, understanding the facts and responding in the right way. On day 1 the government should have used the military to enforce the lockdown, anyone not following the rules should have just been locked up until the pandemic is over.


----------



## NormanB

Spectric said:


> That is the problem, all the leaders have to work within the constraints of the system but maybe Blair would have made the hard decisions and also people now believe they have total freedom to do as they please whenever they want to, but far to many are incapable of actually comprehending a situation, understanding the facts and responding in the right way. On day 1 the government should have used the military to enforce the lockdown, anyone not following the rules should have just been locked up until the pandemic is over.


Nice theory. But ignoring the much diminished numbers in the military and with that diminished capacity to do what you suggest, the modus operandi in the UK is always to deploy the military as ‘Aid to the civil power’ which in practice means having a copper with them. In terms of enforcing rules it might act as a force multiplier for a Chief Constable wanting to have an effect but the multiplier effect would be embarrassingly small.

Different in Europe who have very well resourced ‘para military police forces ‘ and are part of the landscape. We just do not like armed troops on the streets of our hometown.


----------



## Misterdog

Spectric said:


> On day 1 the government should have used the military to enforce the lockdown, anyone not following the rules should have just been locked up until the pandemic is over.



Just like the Communism I witnessed in Romania where my family were from then.

Living in a police state you could also guarantee that there would be no criticism of those in power.
I feel though that your proposals will gather few votes, if any.
Been a bit of a failure in Russia.









Russia admits to world's third-worst Covid-19 death toll


More than 186,000 Russians have died due to coronavirus, three times more than previously reported




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Spectric

Not like communism, that was not temporary. This inconveniences the few to save the masses and had we closed the doors sooner then we may have avoided the full impact of this virus.


----------



## Misterdog

Spectric said:


> Not like communism, that was not temporary



Though it was for the good of the many and not just the few. At least that is how it was sold.
The reality was very different of course.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Droogs said:


> There are 2 I would put forward and neither will be popular. MT and TB both had the strength of will to ensure that what needed to be done would have
> 
> You have no idea how much I don't like admitting that


Tony yes but no but I'll answer a completely different question to the one you asked?


----------



## ivan

Quite a few countries in the Asian area have managed to keep deaths below (some well below) 1000, per 50 million of population. In the UK 85,000 dead is roughly equivalent to 65,000 dead per 50 million. Hardly a success story. My neighbour, a retired GP, pointed out that Jeremy Ladygarden, when the main health man, decided we did not need to stockpile PPE, as it could be bought when needed....in a pandeminc??? The UK has been long term unprepared.


----------



## Droogs

@Billy_wizz 
sorry you've lost me with your reply. could you expand a bit?


----------



## Selwyn

Woody2Shoes said:


> It's easy to diss track n trace, but it's important to remember that everything they do is *after* someone has managed to get themselves infected...



You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> OK, my point above still was the claim that nobody will be able to quantify the impact on lack of non-covid care. If it results in deaths, they will show up and can be counted (as in quantified).
> 
> Not much necessary care has been avoided here, but this is the land of elective medical work (if you need orthopedic surgery here, you'll get it right away - there's no management of utilization like there is in nationalized systems, but that kind of stuff had been cut back originally).
> 
> Not sure about the death totals, etc, but if there's a big excess of deaths (by that, I don't mean every death from neglect to complete medical treatment - there is some of that all the time - but the amount above and beyond normal), it'll be easy to find right away after the main causes are weeded out. CDC records death by cause here in the states, so the cohort of unknown cases is pretty small. If it stays small, and the other death rates (heart disease, cancer, etc) don't change much, then it's more perceived consequences than actual.



They will show up to a degree. The fly in the ointment is when a 96 year old dementia patient dies with covid it somehow skews the covid figures. And when you are testing people daily in a hospital I think its astonishing people would come back as being negative to be honest. 

The excess deaths in April were big. The excess deaths now are not outside the envelope of a nasty flu year. It is nasty disease for some of course. But then again lots of things are nasty for an 86 year old in a warm care home.


----------



## Selwyn

Spectric said:


> That is the problem, all the leaders have to work within the constraints of the system but maybe Blair would have made the hard decisions and also people now believe they have total freedom to do as they please whenever they want to, but far to many are incapable of actually comprehending a situation, understanding the facts and responding in the right way. On day 1 the government should have used the military to enforce the lockdown, anyone not following the rules should have just been locked up until the pandemic is over.



That's ridiculous. Especially as there is no clear evidence that lockdowns have much effect. They did this is Peru and Spain/ France and the boat is still the same


----------



## doctor Bob

ivan said:


> Quite a few countries in the Asian area have managed to keep deaths below (some well below) 1000, per 50 million of population. In the UK 85,000 dead is roughly equivalent to 65,000 dead per 50 million. Hardly a success story. My neighbour, a retired GP, pointed out that Jeremy Ladygarden, when the main health man, decided we did not need to stockpile PPE, as it could be bought when needed....in a pandeminc??? The UK has been long term unprepared.



Possibly due to very few obese people, people with high risk illnesses tend to die from them rather than living to a ripe old age, frail old people tend to die in under developed countries. Therefore the density of people in the bracket of extreme high risk is much lower. IMO


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Arrh the old "I'm considerably better than thou arguement".


Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.

In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.

In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Droogs said:


> @Billy_wizz
> sorry you've lost me with your reply. could you expand a bit?


I watched the man spend his entire political career not answering a single question that deviated from the narrative he wanted to spin while promising everything to everyone that strikes me as a man who's only mental will is to tell the story how he thinks it should sound regardless of what's actually happening!


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.
> 
> In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.
> 
> In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.



Trust me, I am not on anyones side, I want the world to get better. 

However, I think Rorschach's is not stating that at all, I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Yes indeed, that is Rorschach's argument, well done for spotting it.
> 
> In Rorschach keeps stating that no lockdown is better than lockdown....but when pushed for evidence, he admits there is none, but it's a hunch.
> 
> In Rorschach's opinion he is right because his hunch is better.



There isn't any evidence for a lockdown really being that effective, or masks. Wales had an October lockdown it was useless.

We will eventually see some evidence of the harm lockdown has done and we see some now ie 30k excess deaths in the home last year which is a big figure if you care about non covid deaths but no one seems to anymore

The pandemic was over last June. We now have an endemic virus we need to just learn to deal with. I can accept this current lock down until the most vulnerable are vaccinated albeit grudgingly but after that we need to move forward more


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Possibly due to very few obese people, people with high risk illnesses tend to die from them rather than living to a ripe old age, frail old people tend to die in under developed countries. Therefore the density of people in the bracket of extreme high risk is much lower. IMO



Healthier lifestyle, far less obesity and (border line) diabetes. Happier to be bossed around by authority. It is also suspected that SARS1 and MERS may have given the Asian countries a good degree of natural immunity.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!



No you have it bang on. I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity. Of course this was my thoughts long before a vaccine was even on the horizon. 
Basically I am in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration. I am not for "let it rip" as some say. What really annoyed people though was that I stated I accepted the fact that some (elderly and sick) people would die in order for the rest of the country to survive. Instead it seems that the elderly and sick still died, but plenty of younger healthy people will now suffer long after the old we "saved" have died. That opinion was not taken well, probably because a few people on this forum would be on that list (unless they protected themselves as I suggested).


----------



## Droogs

Alister Cambell write that for you Rorschach?


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Alister Cambell write that for you Rorschach?



That's the worst insult I have had so far!


----------



## Spectric

If the virus cannot walk, run or fly then it needs a host to carry it around, this is where people come in and become the virus's transport to pastures new. If you take away all the transport then the virus runs out of fresh meat and without new host it cannot spread, evolve or mutate so would eventually fade away. That is why it spreads better than Ebola, it allows the host to live or live longer to accomplish transmission unlike Ebola that just kills quicker and breaks its own transmission. If lockdowns are not the answer then you need total social separation and wear a bio hazzard suit in all public places.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

We are simply going over old ground with views polarised towards extremes. Relax restrictions - the young are bearing most of the load so a few oldies close to death can live. Lock everything down - preserve all life at any cost, punish those who don't comply.

Current high levels of hospital admissions and deaths means that if restrictions are relaxed, we should be very explicit about how we deal with the consequences (triage?). Not all who become ill will be treated.

*Pretending there are no consequences is profoundly dishonest.*

We are very fortunate that within a few weeks vaccines should provide a way out of the pandemic. As hospital admissions and deaths fall, aided by lockdown, restrictions will start to be released.

I suspect this will start to become evident during February, and by the end of March maintaining any material level of restrictions will be increasingly difficult police or get public buy in.


----------



## Lons

doctor Bob said:


> Trust me, I am not on anyones side, I want the world to get better.
> 
> However, I think Rorschach's is not stating that at all, I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!


Not quite Bob if you think back he very clearly said the ones dying would have died soon anyway, he was very firmly castigated for that and wriggled like a snake trying to get out of it.


----------



## Rorschach

Lons said:


> Not quite Bob if you think back he very clearly said the ones dying would have died soon anyway, he was very firmly castigated for that and wriggled like a snake trying to get out of it.



That's still true as well, they are mostly care home residents, lockdown hasn't helped them has it.


----------



## doctor Bob

Lons said:


> Not quite Bob if you think back he very clearly said the ones dying would have died soon anyway, he was very firmly castigated for that and wriggled like a snake trying to get out of it.



I think that's a seperate point to the one I raised.


----------



## Jameshow

Rorschach said:


> That's still true as well, they are mostly care home residents, lockdown hasn't helped them has it.


Hardly catching covid over the age of 50 isn't a throw of the dice I'd be too happy doing on a daily basis without restrictions. 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach

Jameshow said:


> Hardly catching covid over the age of 50 isn't a throw of the dice I'd be too happy doing on a daily basis without restrictions.
> 
> Cheers James



Which (lockdown) restrictions do you think are helping you?


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> That's still true as well, they are mostly care home residents, lockdown hasn't helped them has it.


Rubbish. 
The reason care home residents are dying is still because the homes are breeding grounds for the virus as it's very difficult to stop it with staff coming in and out no matter how hard they try, if they get it of course they're more likely to die.
What you fail to understand when often pontificating about deaths from other causes being worse than allowing the virus to just spread and achieve herd immunity, yes you did say that, is those deaths and possibly more would happen when the hospitals are overloaded, staff off work with Covid or sheer exhaustion, how do you think cancer treatments for example would be carried out.

Admissions to hospital due to Covid is not confined to old people, it's across all adult ages and while the younger age groups are less likely to die they are still tying up hospital resourses often for weeks.

You also have regularly stated Covid is no worse than flu  
Just a few figures on daily hospital admissions in England of admissions of patients with Covid I've taken only the 15th of the month as that's up to date.
August- 630
Sept. - 891
Oct. - 4569
Nov. - 13866
Dec. - 15031
Jan. - 33362

It's clear to see the effect when people are allowed to congregate or do so in ignorance or selfishness and I'd refer you back to your posts already mentioned which were quite rightly deleted


----------



## andy hamilton

Lons said:


> Even better that they should catch it and discover the possibility that due to complications even if they survive they may have sustained damage which has effectively knocked years off their lives.
> 
> Is it any wonder that people died in care homes? They are generally just a big house or hotel if a posh one, residents in close proximity for meals and activities, staff and visitors in and out so a fertile breeding ground for infection. My MiL is still pretty fit at 93 and when her home got a couple of cases they confined all to their rooms, after 4 weeks the home was clear.
> On the other hand my BiL very fit and reasonably healthy caught it and after 3 weeks on a ventilator died, they said even had he made it the damage done would make him an invalid.. my daughter's friend died last week no health issues whatsoever before Covid - aged 36.


I know 5 people who've had Covid, 2 had only mild symptoms and soon recovered, 3 had it very badly of whom one died. The two who recovered described the terrifying experience of fighting for every breath, convinced that the next intake of air would be their last. 9 months on they're still suffering debilitating after-effects and have been told they may have permanent lung damage. It's true there are significant bad effects from lockdown, but the alternative of letting the virus rip through the population doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Lons

doctor Bob said:


> Trust me, I am not on anyones side, I want the world to get better.
> 
> However, I think Rorschach's is not stating that at all, I understood that he wants the vunerable to properly lockdown and to be looked after better, and open up the rest more. I'm not convinced by that, but I really think you have missed some of his post meaning. Or maybe it's me!!!


I dont think it is a different point Bob you know exactly what he said in that last thread that was deleted as you actively posted comments as well, as I've just said he was castigated for those. I can't remember how long after that it was before he was banned but he deserved it.


----------



## doctor Bob

Lons said:


> I dont think it is a different point Bob you know exactly what he said in that last thread that was deleted as you actively posted comments as well, as I've just said he was castigated for those. I can't remember how long after that it was before he was banned but he deserved it.



of course, why would I not know, but it's not relevant to my correction above. If you want to argue with Rorsch---- again, go for it. I merely tried to clarify what I considered an incorrect post.


----------



## selly

Lons said:


> Not quite Bob if you think back he very clearly said the ones dying would have died soon anyway, he was very firmly castigated for that and wriggled like a snake trying to get out of it.



That would have been true in a lot of cases. Care Home excess deaths are a good example of this. Average stay in a care home is I think less than 9 months. 

So we need some perspective.


----------



## selly

Jameshow said:


> Hardly catching covid over the age of 50 isn't a throw of the dice I'd be too happy doing on a daily basis without restrictions.
> 
> Cheers James



What's your job? Who do you want to see restricted?


----------



## selly

Lons said:


> Rubbish.
> The reason care home residents are dying is still because the homes are breeding grounds for the virus as it's very difficult to stop it with staff coming in and out no matter how hard they try, if they get it of course they're more likely to die.
> What you fail to understand when often pontificating about deaths from other causes being worse than allowing the virus to just spread and achieve herd immunity, yes you did say that, is those deaths and possibly more would happen when the hospitals are overloaded, staff off work with Covid or sheer exhaustion, how do you think cancer treatments for example would be carried out.
> 
> Admissions to hospital due to Covid is not confined to old people, it's across all adult ages and while the younger age groups are less likely to die they are still tying up hospital resourses often for weeks.
> 
> You also have regularly stated Covid is no worse than flu
> Just a few figures on daily hospital admissions in England of admissions of patients with Covid I've taken only the 15th of the month as that's up to date.
> August- 630
> Sept. - 891
> Oct. - 4569
> Nov. - 13866
> Dec. - 15031
> Jan. - 33362
> 
> It's clear to see the effect when people are allowed to congregate or do so in ignorance or selfishness and I'd refer you back to your posts already mentioned which were quite rightly deleted



You've got it wrong. There is always more admissions in winter over summer. Covid is now endemic. We get more colds in the winter because we are indoors more. This is not new. 

Covid is still statically in the envelope of a bad flu year. Maybe a little bit above. Its still nasty if you are unlucky enough to get badly affected of course


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> You've got it wrong. There is always more admissions in winter over summer. Covid is now endemic. We get more colds in the winter because we are indoors more. This is not new.
> 
> Covid is still statically in the envelope of a bad flu year. Maybe a little bit above. Its still nasty if you are unlucky enough to get badly affected of course



That’s not what the statistics point to ...









'It's not a bad flu season' - Covid myths debunked with data


FT data journalist John Burn-Murdoch examines the coronavirus stats, and explains why the UK's Covid-19 death rate is likely to rise further




www.ft.com


----------



## Lons

selly said:


> You've got it wrong. There is always more admissions in winter over summer. Covid is now endemic. We get more colds in the winter because we are indoors more. This is not new.
> 
> Covid is still statically in the envelope of a bad flu year. Maybe a little bit above. Its still nasty if you are unlucky enough to get badly affected of course



Hmm...I'm not sure how almost 40,000 Covid patients in England, ( tonights news) 25% of whom are under the age of 55 ties in with being " in the envelope"


----------



## Lons

doctor Bob said:


> of course, why would I not know, but it's not relevant to my correction above. If you want to argue with Rorsch---- again, go for it. I merely tried to clarify what I considered an incorrect post.


Not having a go at you Bob I just don't read his post as being correctso will just beg to differ


----------



## Jake

This envelope includes Spanish Flu I assume (oxygen barely available, nothing beyond that, not even the iron lung, never mind all the incredible things they have in ITU these days to try to save you).


----------



## Jameshow

selly said:


> What's your job? Who do you want to see restricted?


By restrictions I mean tiers / lockdown

my job has no bearing on the situation other than giving me a decent understanding of the local NHS situation. 

Cheers


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Which (lockdown) restrictions do you think are helping you?


Lowering infection spread.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> That's still true as well, they are mostly care home residents, lockdown hasn't helped them has it.



Luckily we aren't following your let it all hang out hunch then....or they would be dead.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Covid is still statically in the envelope of a bad flu year



No it isn't.

You mean Covid deaths, DESPITE millions of people shielding, massive govt efforts to restrict social gatherings, massive collective effort to reduce shielding......so no equivalence to flu.

Also please can you give me an example of a bad flu year where over 700 healthcare workers have died, hundreds of essential, workers like bus drivers have died, where thousands of people are suffering long Covid, where hospitals are overwhelmed to the extent they are now.


----------



## Jake

The reason for my Spanish Flu comment was last year was the highest excess deaths since 1940. Despite all that.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots



Perhaps you aren't understanding the lifecycle of Covid.

Do you realise the reason Covid has become a global pandemic is because infectious people can be asymptomatic.

Conversely the Mers virus did not become infectious until symptoms started.
The difference is because MERS virus sits further down in the respiratory system.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> . Relax restrictions - the young are bearing most of the load so a few oldies close to death can live. Lock everything down - preserve all life at any cost, punish those who don't comply



I am sorry, that is over simplified and untrue.

And heres a current example why: some hospitals are now overwhelmed by Covid patients.....that has meant ICU units in a hospital have requisitioned other wards, like children, acute wards, operating theatres etc.

If we use your option of allowing the virus to rage, hospitals would be even more overwhelmed and would impact on non Covid patients even more.


I would also recommend you think carefully about those people that Covid affects....it's not just old people, it's vulnerable people too: people with chronic health conditions, like high blood pressure, diabetes, transplant patients, immune compromised diseases etc etc etc. That adds up to a huge cohort of millions of people.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity



Nice, oversimplified idea......lovely as a discussion in a pub. Sadly it doesn't bear any scrutiny.

Let's see you provide more detail on it.


GBD has been discredited ages ago


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> I am sorry, that is over simplified and untrue.



It is a deliberate over-simplification of extreme views.

I would subscribe to neither. Seeking to avoid overwhelming the NHS is the approach I support (and it is just about working)

There is a trade off between jobs, economy, etc and saving lives. Both are thoroughly unpleasant consequences of covid. You are at liberty to subscribe to which ever end of the spectrum you want - IMHO the response needs to be balanced.


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> Yeah that's ok, no-one can ever suggest a path is wrong because we didn't know where the other path would lead, that's a sensible argument for government. What you have just said is "what we have done must be the best option because we didn't try anything else"
> 
> You are almost as entertaining as rafezetter sometimes



I don't know why anyone else bothers to debate with rorschack, it's obvious he's like water, as soon as you nail him down on what he said is wrong, he moves his position as though he never said the previous one - the Donald Trump of this forum and just as abhorrent.

My aim wasn't to prove him wrong, merely to expose to everyone else just how fickle and hypocritical he is, in the hope people just stop engaging with him and he moves on out of boredom.

After him openly saying he'll happily let old people die to save the rest, previously early last year and again after I exposed it again in a recent post for those that missed it the first time around. I'm amazed our overlords even allow him to stay on the forum, he's a self confessed troll (or agitator) as he calls it - maybe they agree with his viewpoint? Or maybe it's just because it's me and Noel is enjoying the show.

I would have thought advocating mass genocide was a no, no, but hey not my train set, doesn't look good for the overlords though if I'm completely honest.


----------



## rafezetter

Rorschach said:


> No you have it bang on. I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity. Of course this was my thoughts long before a vaccine was even on the horizon.
> Basically I am in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration. I am not for "let it rip" as some say. What really annoyed people though was that I stated I accepted the fact that some (elderly and sick) people would die in order for the rest of the country to survive. Instead it seems that the elderly and sick still died, but plenty of younger healthy people will now suffer long after the old we "saved" have died. That opinion was not taken well, probably because a few people on this forum would be on that list (unless they protected themselves as I suggested).




Really - and how does that fit in with your post saying "I'm happy for the old to die a bit earlier to save the rest"

See what I mean? two opposing beleif in the SAME POST.

"I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support)" - rorschach

"elderly and sick still died" - So we should have let them die like I said in order for the rest of the country to survive - also rorschach

How did you think the old and vulnerable were going to protect themselves, if almost no-one else around them was? Food deliveries being delivered by people who are not taking any sanitisation steps for a start, whether by families or supermarkets - so food deliveries would be contaminated.

carers coming into the homes of multiple people, with the probability of cross contamination being almost 100%

That's just two scenarios off the top of my head and there's bound to be hundreds of others.

(in a few moments I predict he'll react with a "haha" and claim I've got it wrong somehow)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Selwyn said:


> You should amend that to "after they test positive on a pcr test". Moving to a world where people who are not unwell are somehow "infected" has tied this country up in knots


The trouble is, (practically) none of the people who've just done a positive PCR test can say at that time whether or not they're likely to become so ill they need hospital treatment, let alone conduct themselves in such a way as to ensure they won't pass the bug to someone else who might.


----------



## selly

andy hamilton said:


> I know 5 people who've had Covid, 2 had only mild symptoms and soon recovered, 3 had it very badly of whom one died. The two who recovered described the terrifying experience of fighting for every breath, convinced that the next intake of air would be their last. 9 months on they're still suffering debilitating after-effects and have been told they may have permanent lung damage. It's true there are significant bad effects from lockdown, but the alternative of letting the virus rip through the population doesn't bear thinking about.



It's "ripping" through anyway mat


Blackswanwood said:


> That’s not what the statistics point to ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'It's not a bad flu season' - Covid myths debunked with data
> 
> 
> FT data journalist John Burn-Murdoch examines the coronavirus stats, and explains why the UK's Covid-19 death rate is likely to rise further
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ft.com



It wasn't when it burst onto the scene and cleared out a heap of vulnerable. Now it is endemic the statistics are consistent with a bad flu season


----------



## Anthraquinone

If something like the pandemic should happen again in say 20 or 30 years time I wonder if the people who have the "let the old people die" attitude will have suddenly found a convincing reason to change their minds.


----------



## selly

Anthraquinone said:


> If something like the pandemic should happen again in say 20 or 30 years time I wonder if the people who have the "let the old people die" attitude will have suddenly found a convincing reason to change their minds.



Who has said that? 

I suppose you are currently saying let the suicides Increase and the sod the cancer screenings now then are you? 

I would do my very best to protect myself if I was old and vulnerable in 30 years time and possibly choose to keep away from people . I wouldnt expect to destroy younger peoples lives just so I can have the feeling of being in this together. Not least because it doesn't work - demonstrably so.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Perhaps you aren't understanding the lifecycle of Covid.
> 
> Do you realise the reason Covid has become a global pandemic is because infectious people can be asymptomatic.
> 
> Conversely the Mers virus did not become infectious until symptoms started.
> The difference is because MERS virus sits further down in the respiratory system.



I dont think you understand how a virus works.

It had become a pandemic because it is new and lack of prior immunity and therefore it is no surprise that the most vulnerable who are almost always the oldest succumb.

It is not because of asymptomatics. Pandemics have never been driven by asymptomatics (and it no longer is a pandemic in the UK now its an endemic virus). Hands, face, space is still a decent rule. Fining people for going for a walk and ruining business is not.

Did you know we had 30k excess deaths in the home last year? People who could have been saved if they could have seen a doctor. Do they count to you or is it only covid?


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> The reason for my Spanish Flu comment was last year was the highest excess deaths since 1940. Despite all that.



That BBC article was cleverly worded, it's not the highest excess deaths since WW2 it's the highest increase % since WW2 that doesn't take into account population change. Dr Liam Fox even called out the BBC for that article in Parliament and put it into perspective.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Luckily we aren't following your let it all hang out hunch then....or they would be dead.



You haven't been following the news, they are already dead!


----------



## doctor Bob

There seems to be a lot of exaggerating what was actually said.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> It is not because of asymptomatics. Pandemics have never been driven by asymptomatics


Strawman....I never said they were. 
Please try to avoid logical fallacies, they weaken your argument.

I was talking specifically about Covid and mypost was in response to your apparent claim that it's pointless testing or isolating asymptomatic people.

Asymptomatic people are a key vector for Covid.

BMJ concurs:

"The absence of strong evidence that asymptomatic people are a driver of transmission is another good reason for pausing the roll out of mass testing in schools, universities, and communities."


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> It wasn't when it burst onto the scene and cleared out a heap of vulnerable. Now it is endemic the statistics are consistent with a bad flu season



You must have access to some statistical data or insight that the medical and scientific advisers to the vast majority of governments around the world don’t if you believe that. 

Good luck - I hope you and everyone else avoids catching it.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> It had become a pandemic because it is new and lack of prior immunity and therefore it is no surprise that the most vulnerable who are almost always the oldest succumb.



You are conflating......whilst it is the elderly and weakest who succumb, they are not primary vectors for community infection spread.

Asymptomatic people are major vectors.....because they are the ones in social contact with others.

Generally people in bed ill are not


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You haven't been following the news, they are already dead!



The people that have died, have done so despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions to reduce spread.

There are millions of people in this country that would quite possibly die if they caught Covid. 

Those people would have a far far higher chance of being infected if the government followed your policy of no lockdown.


I am sorry you can't see the importance of minimising the infection rate in the community. 

It is important because the higher the level of infection, the higher numbers of vulnerable people are exposed to the virus.

Please can you explain why you don't understand that?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman....I never said they were.
> Please try to avoid logical fallacies, they weaken your argument.
> 
> I was talking specifically about Covid and mypost was in response to your apparent claim that it's pointless testing or isolating asymptomatic people.
> 
> Asymptomatic people are a key vector for Covid.
> 
> BMJ concurs:
> 
> "The absence of strong evidence that asymptomatic people are a driver of transmission is another good reason for pausing the roll out of mass testing in schools, universities, and communities."



The constant testing of asymptomatics or even those who don't have it using a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing. We will never escape from this if we keep pcr testing like this


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is a trade off between jobs, economy, etc and saving lives



It's an often repeated statement that needs to be qualified.

If the economy was fully open and Covid was allowed to spread through the community unhindered, hospitals would be overwhelmed, essentials workers would become sick.....and at some point the govt would have to impose much much harder restrictions.


In fact if governments impose far harder and tougher restrictions very very early, then community infection rate is lower and economies recover faster. 
And that contradicts your argument....because it means far tougher restrictions can have less damage on the economy.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> You mean Covid deaths, DESPITE millions of people shielding, massive govt efforts to restrict social gatherings, massive collective effort to reduce shielding......so no equivalence to flu.
> 
> Also please can you give me an example of a bad flu year where over 700 healthcare workers have died, hundreds of essential, workers like bus drivers have died, where thousands of people are suffering long Covid, where hospitals are overwhelmed to the extent they are now.



Look we employ 1 million people plus in the healthcare industry of course some are going to die from something. You cannot say that no healthcare workers will die ever. How many supermarket workers have died that can be traced to covid deaths? How many teachers? Its very very small and they kept working.


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> Look we employ 1 million people plus in the healthcare industry of course some are going to die from something. You cannot say that no healthcare workers will die ever. How many supermarket workers have died that can be traced to covid deaths? How many teachers? Its very very small and they kept working.



It's obvious it isn't a rate any higher than the normal mortality rate because otherwise the BBC would be running it as headline stories everyday.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman....I never said they were.
> Please try to avoid logical fallacies, they weaken your argument.
> 
> I was talking specifically about Covid and mypost was in response to your apparent claim that it's pointless testing or isolating asymptomatic people.
> 
> Asymptomatic people are a key vector for Covid.
> 
> BMJ concurs:
> 
> "The absence of strong evidence that asymptomatic people are a driver of transmission is another good reason for pausing the roll out of mass testing in schools, universities, and communities."



It is pointless testing asymptomatics. Lots of countries refuse to test for antibodies because they know it will tie them up in knots.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> The constant testing of asymptomatics or even those who don't have it using a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing. We will never escape from this if we keep pcr testing like this


I see.

Now that I've disproved your argument that asymptomatic people aren't vectors, you've engaged in whataboutery and switched to questioning the efficacy of the PCR test.

Ok.

So please can you qualify: "we will never escape from this if we keep PCR testing like this"

Firstly I will gently remind you, that you are presenting opinion as fact, same with:

"a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing"


----------



## rafezetter

Anthraquinone said:


> If something like the pandemic should happen again in say 20 or 30 years time I wonder if the people who have the "let the old people die" attitude will have suddenly found a convincing reason to change their minds.





selly said:


> Who has said that?
> 
> I suppose you are currently saying let the suicides Increase and the sod the cancer screenings now then are you?
> 
> I would do my very best to protect myself if I was old and vulnerable in 30 years time and possibly choose to keep away from people . I wouldnt expect to destroy younger peoples lives just so I can have the feeling of being in this together. Not least because it doesn't work - demonstrably so.




Thank you for asking that Selly, - the answer is : rorchach did, here:



Rorschach said:


> No you have it bang on. I want the vulnerable to protect themselves (voluntarily with support) and the less vulnerable to carry on with minimal restrictions in order to reach a state of natural immunity. Of course this was my thoughts long before a vaccine was even on the horizon.
> Basically I am in agreement with the Great Barrington Declaration. I am not for "let it rip" as some say. *What really annoyed people though was that I stated I accepted the fact that some (elderly and sick) people would die in order for the rest of the country to survive*. *Instead it seems that the elderly and sick still died, but plenty of younger healthy people will now suffer long after the old we "saved" have died.* That opinion was not taken well, probably because a few people on this forum would be on that list (unless they protected themselves as I suggested).



and here is my post where I link multiple posts that rorschach has made stating exactly the same thing - "protect the young and the economy, and let the old and vulnerable die" [becausethey are going to die anyway].









How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?


Correct. They apparenty didn't follow the rules...erm, sorry..."guidance" in Lebanon either, particularly when they eased off for Christmas and New Year. (Ring any bells?) They've just announced a lockdown commencing 0500 this Thursday. Curfew. A total curfew. Not even supermarkets allowed to...




www.ukworkshop.co.uk





It's all there Selly, and why I have a very hard time accepting why he's even still allowed to remain on the forum - this isn't a "difference of opinion", rorschach is openly advocating genocide for "the good of the economy and future generations from debt" and to protect businesses like his from losing money (which he admits he hasn't BTW, he's made posts stating he's been able to continue to work AND claim the govt bailouts - from what I can tell, he's made the best profits of his business so far this last year). - what a nice young man.

When pointed out that covid deaths ARE NOT only the "old" but spread across the entire age spectrum of humanity, his reply is unapologetic and essentially "lalalala I'm not listening" or a HAHA emoji.

When asked to explain the practicalities of how the vulnerable people should protect themselves if there had been no lockdown, when everyone else is not taking similar steps in order to reduce transmission of infection by proxy - he has no answer AT ALL, not even an impractical one merely a "not my problem gov'nor" (paraphrased), and just inserts _another_ HAHA emoji.

Here's my problem with this standpoint and him - I firmly beleive his standpoint could be very much likened to: "Let the Nazi's invade Poland and kill the Jews - as long as British men and women are protected and not sent to war to die". After the war I beleive his standpoint would have been "See? The Jews still died anyway, you didn't save them**, but now we have hundreds of thousands of British men and women dead, AND an economical debt of £120 BILLION, that will take generations to pay back".

(** convenietly ignoring all those lives we did save and his life would have been VERY VERY different, with a possibility if he is of an ethnic minority he wouldn't even exist as his grandparents would have been killed). Edit: that gives me another thought - there are people now who will not be born, solely because of an unnecessary covid death - sombering thought.

He seems absolutely pathalogically *incapable* of seeing the "bigger, bigger picture" only the one that pertains to him and those HE cares about, which seems to be about right for many of the younger generations. - The fact that those brave souls ALSO happened to eradicate the Nazi regime from potential global domination seems to be largely irrelevant - just as the eradication of Covid and reduction of UNNECESSARY loss of life, was the goal of the lockdowns.

To him, as he has said verifiably stated repeatedly, the damaged economy and the debt incurred to the younger generation (him, he's only 35) isn't worth the price of lives saved.

This isn't just my personal "vendetta" opinion, there are multple posts from other members calling him out for the same reasons with phrases like "despicable human being".

It's sickening beyond words and description.

I also predict when he reads this he will respond with yet another "haha" emoji. (edit: I was right)


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> It's an often repeated statement that needs to be qualified.
> 
> If the economy was fully open and Covid was allowed to spread through the community unhindered, hospitals would be overwhelmed, essentials workers would become sick.....and at some point the govt would have to impose much much harder restrictions.
> 
> 
> In fact if governments impose far harder and tougher restrictions very very early, then community infection rate is lower and economies recover faster.
> And that contradicts your argument....because it means far tougher restrictions can have less damage on the economy.



In fact all we are doing is aggregating people in the same big 4 or 5 supermarkets. If you have the virus and are emitting it then you will give it to others. 

Peru went turbo on lockdown, no damn difference. Ireland, Spain ,France went hard early on and now it makes no difference. All over Western Europe the epidemic curve is very similar be it in Spain, Wales, Sweden or Germany. The virus is now everywhere - you will not eliminate this one any more than any other. Lockdown wasn't about stopping the virus.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> It's obvious it isn't a rate any higher than the normal mortality rate because otherwise the BBC would be running it as headline stories everyday.


Strawman

You constantly ignore a simple fact:

the death figures you are using for your argument is "Covid deaths despite massive non pharmaceutical interventions"

It is the whole basis for your ever repeated false arguments.


Please can you explain why you keep ignoring it?


----------



## doctor Bob

Is the goal at present to remove a poster from the thread?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I see.
> 
> Now that I've disproved your argument that asymptomatic people aren't vectors, you've engaged in whataboutery and switched to questioning the efficacy of the PCR test.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> So please can you qualify: "we will never escape from this if we keep PCR testing like this"
> 
> Firstly I will gently remind you, that you are presenting opinion as fact, same with:
> 
> "a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing"



No you have not disproved it. I told you asymptomatics do not drive pandemics and I am right. They do not and you tried to claim the asymptomatic spread is driving it and it isn't. So don't put words in my mouth thanks. 

Remember we are recording people who have died within 28 days of a covid positive test as covid deaths. PCR is extremely sensitive and so its almost a surprise that no one in a warm hospital for a week or so with poor immune system or care home for 6 months does not test positive. 

You only have to look at the death curves and IFR to see demonstrably that now is not April and never will be. Read the Diamond Princess and see how the virus spreads. Ignore the China data and your obsession with lockdowns as a tool that works - it doesn't. Do you think any country has eliminated it through lockdown once it is endemic?


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Is the goal at present to remove a poster from the thread?



Rafezetter wants me removed from the gene pool! lol


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> Thank you for asking that Selly, - the answer is : rorchach did, here:
> 
> 
> 
> and here is my post where I link multiple posts that rorschach has made stating exactly the same thing - "protect the young and the economy, and let the old and vulnerable die" [becausethey are going to die anyway].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?
> 
> 
> Correct. They apparenty didn't follow the rules...erm, sorry..."guidance" in Lebanon either, particularly when they eased off for Christmas and New Year. (Ring any bells?) They've just announced a lockdown commencing 0500 this Thursday. Curfew. A total curfew. Not even supermarkets allowed to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukworkshop.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all there Selly, and why I have a very hard time accepting why he's even still allowed to remain on the forum - this isn't a "difference of opinion", rorschach is openly advocating genocide for "the good of the economy and future generations from debt" and to protect businesses like his from losing money (which he admits he hasn't BTW, he's made posts stating he's been able to continue to work AND claim the govt bailouts - from what I can tell, he's made the best profits of his business so far this last year). - what a nice young man.
> 
> When pointed out that covid deaths ARE NOT only the "old" but spread across the entire age spectrum of humanity, his reply is unapologetic and essentially "lalalala I'm not listening" or a HAHA emoji.
> 
> When asked how the vulnerable people should protect themselves, when everyone else is not taking similar steps in order to reduce transmission of infection by proxy - he has no answer AT ALL, not even an impractical one "not my problem gov'nor" (paraphrased), and merely inserts _another_ HAHA emoji.
> 
> Here's my problem with this and him - I firmly beleive his standpoint could be very much likened to: "Let the Nazi's invade Poland and kill the Jews - as long as British men and women are protected and not sent to war to die". After the war I beleive his standpoint would have been "See? The Jews still died anyway you didn't save them**, but now we have hundreds of thousands of British men and women dead, AND an economical debt of £120 BILLION, that will take generations to pay back".
> 
> (** convenietly ignoring all those lives we did)
> 
> He seems absolutely pathalogically *incapable* of seeing the "bigger, bigger picture" only the one that pertains to him and those HE cares about, which seems to be about right for many of the younger generations. - The fact that those brave souls ALSO happened to eradicate the Nazi regime from potential global domination seems to be largely irrelevant - just as the eradication of Covid and reduction of UNNECESSARY loss of life, was the goal of the lockdowns.
> 
> To him, as he has said verifiably stated repeatedly, the damaged economy and the debt incurred to the younger generation (him, he's only 35) isn't worth the price of lives saved.
> 
> This isn't just my personal "vendetta" opinion, there are multple posts from other members calling him out for the same reasons with phrases like "despicable human being".
> 
> It's sickening beyond words and description.
> 
> I also predict when he reads this he will respond with yet another "haha" emoji.



He is not advocating genocide. For goodness sake. Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. There is definitely an argument that the death of an 87 year old in a care home is not the same as the death of a 65 year old from a missed mammogram in my world. Possibly not in yours? 

I've already written we have 30 thousand excess deaths in the home in 2020 (non covid no less) in 2020. 30 - f***kin thousand!!!! And no one gives a toss! I'm just astonished that people want to skate over this so quickly! That is 30k people which we may have saved if they had had some cursory antibiotics or even saw a GP.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is pointless testing asymptomatics. Lots of countries refuse to test for antibodies because they know it will tie them up in knots.


The PCR test does not test for antibodies.


Which countries are refusing to PCR test?

How will it tie them up in knots?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The PCR test does not test for antibodies.
> 
> 
> Which countries are refusing to PCR test?
> 
> How will it tie them up in knots?




Where did I say it did? Where did I say countries were not doing PCR tests? Read my posts and then think about it and then write legibly please Strawman.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown wasn't about stopping the virus.


Strawman

Lockdowns objective have never been to stop the virus. Their purpose is to stop the bath tub overflowing.

Lowering community infection lowers the chance of each person getting Covid and keeps hospital,admissions at manageable levels.

By the way there is no such thing as "lockdown" what we really mean is non pharmaceutical interventions.....multiple restrictions with each country using different approaches.

There is no binary lockdown Vs no lockdown choice


----------



## rafezetter

Selwyn said:


> He is not advocating genocide. For goodness sake. Hippocratic oath - first do no harm.
> 
> I've already written we have 30 thousand excess deaths (non covid no less) in 2020. 30 - f***kin thousand!!!! And no one gives a toss! I'm just astonished that people want to skate over this so quickly!




errr what? How does "let the old and vulnerable die..." fit in with your interpretation of the hippocratic oath? Please don't tell me you are in the medical profession.

I'd also like you to explain how "let the old and vulnerable die - because they will die anyway soon" is NOT genocide? - you do know what genocide means right?

Here let me help you:

" *Genocide* is the* intentional action to destroy a people*—usually *defined as* an ethnic, national, racial, or religious [a] *group*—*in whole or in part.* "

I think "the old and vulnerable" when used as a global "label" qualifies as "*a group*".

I think "_let_ the old and the vulnerable die.." qualifies as "*intentional*".

Care to revise?

This debate isnt about those whom have died for non covid related reasons, because that happens every year ANYWAY and CANNOT be used by people to whitewash over excess covid deaths.


----------



## doctor Bob

........ you are misquoting by edit


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Where did I say it did? Where did I say countries were not doing PCR tests? Read my posts and then think about it and then write legibly please Strawman.



Here:
"t is pointless testing asymptomatics. Lots of countries refuse to test for antibodies because they know it will tie them up in knots"

I presumed that you actually meant PCR because antibody testing of asymptomatic would be pointless.....you don't test to see if somebody has had the virus, you test to see if people have antigens.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> And no one gives a toss


Strawman

Who says nobody gives a toss?


----------



## rafezetter

doctor Bob said:


> Is the goal at present to remove a poster from the thread?



People have been removed temporarily or permanently from this forum for reasons far less - ask Jacob; yet advocating mass death (I fail to see how else it can be described) seems to be allowed to stand, no matter how many times it's pointed out, repeated and even confirmed by rorschach. Again not my trainset, but I'm finding it hard to balance the reasons for the former, when measured against the latter.

Anyone with historic knowledge of this forum cannot dispute this.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> The people that have died, have done so despite considerable non pharmaceutical interventions to reduce spread.
> 
> There are millions of people in this country that would quite possibly die if they caught Covid.
> 
> Those people would have a far far higher chance of being infected if the government followed your policy of no lockdown.
> 
> 
> I am sorry you can't see the importance of minimising the infection rate in the community.
> 
> It is important because the higher the level of infection, the higher numbers of vulnerable people are exposed to the virus.
> 
> Please can you explain why you don't understand that?



No millions will not die. You have a. 2-.5% chance of dieing if over 80.


rafezetter said:


> errr what? How does "let the old and vulnerable die..." fit in with your interpretation of the hippocratic oath? Please don't tell me you are in the medical profession.
> 
> I'd also like you to explain how "let the old and vulnerable die - because they will die anyway soon" is NOT genocide? - you do know what genocide means right?
> 
> Here let me help you:
> 
> " *Genocide* is the* intentional action to destroy a people*—usually *defined as* an ethnic, national, racial, or religious [a] *group*—*in whole or in part.* "
> 
> I think "the old and vulnerable" when used as a global "label" qualifies as "*a group*".
> 
> I think "_let_ the old and the vulnerable die.." qualifies as "*intentional*".
> 
> Care to revise?
> 
> This debate isnt about those whom have died for non covid related reasons, because that happens every year ANYWAY and CANNOT be used by people to whitewash over excess covid deaths.



You do realise the medical world can often people alive for a few more months or even years at times but chose not to? We could technically keep people ventilated for a long time and alive but for what end when they are 86? 

What is your opinion of the 30k excess deaths in the home this year? Necessary collateral damage? That sounds genocidal too!


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman
> 
> Who says nobody gives a toss?



V v little media coverage compared to covid


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> He is not advocating genocide. For goodness sake. Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. There is definitely an argument that the death of an 87 year old in a care home is not the same as the death of a 65 year old from a missed mammogram in my world. Possibly not in yours


Another strawman.

You make the assumption that there is a choice.

Hospitals in London are treating people in ICU that are not 87 year olds, but are in their 30s, 40s, 50s 60s as well.

And these hospitals are now so overwhelmed they are taking over children's wards, operating theatres, acute wards etc.


Please could explain how you arrive at the conclusion there is a choice


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Another strawman.
> 
> You make the assumption that there is a choice.
> 
> Hospitals in London are treating people in ICU that are not 87 year olds, but are in their 30s, 40s, 50s 60s as well.
> 
> And these hospitals are now so overwhelmed they are taking over children's wards, operating theatres, acute wards etc.
> 
> 
> Please could explain how you arrive at the conclusion there is a choice



Hospitals were not overwhelmed in the first wave. There was capacity. And that was when covid was rife, untested for and very little hands space face


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> No millions will not die. You have a. 2-.5% chance of dieing if over 80


Non sequitur.

Statistics based on deaths are despite massive intervention......and yes far more would die without intervention.

Perhaps you could explain why over 700 healthcare workers and hundreds of essential workers like bus drivers have died.

Far more of those would die if this virus was allowed to spread faster and wider.

I suggest you go and volunteer for your local hospital Covid ward.....you wouldn't have the same opinion then.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Hospitals were not overwhelmed in the first wave. There was capacity. And that was when covid was rife, untested for and very little hands space face


Strawman.

I was talking about this wave.

In the first wave hundreds of healthcare workers died.

And hospitals weren't overwhelmed because of of massive NPI i.e. Lockdown.

You are also wrong, there was lots of social distancing in the first lockdown and people started to take precautions from early to mid march. Studies show clearly lockdown lowered the curve.

If government had acted harder and faster the first wave would've been less bad with less economic damage


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Non sequitur.
> 
> Statistics based on deaths are despite massive intervention......and yes far more would die without intervention.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain why over 700 healthcare workers and hundreds of essential workers like bus drivers have died.
> 
> Far more of those would die if this virus was allowed to spread faster and wider.
> 
> I suggest you go and volunteer for your local hospital Covid ward.....you wouldn't have the same opinion then.



No they weren't massive intervention early on.

My local hospital is quiet. Some hospitals are busy. Some are not. I know you are trying to intimate that anyone who doesn't agree with lock down means they want everyone to die but it's not true.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman.
> 
> I was talking about this wave.
> 
> In the first wave hundreds of healthcare workers died.
> 
> And hospitals weren't overwhelmed because of of massive NPI i.e. Lockdown.
> 
> You are also wrong, there was lots of social distancing in the first lockdown and people started to take precautions from early to mid march. Studies show clearly lockdown lowered the curve.
> 
> If government had acted harder and faster the first wave would've been less bad with less economic damage



The curve turned before lock down. Also the curve in Wales has increased afte the October lock down.


----------



## NormanB

selly said:


> No they weren't massive intervention early on.
> 
> My local hospital is quiet. Some hospitals are busy. Some are not. I know you are trying to intimate that anyone who doesn't agree with lock down means they want everyone to die but it's not true.


Can you name the specific DGH you are referring to please?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Perhaps you could explain why over 700 healthcare workers and hundreds of essential workers like bus drivers have died.



Do you know how many of these people would die in a 10 month period in a "normal" year?


----------



## doctor Bob

rafezetter said:


> Anyone with historic knowledge of this forum cannot dispute this.



why not?


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> That BBC article was cleverly worded, it's not the highest excess deaths since WW2 it's the highest increase % since WW2 that doesn't take into account population change. Dr Liam Fox even called out the BBC for that article in Parliament and put it into perspective.



I don't know about that BBC article. My source is Nick Stripe of the ONS, posted a thread on Twitter in his analysis of the 2020 figures when they were made public. I should have added "not population adjusted". It's an interesting thread.

Second edit, having gone back to check it is true (according to NS of the ONS) on a polulation adjusted basis as well.


----------



## Jake

selly said:


> The constant testing of asymptomatics or even those who don't have it using a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing. We will never escape from this if we keep pcr testing like this



This amounts to let's shut our eyes and pretend.


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> Do you know how many of these people would die in a 10 month period in a "normal" year?


That's a stupid question based on the fact they are all of working age and not in the vulnerable old age and infirm bracket


----------



## Jake

Having just re-read it, it is a really thoughtful and insightful thread, from someone undeniably expert. Well worth a read.


----------



## Lons

selly said:


> What is your opinion of the 30k excess deaths in the home this year? Necessary collateral damage?



Any excess deaths are horrific and should never be classed as collateral damage but there is no simple answer to the question. It was concuded by some experts that throughout last year even when hospitals were quiet late summer people were still avoiding hospitals, doctors and surgeries as they were scared, there were tv adverts saying "the NHS is open for business, don't put health issues off", what else were they suposed to do? You cant force people.
The other question that also has to be asked is how do we know there would not have been even more excess deaths at home had the hospitals and surgeries been completely overun and many more staff off work ill because the virus was allowed to run even more rampant than it did?

Both my wife and daughter had major operations in September without issue because they had the sense to do something about it I know others locally who didn't, not the fault of the system.


----------



## Lons

selly said:


> No they weren't massive intervention early on.
> 
> My local hospital is quiet. Some hospitals are busy. Some are not. I know you are trying to intimate that anyone who doesn't agree with lock down means they want everyone to die but it's not true.


I don't know where you live Selly but if that's the case then you're lucky as there are many hospitals in the UK close to capacity and with serious staff issues due to Covid infection, members of my family work in some of them and very strange that our local RVI in Newcastle is taking in patients from other regions because of that, they aren't the only hospital being asked to do so either.


----------



## selly

NormanB said:


> Can you name the specific DGH you are referring to please?



No.


----------



## selly

Lons said:


> I don't know where you live Selly but if that's the case then you're lucky as there are many hospitals in the UK close to capacity and with serious staff issues due to Covid infection, members of my family work in some of them and very strange that our local RVI in Newcastle is taking in patients from other regions because of that, they aren't the only hospital being asked to do so either.



Yes but those same hospitals are always busy. We get respiratory disease spikes every year


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Another strawman.
> 
> You make the assumption that there is a choice.
> 
> Hospitals in London are treating people in ICU that are not 87 year olds, but are in their 30s, 40s, 50s 60s as well.
> 
> And these hospitals are now so overwhelmed they are taking over children's wards, operating theatres, acute wards etc.
> 
> 
> Please could explain how you arrive at the conclusion there is a choice




90% are over 65. A minute number are in their 30's and 40's. A small number in their 50's. Most likely these people will have been clinically vulnerable.


----------



## NormanB

selly said:


> No.


Are you prepared to say why not. Does it threaten your physical security, or perhaps, lead to an undermining of your stated fact that concerns you?


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> Any excess deaths are horrific and should never be classed as collateral damage but there is no simple answer to the question. It was concuded by some experts that throughout last year even when hospitals were quiet late summer people were still avoiding hospitals, doctors and surgeries as they were scared, there were tv adverts saying "the NHS is open for business, don't put health issues off", what else were they suposed to do? You cant force people.
> The other question that also has to be asked is how do we know there would not have been even more excess deaths at home had the hospitals and surgeries been completely overun and many more staff off work ill because the virus was allowed to run even more rampant than it did?
> 
> Both my wife and daughter had major operations in September without issue because they had the sense to do something about it I know others locally who didn't, not the fault of the system.



Given that the IFR curve looks very similar all over Europe (incl Sweden) then it appears unlikely that there would have been massive amounts of excess deaths if we hadn't locked down. 

Take away the care home cock up which was a mistake, take away excess deaths from non covid which arguably could have been saved at some point and then its a different picture. If you have a few years with below excess deaths then at some stage surely you can see that you will have excess deaths at some point?? It has to be unless you believe octogenarians should live forever? 

There is no doubt there was a genuine huge spike of excess deaths last April. But now it is a quite a smaller hump of excess deaths but the data is not all there yet. It seems unlikely we will have a massive amount of excess winter deaths so far.


----------



## Lons

selly said:


> Yes but those same hospitals are always busy. We get respiratory disease spikes every year


My info is from family who actually work in hospitals throughout the UK as well as from 1 who is a GP we also have a large number of close NHS friends because of my wife now retired and my family so I'm happy my information is first hand and that tells me this year is way above a normal busy flu season. One of them btw is bed manager of a very large hospital so would you expect her to have more accurate information than forum members searching via google?  

I'm not going to argue as it's pointless you should just be happy that if you are ill your local hospital can apparently accommodate you, 

This thread has run it's course many times over, the same old comments ( not saying yours btw ) are being posted, they may well have been cut and pasted from the deleted thread.


----------



## Jelly

selly said:


> The constant testing of asymptomatics or even those who don't have it using a super sensitive pcr is total skewing the whole thing. We will never escape from this if we keep pcr testing like this



That's genuinely one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this topic to date.

By your logic if I'm about to get hit by a bus, I can close my eyes and the situation will magically resolve itself with me unharmed.


----------



## Selwyn

NormanB said:


> Are you prepared to say why not. Does it threaten your physical security, or perhaps, lead to an undermining of your stated fact that concerns you?



No I just don't want to talk about my local hospital.

But its about 300 deaths from covid from a 400k population if it helps. 0.07%. Thats my health board not my hospital - we have about 4 or 5 hospitals. I have no doubt excess deaths from non covid sources will be higher. And I have also have no doubt that of those 300 people who died from covid I would expect (but we are not given the data) the vast majority would have been vulnerable to any number of things. Its not a good enough reason to trash young peoples lives for in my opinion but there are a lot of featherbedded pensioners on here or people who do not rely on a good economy for their jobs


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> My info is from family who actually work in hospitals throughout the UK as well as from 1 who is a GP we also have a large number of close NHS friends because of my wife now retired and my family so I'm happy my information is first hand and that tells me this year is way above a normal busy flu season. One of them btw is bed manager of a very large hospital so would you expect her to have more accurate information than forum members searching via google?
> 
> I'm not going to argue as it's pointless you should just be happy that if you are ill your local hospital can apparently accommodate you,
> 
> This thread has run it's course many times over, the same old comments ( not saying yours btw ) are being posted, they may well have been cut and pasted from the deleted thread.



Fair enough. Some hospitals will have local spikes. But you also need to acknowledge many don't. As I say there were 30k excess deaths (non covid) which we didn't save last year. And the hospitals were not full of covid patients in jul-october.


----------



## Selwyn

Jelly said:


> That's genuinely one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this topic to date.
> 
> By your logic if I'm about to get hit by a bus, I can close my eyes and the situation will magically resolve itself with me unharmed.



We are testing ourselves into a box. Test the people who are ill. The people who are not ill are that - not ill.

This is the first time we have started pretending that not unwell people are "diseased". Its ridiculous.


----------



## Jelly

Selwyn said:


> We are testing ourselves into a box. Test the people who are ill. The people who are not ill are that - not ill.
> 
> This is the first time we have started pretending that not unwell people are "diseased". Its ridiculous.



I presume that you are unfamiliar with the story of Mary "Typhoid Mary" Malkin who was eventually identified as an asymptomatic carrier then forcibly quarantined after causing hundreds of people to contract Typhus and 53 directly attributable deaths.

That story proves that the identification of asymptomatic carriers has been conceptually part of public health *since the 1890's...*

Convincing all members of at risk populations to undergo testing was a major part in how the western world brought the spread of HIV/AIDS under control, which has largely been a success.



I presume that now I've refuted your claims you'll move on to some other argument without acknowledging that you just stated a bunch of stuff which had no basis in fact. 

*Just because you desperately want something to be true, doesn't make it so.*


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> 90% are over 65. A minute number are in their 30's and 40's. A small number in their 50's. Most likely these people will have been clinically vulnerable.



That is just false. The ICNARC figures are crystal clear.


----------



## Selwyn

Jelly said:


> I presume that you are unfamiliar with the story of Mary "Typhoid Mary" Malkin who was eventually identified as an asymptomatic carrier then forcibly quarantined after causing hundreds of people to contract Typhus and 53 directly attributable deaths.
> 
> This has been conceptually part of public health since the 1890's...
> 
> Convincing all members of at risk populations to undergo testing was a major part in how the western world brought the spread of HIV/AIDS under control, which has largely been a success.
> 
> I presume that now I've refuted your claims you'll move on to some other argument without acknowledging that you just stated a bunch of stuff which had no basis in fact.



Do you realise how sensitive the pcr test is? It amplifies the viral strands way beyond what is transmissible. It is innaccurate to keep testing people who are healthy this way. 

HIV and Typhoid are different virus'


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Do you know how many of these people would die in a 10 month period in a "normal" year?



Almost none.

The mortality rate of people of working age, working full time is tiny.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> 90% are over 65. A minute number are in their 30's and 40's. A small number in their 50's. Most likely these people will have been clinically vulnerable.


Untrue.

"Clinically vulnerable" doesn't mean people on their last legs.

It includes people living perfectly normal lives that have a chronic health condition....diabetes, high blood pressure, heart issues, COPD, immune disorders, CKD and many others


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Almost none.
> 
> The mortality rate of people of working age, working full time is tiny.



Got any data for that or is it just what you think it is?


----------



## Jelly

Selwyn said:


> Do you realise how sensitive the pcr test is? It amplifies the viral strands way beyond what is transmissible. It is innaccurate to keep testing people who are healthy this way.


Would you believe it, once upon a time I actually ran PCR sample preparation techniques with my own two hands, so I am quite familiar with the techniques.

Moreover after years now working in the chemical sciences, I'm intimately familiar with the design of analytical protocols too, and am not confused or alarmed by the idea of amplification to make something more measurable... 

So long as the experimental design is good, the mathematical methods for data handling are appropriate, and the error remains well quantified (which would be normal for just about any laboratory), then it doesn't affect the validity of the results.




Selwyn said:


> HIV and Typhoid are different virus'


You will be shocked to discover that I am in fact familiar with the concept of there being more than one disease...

It doesn't stop the effective public health campaigns run to control them from effectively refuting your initial argument (which again, was hugely overstated, and as a result is well refuted by historical fact).



Also, for the record it would be more appropriate to use _virus's_ than _virus'_.

The major style guides are all clear that only time an s after a possessive apostrophe should be dropped is if it also precedes a word beginning in an s. 

Otherwise the sentence does parse well as natural speech would, and becomes harder to read.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

selly said:


> I dont think you understand how a virus works.
> ...Pandemics have never been driven by asymptomatics....


Erm... sweeping statement...everyone who has ever caught any virus of any kind was initially asymptomatic for some period of time...


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Do you realise how sensitive the pcr test is? It amplifies the viral strands way beyond what is transmissible. It is innaccurate to keep testing people who are healthy this way.
> 
> HIV and Typhoid are different virus'


That is a somewhat false argument.

It is true that the PCR test is very sensitive. Gene fragments might be detected and return a positive. The PCR test alone isn't proof of active viral RNA that has the capacity to infect the person or get transmitted to other people.

Two key metrics that characterize the test are needed to interpret the results of imperfect tests: the diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity (or commonly, ‘‘sensitivity’’ and ‘‘specificity’’).11 At present, there is limited information about these values for widely used SARS-CoV-2 tests.

However that doesn't mean PCR tests are a waste of time of give false data

Public Health England understands the limitations of testing and political decisions aren't based on the raw data from the tests.


In an ideal world every test would be cultured in a lab, which would prove active RNA.

Please also bear in mind testing has identified the mutation currently spreading as well as other variants like the African one.


To say the PCR is too sensitive and of no value is simply untrue......you need to look at detail and context.


----------



## RobinBHM

Jelly said:


> So long as the experimental design is good, the mathematical methods for data handling are appropriate, and the error remains well quantified (which would be normal for just about any laboratory), then it doesn't affect the validity of the results



Yes indeed, people who discount the PCR test because it is imperfect ignore the fact tests are interpreted to give valuable information.

Sadly the detail and nuance in science leaves a nice space for dishonest arguments to fester.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Got any data for that or is it just what you think it is?



It's called critical thinking.

This is how it goes: 
In a typical year X number of healthcare workers will die of disease.

In a year with a Covid pandemic, X number of healthcare workers will die of disease + and extra amount of Y that contract Covid.

It is true a tiny number of Y will Overlap group X....but anybody with an ounce of logic can see that overlap will be very small.


You really are scraping the barrel in your quest to cling to your false arguments.......it is your choice to lie to yourself.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We are testing ourselves into a box. Test the people who are ill. The people who are not ill are that - not ill.
> 
> This is the first time we have started pretending that not unwell people are "diseased". Its ridiculous.



That's a very strange argument.....a rather convoluted Strawman, nobody ever said not unwell people are diseased.

People who are ill are in bed.....they aren't spreading disease

People who are asymptomatic can and are spreading virus.

Carbon monoxide has no smell...................


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The virus can will only be "neutered" if:

R is maintained below 1 for an extended period both in UK and internationally. A natural R of 2.5-3.0 without restrictions make this unlikely; with the mutated virus, implausible
herd immunity is achieved when sufficient of the population have been infected, assuming this gives lasting immunity. With the mutated more virulent virus this may be ~90%. 
herd immunity through an effective vaccine
All lockdown has done is to slow the spread to the point where the NHS is not overwhelmed (although currently very close). Lockdown will not stop the virus; as soon as restrictions are relaxed it will spread again. Indefinite lockdown is not a realistic option. 

Lockdown in the UK relies upon largely voluntary compliance. It is fortunate that a "light at the end of the tunnel" vaccine is in sight as public acceptance is being stretched and could very quickly fail. Lockdown is a cost mainly to the young, mainly to protect the elderly. 

There are no acceptable solutions to widespread contempt of regulation. Armed forces on the streets, arrest an confinement in "camps" etc may be a cure that is worse than the disease.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> It's called critical thinking.
> 
> This is how it goes:
> In a typical year X number of healthcare workers will die of disease.
> 
> In a year with a Covid pandemic, X number of healthcare workers will die of disease + and extra amount of Y that contract Covid.
> 
> It is true a tiny number of Y will Overlap group X....but anybody with an ounce of logic can see that overlap will be very small.
> 
> 
> You really are scraping the barrel in your quest to cling to your false arguments.......it is your choice to lie to yourself.



So it's just your opinion, how come you are allowed to do that but I am not?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> So it's just your opinion, how come you are allowed to do that but I am not?


Wrong

Its not simply my opinion -Ive backed it up with logic.........which if you had a valid counter argument, you would have posted it.


if an NHS nurse gets ill from covid and sadly dies....your argument is "she might have died anyway in the same year". 
Im sorry its not really a great argument is it?


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Wrong
> 
> Its not simply my opinion -Ive backed it up with logic.........which if you had a valid counter argument, you would have posted it.
> 
> 
> if an NHS nurse gets ill from covid and sadly dies....your argument is "she might have died anyway in the same year".
> Im sorry its not really a great argument is it?




Ah logic, not facts, logic. Gotcha


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> All lockdown has done is to slow the spread to the point where the NHS is not overwhelmed (although currently very close). Lockdown will not stop the virus; as soon as restrictions are relaxed it will spread again. Indefinite lockdown is not a realistic option.



That is indeed true. 

Lockdowns ( or more correctly a range of non pharmaceutical interventions) have never been intended to be a permanent solution. Their purpose is to stop the bath water overflowing until a vaccine is in place.

Unfortunately anti lockdowners use the strawman argument that: "lockdowns dont work, the virus comes back, therefore we shouldnt have had lockdowns"

the scientists did warn the back in June / July that they should work very hard to get rid of as much underlying community infection over the summer which would have made this wave less severe and reduced the chance of a mutation. Instead we had "eat out to help out".


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Ah logic, not facts, logic. Gotcha



If you had a valid counter argument you would use it.

you havent.........so you use an ad hominem instead.


I am sorry you seem so upset I havent provided evidence to back up what is obvious

here ya go:

*The number of NHS staff who have died in service is nearly double that of previous years, according to official figures.*


Offical workforce figures published by NHS Digital show that in the first quarter of 2020 a total of 403 NHS workers in England died while employed by the health service.

In real terms, this means an increase of 188 deaths when compared with an average of the past ten years.








Number of NHS staff dying in service double that of previous years


Multiple sources now estimate that over 650 health and social care workers have now died of COVID-19.




nursingnotes.co.uk


----------



## Rorschach

@RobinBHM see you can you can use evidence, that wasn't so hard was it?


----------



## Droogs

Selwyn said:


> Look we employ 1 million people plus in the healthcare industry of course some are going to die from something. You cannot say that no healthcare workers will die ever. How many supermarket workers have died that can be traced to covid deaths? How many teachers? Its very very small and they kept working.


The number of teachers who have died of covid 19 is 65/506400 known employed teachers in the UK (last verifiable figures by the ONS Apr 2020) and is the same percentage rate for the total number of people who have died within the general population of the UK ie 0.01%. This in an entirely *safe non infectious* environment where contact with children is not dangerous as they can not apparently give you covid. cow merd

edit some further info
Taken from schoolsweek magazine

Teachers in secondary schools and sixth forms are more likely to catch Covid-19 than their primary school counterparts.


ONS analysis found between September 2 and October 16, 0.38 per cent of secondary and sixth form teachers tested positive for coronavirus.


In contrast, just 0.23 per cent of primary teachers tested positive during the same period.

and also


Education support staff, such as kitchen and cleaning staff, were more likely to catch Covid-19 than teachers.


Analysis found that 0.45 per cent of these staff had tested positive between September 2 and October 16, while nursery and pre-school teachers also scored 0.45 per cent.


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> Fair enough. Some hospitals will have local spikes. But you also need to acknowledge many don't. As I say there were 30k excess deaths (non covid) which we didn't save last year. And the hospitals were not full of covid patients in jul-october.


I did respond to that in a previous post


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.
> 
> "Clinically vulnerable" doesn't mean people on their last legs.
> 
> It includes people living perfectly normal lives that have a chronic health condition....diabetes, high blood pressure, heart issues, COPD, immune disorders, CKD and many others



Whered did I say people who were clinically vulnerable were on their last legs?


----------



## Selwyn

Woody2Shoes said:


> Erm... sweeping statement...everyone who has ever caught any virus of any kind was initially asymptomatic for some period of time...



Anthony Faucci said this way back.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Wrong
> 
> Its not simply my opinion -Ive backed it up with logic.........which if you had a valid counter argument, you would have posted it.
> 
> 
> if an NHS nurse gets ill from covid and sadly dies....your argument is "she might have died anyway in the same year".
> Im sorry its not really a great argument is it?



No. That isn't his argument. 

His argument is more probably - "this is bad news and sadly part of the collateral damage of a pandemic (when it actually was a pandemic). Yes we were ill prepared for a covid pandemic but that was then this is now"


----------



## rafezetter

selly said:


> No millions will not die. You have a. 2-.5% chance of dieing if over 80.
> 
> 
> You do realise the medical world can often people alive for a few more months or even years at times but chose not to? We could technically keep people ventilated for a long time and alive but for what end when they are 86?
> 
> What is your opinion of the 30k excess deaths in the home this year? Necessary collateral damage? That sounds genocidal too!



Selly are you really trying to play that game with me?

Why are you coming after ME?

I AM NOT THE ONCE ADVOCATING WE LET THE OLD AND VULNERABLE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET YOUR GODDAMN FACTS STRAIGHT PAL.

(Yes I'm shouting)

I'm the one pointing the finger at rorschach whom IS the one advocating mass death - ASK HIM what his opinion is of the 30k excess deaths.

However in answer to your question: some of these deaths are, from my understanding, all the deaths that happen from all the "normal" sources which are so many and varied as to be unreasonable to list but will include: cancer, RTA's, heart disease, organ failure for another whole multitude of reasons such as alcoholism and obesity; plus deaths from diabetes, encephalactic shock (allergies), and on and on and on and on - which despite modern medicine and knowledge continue to happen ANYWAY, no matter how many laws we introduce for road safety, no matter how widespread the advice on lifestyle choices, and the warnings that smoking and alcoholism KILLS.

Which ones are the EXCESS and which are not is still not fully known - as far as I'm aware covid deaths are listed as a covid death, but are any UNDERLYING medical conditions ALSO listed in that death as well?

However my point has ALWAYS been - underlying medical conditions or not, even a person with stage 4 cancer still has the right to live out their last days without fear of catching Covid to further shorten thier already terminal lifespan - RORSCHACH is the one stating "we let the old and vulnerable die a little sooner" NOT ME!

so get off my case, get your facts straight, and go point that thing someplace else.


----------



## RickG

Have to admit to having not read all this thread, but UK ranks 5th in the list of countries with the highest Covid death toll.
Then yesterday, when BoJo announced the stricter quarantine measures, he fluffed it again!
In Australia you arrive and are taken by military to a quarantine facility where you go to your room and stay for 2 weeks.
In the UK you leave the airport and can catch a train with loads of the unsuspecting public, spreading the virus as you go "home" or wherever and quarantine yourself, or not.


----------



## Selwyn

rafezetter said:


> Selly are you really trying to play that game with me?
> 
> Why are you coming after ME?
> 
> I AM NOT THE ONCE ADVOCATING WE LET THE OLD AND VULNERABLE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> GET YOUR GODDAMN FACTS STRAIGHT PAL.
> 
> (Yes I'm shouting)
> 
> I'm the one pointing the finger at rorschach whom IS the one advocating mass death - ASK HIM what his opinion is of the 30k excess deaths.
> 
> However in answer to your question: some of these deaths are, from my understanding, all the deaths that happen from all the "normal" sources which are so many and varied as to be unreasonable to list but will include: cancer, RTA's, heart disease, organ failure for another whole multitude of reasons such as alcoholism and obesity; plus deaths from diabetes, encephalactic shock (allergies), and on and on and on and on - which despite modern medicine and knowledge continue to happen ANYWAY, no matter how many laws we introduce for road safety, no matter how widespread the advice on lifestyle choices, and the warnings that smoking and alcoholism KILLS.
> 
> Which ones are the EXCESS and which are not is still not fully known - as far as I'm aware covid deaths are listed as a covid death, but are any UNDERLYING medical conditions ALSO listed in that death as well?
> 
> However my point has ALWAYS been - underlying medical conditions or not, even a person with stage 4 cancer still has the right to live out their last days without fear of catching Covid to further shorten thier already terminal lifespan - RORSCHACH is the one stating "we let the old and vulnerable die a little sooner" NOT ME!
> 
> so get off my case, get your facts straight, and go point that thing someplace else.



He wasn't advocating mass deaths. But I'm pointing out to you that lockdown has not come without other non covid deaths either (30k excess non covid deaths for a start). 

Everyone does not have a "right" to not die of covid, its just ridiculous statement.


----------



## rafezetter

doctor Bob said:


> ........ you are misquoting by edit



If that's aimed at me Dr Bob - how so? The entirety of the post is quoted - no editing - because to edit another persons quote to read differently is a bannable offense. I know this.

He claims rorshachs version is not "genocide" - I've proven simply by highlighting the relevant parts of the meaning of genocide WITH NO EDITING AT ALL - go look at the wiki page yourself, all the same words in the same order - that "let the old and the vulnerable die" falls into the category of "genocide" as it has both necessary qualifiers to be classed as such.

- deliberate act - specifically, action by inaction, when action could be taken to prevent it - "*LET* them die".
- a group specific - "vulnerable and old".

anything else or are we done here?


----------



## doctor Bob

rafezetter said:


> I'd also like you to explain how "let the old and vulnerable die - because they will die anyway soon" is NOT genocide? - you do know what genocide means right?



Here, that's not what he said, that's what you interpreted it as. 
P.S. I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out an out of proportion quote.


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> He wasn't advocating mass deaths. But I'm pointing out to you that lockdown has not come without other non covid deaths either (30k excess non covid deaths for a start).
> 
> Everyone does not have a "right" to not die of covid, its just ridiculous statement.



You cannot blame non-COVID excess deaths on lockdown because they have happened during the pandemic unless they are specifically attributable to lockdown and not the pandemic. 

Non-COVID excess deaths would be far higher absent lockdowns because of NHS overload.


----------



## Jake

This means we cabbage up badly.

NHS calls in military to help shore up understaffed intensive care wards | The Independent


----------



## billw

Genocide? C'mon now. Let's gently return to reality with a nice soft landing on a fluffy pillow and forget that word ever got mentioned.

Intentionally deciding to let a population be exposed to a virus that may, or may not, cause death is not genocide. Gassing people in buildings - that's genocide. Armed soldiers wandering around shooting their own fellow citizens on sight - that's also genocide. Causing mass starvation and cratering an economy - genocide. 

Cratering the economy causing mass unemployment, mental health issues, record national debt levels, education deficiencies for low income groups, just so Auntie Doris can spend an extra five months being incontinent in a home - not genocide.


----------



## selly

Jake said:


> You cannot blame non-COVID excess deaths on lockdown because they have happened during the pandemic unless they are specifically attributable to lockdown and not the pandemic.
> 
> Non-COVID excess deaths would be far higher absent lockdowns because of NHS overload.



Well what do you think they are attributable to? Do you pretend they are not part of the overall picture because they don't say covid?

There is no evidence for your second paragraph at all. We know lots of places never came near a peak and yet we pretended they were all under major strain and they were not. The viral curve looks remarkably similar everywhere in Europe regardless of policy, lockdpwn etc.

Excess deaths are the measurement. No one doubts the April excess deaths.

In Wales covid has "killed" 0.14% of the population in 2020. Now the vast majority of these will be very old or not far off death for that year. Obviously there will be a few very unlucky people who died too young, workplace etc but that is life. I wish it wasn't so but that is that - for sure we made mistakes early. How it is not blindingly obvious this is now a seasonal disease beats me. 

I'm pretty certain that post vaccination if they chose to pcr test every death in the future that covid will still "kill" a figure of around 0.1%. What has not been done is the calculation on non covid excess deaths % for the year and the extra deaths in the future we will inevitably have by being poorer and saddled with this huge debt. And also the extra deaths we will have which we may have saved by picking up comorbidities earlier but lots of posters here clearly don't give a damn about this.


----------



## NormanB

Selwyn said:


> No I just don't want to talk about my local hospital.
> 
> But its about 300 deaths from covid from a 400k population if it helps. 0.07%. Thats my health board not my hospital - we have about 4 or 5 hospitals. I have no doubt excess deaths from non covid sources will be higher. And I have also have no doubt that of those 300 people who died from covid I would expect (but we are not given the data) the vast majority would have been vulnerable to any number of things. Its not a good enough reason to trash young peoples lives for in my opinion but there are a lot of featherbedded pensioners on here or people who do not rely on a good economy for their jobs


You are being deliberately evasive, in my opinion, quoting the Covid deaths, is not a direct measure for how busy the hospital(s) are busy per se, or an indicator of how much spare capacity exists in ICU. When no spare capacity exists, and no transfers are clinically appropriate, the only clinically available demand management tool is deciding who does not go to ICU leading directly to both Covid and non Covid deaths.


----------



## Rorschach

Jake said:


> Non-COVID excess deaths would be far higher absent lockdowns because of NHS overload.



That is nonsense. Last year the NHS shut down nationwide, regardless of local case rates and capacity. I have covered it here before but a family member has suffered terribly and had their quality of life made much worse and shortened considerably. They will become a non-covid excess death soon. But this was all unnecessary, our local infections were almost non existent, our local hospital was a ghost town (still is mostly) but it was forced to essentially shut down for anything except emergency treatment for months.


----------



## Selwyn

NormanB said:


> You are being deliberately evasive, in my opinion, quoting the Covid deaths, is not a direct measure for how busy the hospital(s) are busy per se, or an indicator of how much spare capacity exists in ICU. When no spare capacity exists, and no transfers are clinically appropriate, the only clinically available demand management tool is deciding who does not go to ICU leading directly to both Covid and non Covid deaths.



You mean you don't like the figures I quoted. 

Furthermore the non covid excess deaths I quoted were not in hospital they were at home. So no decisions about icu were made.


----------



## Selwyn

Jake said:


> This means we cabbage up badly.
> 
> NHS calls in military to help shore up understaffed intensive care wards | The Independent



You are one of many who have a military fetish. We had it with the Nightingales too.

But anyway if this is a pandemic why are the nightingales shut and no Army nurses manning them before? If this was a genuine pandemic we would have recruited student nurses into the Nightingales etc. It was a pandemic in April, it isn't now


----------



## NormanB

Selwyn said:


> You mean you don't like the figures I quoted.
> 
> Furthermore the non covid excess deaths I quoted were not in hospital they were at home. So no decisions about icu were made.


No I have no view on the figures you quoted. It may be better if you did not tell me what I do or do not like.
Your reluctance to name the DGH means I am unable to verify your facts.
As for the latter - it may or may not be be true. It depends on the prevailing conditions and what management actions may or may not have been put in place.


----------



## Jameshow

Selwyn said:


> You are one of many who have a military fetish. We had it with the Nightingales too.
> 
> But anyway if this is a pandemic why are the nightingales shut and no Army nurses manning them before? If this was a genuine pandemic we would have recruited student nurses into the Nightingales etc. It was a pandemic in April, it isn't now


Because we don't have many full time army nurses.... Most I'm guessing are in the TA and already NHS nurses....

Student nurses still need experienced nurses to monitor them. Who are being used at full stretch in the NHS. 

Cheers James


----------



## selectortone

People keep popping up on here saying that their local hospitals are ghost towns, yet every night on the news I see exhausted hospital workers and hospitals full of very sick people. 

The only personal anecdote I have is from one of my daughter's friends, a theatre nurse of some 15 years or so, who has now been seconded to Covid Intensive Care at Bournemouth General. She's been one of my daughter's best friends since school and is level-headed and not someone I associate with hyperbole. She has always loved her job but she says she hates going to work now; she's basically holding people's hands, and watching them die. And no, they're not all in Rorshach's expendable age group either.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> If this was a genuine pandemic we would have recruited student nurses into the Nightingales etc. It was a pandemic in April, it isn't now



Strawman argument.

It's interesting how the anti lockdowners all use logical fallacies for their arguments.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> why are the nightingales shut



Because nightingales aren't hospitals.

They have basic ventilators and no specialist auxilliary services that are needed to support ICU Covid patients.

And we have no staff


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> That is nonsense. Last year the NHS shut down nationwide, regardless of local case rates and capacity. I have covered it here before but a family member has suffered terribly and had their quality of life made much worse and shortened considerably. They will become a non-covid excess death soon. But this was all unnecessary, our local infections were almost non existent, our local hospital was a ghost town (still is mostly) but it was forced to essentially shut down for anything except emergency treatment for months.


Strawman argument.

I am sorry you have a family member that has suffered and is suffering. Please remember it is the Covid virus that has caused this not lockdown. 

The reality is that in times of emergency, govts use blanket strategies. But that doesn't mean the overall strategy is a failure.

If there had been no lockdown the first time, non Covid hospital capacity would still have been massively reduced.

Look at the London hospitals now, many have expanded their Covid ICU from 1 ward up to maybe 8.......achieved by taking over children's wards, operating theatres.

Please explain how no lockdown would have allowed those hospitals more non covid admissions......they wouldn't.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> @RobinBHM see you can you can use evidence, that wasn't so hard was it?


I thought I didn't need to bother....as you were clutching at straws.

It's a shame you don't back up your "anti lockdown hunch" with some evidence


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> But I'm pointing out to you that lockdown has not come without other non covid deaths either (30k excess non covid deaths for a start



But you are trying to make build your argument on the false assumption it is an either or option.

You seem to believe the 30k non Covid excess deaths would not have happened had there been no lockdown or hospitals had kept non Covid capacity open.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> yet we pretended they were all under major strain and they were not


No we did not

That's a strawman.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Given that the IFR curve looks very similar all over Europe (incl Sweden) then it appears unlikely that there would have been massive amounts of excess deaths if we hadn't locked down


No it doesn't, there is no real evidence to back your claim excess deaths would have been the same with no lockdown.

You are simplifying the lockdown versus non lockdown as though it were binary.

Each country used numerous non pharmaceutical interventions that you've lumped together as 'lockdown'


----------



## doctor Bob

I'm sitting on the fence really. However I'm working very covid safe and home life is battened down, so that probably means I'm more in favour of keeping life restricted.

However, I'm getting rather confused on strawman, conflagulated and hyperbole, whats the difference?


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> V v little media coverage compared to covid


Media coverage does not equate to people not caring.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> The curve turned before lock down



No it didn't....that was based on flawed research. An anti lockdowners used incorrect time between infection and death to arrive at the conclusion you are claiming.









Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact


Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon




fullfact.org


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Look we employ 1 million people plus in the healthcare industry of course some are going to die from something. You cannot say that no healthcare workers will die ever. How many supermarket workers have died that can be traced to covid deaths? How many teachers? Its very very small and they kept working.



Dishonest argument.

Those that died, did so from Covid.

You can't argue that an average of X number of healthcare workers would die anyway.....those people would still die plus those from Covid.


And yes other essential workers died....bus drivers for example.

By the way nurses face a far higher viral load than other workers


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Strawman argument.
> 
> I am sorry you have a family member that has suffered and is suffering. Please remember it is the Covid virus that has caused this not lockdown.
> 
> The reality is that in times of emergency, govts use blanket strategies. But that doesn't mean the overall strategy is a failure.
> 
> If there had been no lockdown the first time, non Covid hospital capacity would still have been massively reduced.
> 
> Look at the London hospitals now, many have expanded their Covid ICU from 1 ward up to maybe 8.......achieved by taking over children's wards, operating theatres.
> 
> Please explain how no lockdown would have allowed those hospitals more non covid admissions......they wouldn't.



In the case of our hospital it was closed down for a perceived threat that has never materialised. That is not caused by C19, that is caused by the reaction to C19.


----------



## Droogs

Rorschach said:


> That is nonsense. Last year the NHS shut down nationwide, regardless of local case rates and capacity. I have covered it here before but a family member has suffered terribly and had their quality of life made much worse and shortened considerably. They will become a non-covid excess death soon. But this was all unnecessary, our local infections were almost non existent, our local hospital was a ghost town (still is mostly) but it was forced to essentially shut down for anything except emergency treatment for months.


While I do truly feel sad at the events experience by your relative, Your pronouncement about the NHS is simply untrue/incorrect. What has happened to them is entirely a local occurence not a national policy. How do I know this well from March until Sept I was enrolled on a full course of chemo and radiotherapy. Started after the 1st lockdown began and continued without interruption until completed. i also know of many more people all over the UK that this is the case for them too. So the NHS did not have a national shut down of normal operating but any shut downs experience were entirely the decision of the local Trust.

Yes my Dr quarantined me in my flat in early Feb stating if I did catch this novo covid I would not be able to start my treatment, so I stayed in the house only leaving to go direct to my treatments and return home. I have done this right up until being told I could go out and about but to take some extra precautions as I would be immuno suppressed until Aug 2021 due to ongoing treatments. But it did mean I could go to the wksp for the 1st time since Jan last year and after my 3rd visit we all had to go back into lockdown. I am not even allowed to use a bus for the foreseeable. 

Has this been hard, damn right it is, Just like everyone else my wants are scuppered and my income totaled. Rorscharch you moan about a dip in income and sneer and insinuate people like me are sitting pretty. Well we are not. My total income for all of last year was under £3K, i live on bags of pasta and rice donated to me by charity with some tinned tomatoes, each week. So get an Ef'n grip on the reality for some and try to be a decent human being towards others


----------



## Blackswanwood

doctor Bob said:


> I'm sitting on the fence really. However I'm working very covid safe and home life is battened down, so that probably means I'm more in favour of keeping life restricted.
> 
> However, I'm getting rather confused on strawman, conflagulated and hyperbole, whats the difference?


Is the middle one what Max Mosley was accused of doing with five hookers in that court case he won against the News of the World?


----------



## Rorschach

@Droogs I feel very sorry for you, your situation sounds awful as well. What I can't understand though is why someone in your position isn't angry like me? I am angry because people are in situations like you are.


----------



## NormanB

Jameshow said:


> Because we don't have many full time army nurses.... Most I'm guessing are in the TA and already NHS nurses....
> 
> Student nurses still need experienced nurses to monitor them. Who are being used at full stretch in the NHS.
> 
> Cheers James


Do you have evidence for your former statement?


----------



## Jameshow

Rorschach said:


> In the case of our hospital it was closed down for a perceived threat that has never materialised. That is not caused by C19, that is caused by the reaction to C19.


No hospital were closed down - routine procedure were put on hold for obvious reasons. 

We have had the same thing with schools closed because of high rates in London and SE. We have a rate lower than previous 9 months. 

Gov has tried to work regionally but it's caused a great deal of controversy.... 

Cheers James


----------



## Droogs

I'm angry at [email protected] that don't follow the rules and do all they can to circumvent them thus prolonging my situation and also at a government too afeared to actually do what it is supposed to do and protect the population and take the steps needed to do so. Should have been a complete curfew last March with UK borders closed to all living traffic, goods only and even then only to a designated area near the ports where the forign tractor would be uncoupled and a UK unit attached. The foreign tractor unit hooked up to an out going trailer and back on the ferry/train. Full curfew for the whole poplulation of the UK for 6 weeks with only those involved in the production of food, medicines and power generation or provision of care to keep people alive allowed to move aroung the country as needed. This if done for 6 weeks would have seen us virus free. The borders an no travel would remain in place until enough people globally were vacinated. I am very angry we didn't put up with that in March as we would now be living relatively normal lives in our little secluded island.

But then that would be too much to hard for you and your peers to take, so we are where we are.


----------



## Droogs

NormanB said:


> Do you have evidence for your former statement?


From the MOD itself
There are 6 x regular medical regiments and 3 x field hospitals. The reserves provide 13 x field hospitals, 1 x Support Medical Regiment and 1 x Casualty Evacuation Regiment. In late 2015 our estimate of the regular personnel strength of the *RAMC* is 2,900 officers and soldiers.

From personal experience -
Reserve medical forces are around 90% NHS medical staff (mostly non nursing in their day job but dabble at the weekend  ) with a good few other very enthusiastic amatuers.


----------



## julianf

A thought -

Everyone knew there would be a second wave. By everyone, I guess I mean evreyone with GCSE (or equivalent) maths that can read a graph and compare it to graphs of previous incidents.

In this, I would include our government. 

They knew, without doubt, that a second wave was on its way.


So then you have things like the relaxed restrictions over Christmas and the schools going back for one single day (one day!?!?)

Look at the news. Full of Covid. Very little mention of the mess that is brexit.

I would say the timing of this second peak is almost spot on what you would desire if you wanted to keep brexit out of the news.

I mean I'm not sure if I believe that... But, sadly, I'm not even sure I disbelieve it either.

I mean, which is worse - sending the kids back to school for a single day out of incompetence and causing death, or sending the kids back to school by design and causing death?

Again, I'm not into conspiracy, however it's certainly keeping brexit out of the news. Imagine what it would be like without covid filling the front pages? Wouldn't look good for the government, would it?


----------



## kenpez

0/10


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> You are one of many who have a military fetish. We had it with the Nightingales too.



How do you get to that conclusion? I suppose it is as logical as your other posts, but I was hardly fetishising the desperate resort to the military.


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> You mean you don't like the figures I quoted. Furthermore the non covid excess deaths I quoted were not in hospital they were at home. So no decisions about icu were made.



As you have already posted made up statistics, there is no reason to trust any figures you cite unless you provide the source.


----------



## NormanB

Droogs said:


> From the MOD itself
> There are 6 x regular medical regiments and 3 x field hospitals. The reserves provide 13 x field hospitals, 1 x Support Medical Regiment and 1 x Casualty Evacuation Regiment. In late 2015 our estimate of the regular personnel strength of the *RAMC* is 2,900 officers and soldiers.
> 
> From personal experience -
> Reserve medical forces are around 90% NHS medical staff (mostly non nursing in their day job but dabble at the weekend  ) with a good few other very enthusiastic amatuers.


I was teasing the other post for evidence because I already knew the answer (in big handfuls).

1. The military no longer have their own secondary care hospitals.
2. Secondary Care capability is embedded in NHS hospitals And has been for many years.
3. Reservists in Defence Medical Services are primarily NHS and Ambulance Trust employees (in the main).
4. A proportion of Defence Medical Services are engaged in Primary Care ‘looking after their own’ - and there may be some capacity to redeploy some of these GPs and Nurses, Med Techs - but it would be slack handfuls, useful but not a game changer.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> I'm angry at [email protected] that don't follow the rules and do all they can to circumvent them thus prolonging my situation and also at a government too afeared to actually do what it is supposed to do and protect the population and take the steps needed to do so. Should have been a complete curfew last March with UK borders closed to all living traffic, goods only and even then only to a designated area near the ports where the forign tractor would be uncoupled and a UK unit attached. The foreign tractor unit hooked up to an out going trailer and back on the ferry/train. Full curfew for the whole poplulation of the UK for 6 weeks with only those involved in the production of food, medicines and power generation or provision of care to keep people alive allowed to move aroung the country as needed. This if done for 6 weeks would have seen us virus free. The borders an no travel would remain in place until enough people globally were vacinated. I am very angry we didn't put up with that in March as we would now be living relatively normal lives in our little secluded island.
> 
> But then that would be too much to hard for you and your peers to take, so we are where we are.



Has any other country managed that aside from NZ which started with just a handful of cases and plenty of advance warning? No, because what you say we should have done simply isn't feasible in a western democracy. You want to live in a country that would do that, go ahead find one and move there, I don't think you would like it the rest of the time though.


----------



## selly

Jake said:


> As you have already posted made up statistics, there is no reason to trust any figures you cite unless you provide the source.



Ignore the figures if it suits your agenda better


----------



## Droogs

Better 42 days of house arrest than 42 weeks


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> In the case of our hospital it was closed down for a perceived threat that has never materialised. That is not caused by C19, that is caused by the reaction to C19.


perhaps try reading what I said

"blanket strategies".....so your hospital may not have seen huge numbers, but country wide there certainly were large number of cases

back in March we were dealing with a totally novel virus, so a blanket strategy of lockdown was probably the only solution.


----------



## RobinBHM

Droogs said:


> How do I know this well from March until Sept I was enrolled on a full course of chemo and radiotherapy. Started after the 1st lockdown began and continued without interruption until completed. i also know of many more people all over the UK that this is the case for them too.



I know from my niece, a radiographer at a local hospital trust in Sussex that the March lockdown was very very disruptive to the hospital -basically the entire hospital had to split into 2 sections -so every section of the hospital had to have an infection control barrier, every department had to choose where resources were split. 

Some hospitals were altered so covid was on one floor and non covid on another.

My niece dealt with many covid patients -she had to dress in full PPE: gloves, theatre gown, 2nd pair of gloves, mask, visor.
between every patient the equipment and room was cleaned, 20 min wait whilst and virus was killed, then new PPE for next patient.

Normal outpatient services continued pretty well I understand.


GP practices have been varied -I think because they are private businesses and had to be careful to comply with safeguarding guidelines to avoid risk of being sued.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> @Droogs I feel very sorry for you, your situation sounds awful as well. What I can't understand though is why someone in your position isn't angry like me? I am angry because people are in situations like you are.



Ask an ICU nurse in a London hospital is he or she is angry at the those people who claim "its no worse than flu" (something you did, maybe you still do)

Perhaps you should go and say to those families that have lost members from covid who worked for the NHS "oh well statistically some of you were going to die anyway"


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> NZ which started with just a handful of cases and plenty of advance warning?


how did NZ have more advanced warning than the UK?

UK started with one case.....


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> how did NZ have more advanced warning than the UK?
> 
> UK started with one case.....



Oh man, if you think it was that easy then there is no hope for any meaningful conversation.


----------



## RobinBHM

Droogs said:


> I'm angry at [email protected] that don't follow the rules and do all they can to circumvent them thus prolonging my situation and also at a government too afeared to actually do what it is supposed to do and protect the population and take the steps needed to do so. Should have been a complete curfew last March with UK borders closed to all living traffic, goods only and even then only to a designated area near the ports where the forign tractor would be uncoupled and a UK unit attached. The foreign tractor unit hooked up to an out going trailer and back on the ferry/train. Full curfew for the whole poplulation of the UK for 6 weeks with only those involved in the production of food, medicines and power generation or provision of care to keep people alive allowed to move aroung the country as needed. This if done for 6 weeks would have seen us virus free. The borders an no travel would remain in place until enough people globally were vacinated. I am very angry we didn't put up with that in March as we would now be living relatively normal lives in our little secluded island.
> 
> But then that would be too much to hard for you and your peers to take, so we are where we are.



the evidence pretty much points towards: "the harder and earlier you lockdown, the much lower the community spread and the faster you recover"

those that argue its a binary choice between protecting old people and the economy, are wrong: much harder lockdowns can result in a long term reduction in economic damage.

The UK has chosen pretty lax lockdowns and so the tail of each lockdown has been protracted -this lockdown will be very very long.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Oh man, if you think it was that easy then there is no hope for any meaningful conversation.


well how did NZ have more advance warning?

if you cant answer, I can only presume you dont know?

I am not saying NZ can be compared to UK, we know it cant totally different demographics.........but I cant see how NZ had advance warning, makes no sense


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> well how did NZ have more advance warning?
> 
> if you cant answer, I can only presume you dont know?
> 
> I am not saying NZ can be compared to UK, we know it cant totally different demographics.........but I cant see how NZ had advance warning, makes no sense



Advance warning might not the best phrase then. They saw the infection spreading in Europe countries before it had properly made it to NZ (which was going into it's summer) and were able to do track and trace in ideal circumstances. By the time we identified our first cases in Europe it was already endemic and T&T was a waste of time. We know it was spreading in Europe as early as October 2019, when did we first identify a case in the UK?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> well how did NZ have more advance warning?
> 
> if you cant answer, I can only presume you dont know?
> 
> I am not saying NZ can be compared to UK, we know it cant totally different demographics.........but I cant see how NZ had advance warning, makes no sense



It arrived in a NZ summer which was a benefit. They will have more covid deaths in due course, vaccine or not


----------



## Rorschach

A certain person will love this one I am sure. Interesting question asked of an MP (who obviously didn't/couldn't answer) in relation to easing lockdown and returning to normal going forward. What is an acceptable number of C19 deaths per year? 
It's obvious this is a seasonal endemic virus, so the number will never be zero, and it's obvious that having hundreds of thousands of deaths per year is unsustainable (not that it would ever happen). But what do we consider acceptable?


----------



## julianf

Another record smashed today -

Last week's weekend lag took us to 1500 in a day.

This week we have topped 1600.

But just imagine how bad it would have been with that Corbyn chap.

(Or some other such non existent excuse for the massive failings of our currently leadership)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

billw said:


> ......
> 
> Cratering the economy causing mass unemployment, mental health issues, record national debt levels, education deficiencies for low income groups, just so Auntie Doris can spend an extra five months being incontinent in a home - not genocide.



Except that the whole point of lockdown is/was to try *not *to blow up the NHS so all (or as many as possible) the non-Covid people with cancer/heart-attacks etc. can still get access to health care as needed.

The difficulty we have had is spineless politicians blaming "the science" rather than their own inability to stand up to all the crusty old gits on the backbenches representing the vested interests and watering down restrictions. We now have the worst of *both *worlds (a health service close to its limits and no, or very badly diminished, ability to help urgent non-Covid but life-threatening/changing cases).

I know four people (including an octogenarian parent) who have had Covid - one died (male, early 70s), two have had life-changing long-covid for more than six months (male, 45 and female 55), and one has gone back to being incontinent as before. I know one woman ( early 60s) diagnosed with metastatic cancer who is still - fingers crossed - able to access healthcare (but for how long?).


----------



## julianf

I wonder who the scapegoat will be at the next election? 

I mean we have this one-trick-pony of a government now, because the right wing media managed to convince a load of people that the EU was the enemy.

So I wonder who the enemy will be next time. 

Three years to wait. The covid mess will be largely swept under the carpet by then.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Advance warning might not the best phrase then. They saw the infection spreading in Europe countries before it had properly made it to NZ (which was going into it's summer) and were able to do track and trace in ideal circumstances. By the time we identified our first cases in Europe it was already endemic and T&T was a waste of time. We know it was spreading in Europe as early as October 2019, when did we first identify a case in the UK?



UK was warned by Italy weeks beforehand.

But Johnson chose herd immunity because he thought it was an opportunity to make money.
Johnson was also warned by China weeks beforehand.

Johnson was also warned by scientists to do all he could to suppress the virus over the summer or the 2nd wave would be very bad.

Johnson was warned to lockdown in Early October, which ignored.
Same thing at Christmas.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It arrived in a NZ summer which was a benefit. They will have more covid deaths in due course, vaccine or not


This seems to be incorrect.

The Covid pandemic was not seasonal.
It didn't arrive in NZ because they stopped foreigners from or via China on 3rd February.
16th March anybody arriving from abroad had to self isolate.

It was government intervention that stopped Covid in NZ, not seasonality


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> They saw the infection spreading in Europe countries before it had properly made it to NZ



Sounds plausible, but the facts disagree:


New Zealand started stopping people entering the country on 2 feb

The first Covid case in Italy was 21st Feb


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> This seems to be incorrect.
> 
> The Covid pandemic was not seasonal.
> It didn't arrive in NZ because they stopped foreigners from or via China on 3rd February.
> 16th March anybody arriving from abroad had to self isolate.
> 
> It was government intervention that stopped Covid in NZ, not seasonality



It is definitely seasonal. Its why we had much reduced summer deaths in the UK and all of Europe

Italy had a peak in Bergamo area, it didn't have it everywhere else. There are factors that led Bergamo area to have such a profound spike.

Wales locked down in late October it did no difference.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Sounds plausible, but the facts disagree:
> 
> 
> New Zealand started stopping people entering the country on 2 feb
> 
> The first Covid case in Italy was 21st Feb



Covid was all over the continent way before then


----------



## RobinBHM

Woody2Shoes said:


> The difficulty we have had is spineless politicians blaming "the science" rather than their own inability to stand up to all the crusty old gits on the backbenches representing the vested interests and watering down restrictions


Yes this is true

Decisive harder faster lockdowns would've resulted in lower deaths.


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> I wonder who the scapegoat will be at the next election?
> 
> I mean we have this one-trick-pony of a government now, because the right wing media managed to convince a load of people that the EU was the enemy.
> 
> So I wonder who the enemy will be next time.
> 
> Three years to wait. The covid mess will be largely swept under the carpet by then.



We will probably see when the dust settles that most countries handled it similarly because as a virus its tricky to suppress once endemic. You can get excited about daily death tolls etc but they don't really mean anything statistically the infection curves aren't radically out of kilter one country to another in Europe.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes this is true
> 
> Decisive harder faster lockdowns would've resulted in lower deaths.



I think the disruption and hysteria of lockdown and its after effects is going to be way worse than if we had kept normal society functioning with the least anxiety, but I think you are more Covid tunnel visioner than able to look at the bigger picture. 

Remember we only locked down a few weeks after Italy and they were reluctant to do it and the virus was endemic by then anyway, we just did a safe political manouvre. So I think you probably feel clever being wise after the event but unless we locked down in Nov 2019 it would have made no difference. Most transmission is and was in the home


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is definitely seasonal. Its why we had much reduced summer deaths in the UK and all of Europe


No, the first wave was not seasonal.

The WHO said it was one wave.

Once the population has significant immunity it will become seasonal.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No, the first wave was not seasonal.
> 
> The WHO said it was one wave.
> 
> Once the population has significant immunity it will become seasonal.



No the first wave was the invasion but it came to us at a time of year when respiratory issues were high. Where it got to other countries later then thought they had beaten it (slovakia I think) but their first wave just came in the autumn even though endemic in the summer. It became seasonal before the first lockdown


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I think the disruption and hysteria of lockdown and its after effects is going to be way worse than if we had kept normal society functioning with the least anxiety, but I think you are more Covid tunnel visioner than able to look at the bigger picture



I appreciate that is what you believe, however what you've said is opinion mixed with some emotive adjectives.

Please could you explain how it's possible to keep normal society functioning through a pandemic caused by a novel virus?

Given that London hospitals are pretty much overwhelmed
Given that hundreds of nurses, doctors, essential,workers have died.

I'm not sure how not imposing restrictions would've resulted in "normal society functioning"


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No the first wave was the invasion but it came to us at a time of year when respiratory issues were high. Where it got to other countries later then thought they had beaten it (slovakia I think) but their first wave just came in the autumn even though endemic in the summer. It became seasonal before the first lockdown



The WHO says otherwise.

Why do you know better?


----------



## julianf

Selwyn said:


> We will probably see when the dust settles that most countries handled it similarly because as a virus its tricky to suppress once endemic. You can get excited about daily death tolls etc but they don't really mean anything statistically the infection curves aren't radically out of kilter one country to another in Europe.



There are many many ways to, statistically, represent how well or badly a country has performed during this time.

If you want to disregard simple statistics, like, for example, deaths per 1m of population, which make the uk look really quite poor indeed, could i ask - 

What data puts the uk's handling of this in a favourable light?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We will probably see when the dust settles that most countries handled it similarly because as a virus its tricky to suppress once endemic. You can get excited about daily death tolls etc but they don't really mean anything statistically the infection curves aren't radically out of kilter one country to another in Europe.



Dead healthcare workers
Dead essential workers
Hospital admissions higher than any flu
Long Covid damage

Those things mean a lot statistically.

research is certainly showing non pharmaceutical interventions reduce infection spread.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Remember we only locked down a few weeks after Italy and they were reluctant to do it and the virus was endemic by then anyway, we just did a safe political manouvre. So I think you probably feel clever being wise after the event but unless we locked down in Nov 2019 it would have made no difference. Most transmission is and was in the home


Untrue.

Viroligists have been saying since the beginning of the pandemic that ealier and hard is better.....resulting in overall less economic damage.

And studies concur:

"Figure 4bshows NPIs with the pattern ‘the earlier, the better’. For those measures (‘closure of educational institutions’, ‘small gatherings cancellation’, ‘airport restrictions’ and many more shown in Supplementary Information), early adoption is always more beneficial"









Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour


Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.




www.nature.com


----------



## Billy_wizz

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.
> 
> Viroligists have been saying since the beginning of the pandemic that ealier and hard is better.....resulting in overall less economic damage.
> 
> And studies concur:
> 
> "Figure 4bshows NPIs with the pattern ‘the earlier, the better’. For those measures (‘closure of educational institutions’, ‘small gatherings cancellation’, ‘airport restrictions’ and many more shown in Supplementary Information), early adoption is always more beneficial"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour
> 
> 
> Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com


The truth is the true facts of how bad or well countries have done won't be known for at least 5 years if not 10


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> You want to live in a country that would do that, go ahead find one and move there, I don't think you would like it the rest of the time though.



Singapore. Lovely place. It's authoritarian and the press is government-controlled but if you tell me that the government snooping on your emails isn't a price worth paying to have litter and graffiti-free streets, a police system that actively deters crime, and a massively well-prepared pandemic response programme, etc etc etc then hmmmm.

Oh and yes, I do want to go live there but it's somewhat difficult. Their passport is welcome visa-free in more places than the UK one too.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

From a political viewpoint there are only two possible outcomes:

lockdown early and be blamed for the economic hardship
lockdown late and be blamed for excess deaths
It is evident that rather than one right answer, both are right depending upon personal circumstances and beliefs.. 

We should not assume our personal balance of life vs economy vs personal freedoms is absolute, but that a range of opinions is justified.

Are deaths the only measure used to judge effective performance in C19 response. What about loss of jobs, livelihoods, mental health, education etc. Are all deaths equal irrespective of age.

We should look carefully at what has been learned to ensure we are far, far better prepared for the future. 

I understand the Japanese in business prioritise rewarding those who find a solution, not blaming those who acted in error. This may or may not be true, but is a convincing behaviour.

Acting in error with the best of intentions is not wrong - acting with a clear intent for personal gain or political advantage is.


----------



## PetePontoValentino

julianf said:


> Another record smashed today -
> 
> Last week's weekend lag took us to 1500 in a day.
> 
> This week we have topped 1600.
> 
> But just imagine how bad it would have been with that Corbyn chap.
> 
> (Or some other such non existent excuse for the massive failings of our currently leadership)


Yep, Boris is doing a fantastic job too, beating all records it seems


----------



## PetePontoValentino

jonathan Hamme on TikTok


British Covid the best in the world #foyou #fy #fyp #fypg ##covid19 #british #virus #comedy #funny #lmao #lol #haha #laugh #trending #viral #video #😂




www.tiktok.com


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> Singapore. Lovely place. It's authoritarian and the press is government-controlled but if you tell me that the government snooping on your emails isn't a price worth paying to have litter and graffiti-free streets, a police system that actively deters crime, and a massively well-prepared pandemic response programme, etc etc etc then hmmmm.
> 
> Oh and yes, I do want to go live there but it's somewhat difficult. Their passport is welcome visa-free in more places than the UK one too.



That's fine if that's what you want. I have no problem with people living under whatever regime they want to, I just don't want that regime imposed here thank you nor do I want people saying "wouldn't it be better if we were like XXX country". There is a very good reason that thousands of people every year risk their lives (and many die in the process) trying to reach the UK having passed through plenty of safe, comfortable countries and some people want us to turn into the kinds of places they are escaping from.


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> From a political viewpoint there are only two possible outcomes:
> 
> lockdown early and be blamed for the economic hardship
> lockdown late and be blamed for excess deaths
> It is evident that rather than one right answer, both are right depending upon personal circumstances and beliefs..
> 
> We should not assume our personal balance of life vs economy vs personal freedoms is absolute, but that a range of opinions is justified.
> 
> Are deaths the only measure used to judge effective performance in C19 response. What about loss of jobs, livelihoods, mental health, education etc. Are all deaths equal irrespective of age.
> 
> We should look carefully at what has been learned to ensure we are far, far better prepared for the future.
> 
> I understand the Japanese in business prioritise rewarding those who find a solution, not blaming those who acted in error. This may or may not be true, but is a convincing behaviour.
> 
> Acting in error with the best of intentions is not wrong - acting with a clear intent for personal gain or political advantage is.



I agree. The problem is as nation we have become too afraid to deal with death because we are so good at putting it off. It's not just how many die, but who dies. At the moment we are still not dealing with uncomfortable that the vast majority of those dying are those who would die relatively soon anyway and we could be cutting years off the life of younger people (and giving them a much lower quality of life) in order to give Granny an extra 6 months of torture in a care home. Unless we have this conversation in the future lockdowns will be a regular winter feature I fear.


----------



## selectortone

selectortone said:


> People keep popping up on here saying that their local hospitals are ghost towns, yet every night on the news I see exhausted hospital workers and hospitals full of very sick people.
> 
> The only personal anecdote I have is from one of my daughter's friends, a theatre nurse of some 15 years or so, who has now been seconded to Covid Intensive Care at Bournemouth General. She's been one of my daughter's best friends since school and is level-headed and not someone I associate with hyperbole. She has always loved her job but she says she hates going to work now; she's basically holding people's hands, and watching them die. And no, they're not all in Rorshach's expendable age group either.


To add to this (for you doubters): I've just seen on BBC South Today that hospitals in Bournemouth and Poole are now full and Covid patients are being transferred to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter. Scary times. Still waiting for my vaccination letter.


----------



## Jameshow

Rorschach said:


> I agree. The problem is as nation we have become too afraid to deal with death because we are so good at putting it off. It's not just how many die, but who dies. At the moment we are still not dealing with uncomfortable that the vast majority of those dying are those who would die relatively soon anyway and we could be cutting years off the life of younger people (and giving them a much lower quality of life) in order to give Granny an extra 6 months of torture in a care home. Unless we have this conversation in the future lockdowns will be a regular winter feature I fear.



How are we cutting years off the life of younger people? 

My dad's 83 lived through the war - far worse than this pandemic as did all his generation and his / thier lives weren't cut short by it!!! 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach

Jameshow said:


> How are we cutting years off the life of younger people?
> 
> My dad's 83 lived through the war - far worse than this pandemic as did all his generation and his / thier lives weren't cut short by it!!!
> 
> Cheers James



This answer is a wind up, right? Please tell me it's a wind up.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I appreciate that is what you believe, however what you've said is opinion mixed with some emotive adjectives.
> 
> Please could you explain how it's possible to keep normal society functioning through a pandemic caused by a novel virus?
> 
> Given that London hospitals are pretty much overwhelmed
> Given that hundreds of nurses, doctors, essential,workers have died.
> 
> I'm not sure how not imposing restrictions would've resulted in "normal society functioning"



You are not capable of looking at this issue in the round. You have covid tinted spectacles on which makes it difficult for you to understand that there is another side of harm being done. I expect you are comfortably retired


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Dead healthcare workers
> Dead essential workers
> Hospital admissions higher than any flu
> Long Covid damage
> 
> Those things mean a lot statistically.
> 
> research is certainly showing non pharmaceutical interventions reduce infection spread.


[/QUOTE]

I've told you. There was a pandemic in April. We are talking about the continued extension of the same narrative and the damage it is doing


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The WHO says otherwise.
> 
> Why do you know better?



The WHO didn't even advocate lockdowns or masks.


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> There are many many ways to, statistically, represent how well or badly a country has performed during this time.
> 
> If you want to disregard simple statistics, like, for example, deaths per 1m of population, which make the uk look really quite poor indeed, could i ask -
> 
> What data puts the uk's handling of this in a favourable light?



I think given that all we will ultimately be left with one way or another, is the need for a level of community immunity then really we have a way to go yet. All countries do. The vaccine won't kill the virus. 

The other glaring thing is type of death - you can pretend that all these deaths would not have occured if it wasn't for covid but its naive.


----------



## selectortone

Somebody commenting on the Bournemouth Echo website about the transfer of covid patients to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter (because our hospitals are full) says it better than I can:

_"Has the penny dropping for you deniers yet?
Or is every gasping patient, grieving family member, exhausted nurse, and broken mortician I've seen on the news an actor?
Is it still a great conspiracy that governments worldwide are in on, with all the millions of staff involved from top to bottom complicit? Blimey, that's some great illusion to pull off."_


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Somebody commenting on the Bournemouth Echo website about the transfer of covid patients to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter (because our hospitals are full) says it better than I can:
> 
> _"Has the penny dropping for you deniers yet?
> Or is every gasping patient, grieving family member, exhausted nurse, and broken mortician I've seen on the news an actor?
> Is it still a great conspiracy that governments worldwide are in on, with all the millions of staff involved from top to bottom complicit? Blimey, that's some great illusion to pull off."_



Fair enough directing that at an actual Coviddenier, I am not a denier though and I don't think anyone commenting here is a denier?


----------



## doctor Bob

selectortone said:


> Somebody commenting on the Bournemouth Echo website about the transfer of covid patients to the Nightingale hospital in Exeter (because our hospitals are full) says it better than I can:
> 
> _"Has the penny dropping for you deniers yet?
> Or is every gasping patient, grieving family member, exhausted nurse, and broken mortician I've seen on the news an actor?
> Is it still a great conspiracy that governments worldwide are in on, with all the millions of staff involved from top to bottom complicit? Blimey, that's some great illusion to pull off."_



I don't think Rocshach and Selwyn are deniers, reading their posts, they are saying there may have been an alternative way.
The issue is not black and white, deniers and believers. To catagorise posters as this is wrong, I think there is a central position and some are one way or the other, more or less lock down / restrictions.


----------



## selectortone

Who said my comment was directed at anyone?


----------



## doctor Bob

selectortone said:


> Who said my comment was directed at anyone?


----------



## selectortone

???

I just thought it was a good comment.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> ???
> 
> I just thought it was a good comment.



I thought it was a bit of a snide comment, my apologies if that was not the intention. As I said, I agree that is a good comment for deniers (they do exist and they are rather mad).


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> I don't think Rocshach and Selwyn are deniers, reading their posts, they are saying there may have been an alternative way.
> The issue is not black and white, deniers and believers. To catagorise posters as this is wrong, I think there is a central position and some are one way or the other, more or less lock down / restrictions.



The "denier" thing is always levelled at people who say "hold on maybe shutting down the world isn't a good thing". Its a bit like its got connotations with holocaust denial and we must be right wing heartless sprouts who want everyone to die. 

But the thing is its pathetic. Lockdown is no bother for a lot of pensioners and the public sector (pockets of medical staff excluded) but its devastating for a lot of others who prop up this sector


----------



## billw

Selwyn said:


> The WHO didn't even advocate lockdowns or masks.



What the hell does Roger Daltrey know about pandemics?


----------



## Mark Hancock

billw said:


> What the hell does Roger Daltrey know about pandemics?


He's also shown his ignorance about Brexit this week....not doing too well on the PR front recently


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> What the hell does Roger Daltrey know about pandemics?



You better you better you bet he knows a lot more than you think. oooh ooooh!
He could see it coming for miles and miles and miles away.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> There is a very good reason that thousands of people every year risk their lives (and many die in the process) trying to reach the UK having passed through plenty of safe, comfortable countries and some people want us to turn into the kinds of places they are escaping from



A most insightful comment.

It's utterly disgusting the way this government puts measures in place to stop the public from catching a nasty virus.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The WHO didn't even advocate lockdowns or masks.


Yes they did

Please stop being dishonest.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Fair enough directing that at an actual Coviddenier, I am not a denier though and I don't think anyone commenting here is a denier?


Yes you are.

You keep claiming Covid is no worse than flu


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> you can pretend that all these deaths would not have occured if it wasn't for covid but its naive



It is naive to think if there was no lockdown, suddenly other NHS services would be freed up.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> The issue is not black and white, deniers and believers. To catagorise posters as this is wrong



I agree.

Which is why Rorschach should stop saying people in favour of lockdowns want a police state.


----------



## Rorschach

£500 incentive to go and catch it now!

Hmm now where is the best place to go and find someone to cough on me?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Yes they did
> 
> Please stop being dishonest.



No they didn't. 

Are you a pensioner or in a comfortable financial position by the way?


----------



## Rorschach

I notice no-one dared make a comment on my question about death figures.

Just heard on the radio Professor Anthony Brookes say that once death figures come down to a level that we would normally see in a "normal" flu year we should go back to complete normality. I can't see the BBC allowing that one!


----------



## Amateur

Its no good getting upset.
The situation IMO is being handled not in an individual country level, but globally.
To understand this you need to look at every country.
Each one using the exact same format, which indicates that the strategy was worked out long before the pandemic hit.
There are wider implications too.
Our reliance on other countries for imports has shown just how vulnerable we have become during the pandemic when the supply chain has just been halted.
Ask any tradesman how it's affecting him.
It's not just tradesmen its shortages in everything that's preventing people going about their normal working day even if they were allowed to 
My hope is that eventually the importance of not having to totally rely on China for instance, will sink in to our politicians brains?
Some manufacturing should be brought back and this Power House of the North that's being talked about will become reality..
I can see problems with the climate folk now. Our carbon footprint. The return of smog and dirt. While they are quite happy to accept goods from countries breaking the rules they themselves fought for and turning a blind eye to poor working conditions, very little wages and inhuman treatment.

Said he with so many Chinese tools in his collection.!

If this pandemic has shown up one major flaw its that a Global unified world doesn't work in practice.
At the end of the day, when the penny drops and things Get really tough, it's about looking after ourselves.


----------



## Cowboy _Builder

billw said:


> What the hell does Roger Daltrey know about pandemics?


That was my first thought when I read that


----------



## Vann

RobinBHM said:


> ...It was government intervention that stopped Covid in NZ...


That's correct. Our PM announced that covid was serious, that we needed to take drastic and immediate action to try to limit it.
We have had 5 deaths per million of population.
In the USA it was described as just a flu, nothing to worry about. They have 1,239 (and climbing) per million.
In Britain Boris wrung his hands, apparently worried about economic impact, and hoping for herd immunity - and you have 1,396 deaths per million.



RobinBHM said:


> the evidence pretty much points towards: "the harder and earlier you lockdown, the much lower the community spread and the faster you recover"...


That's correct. Here in New Zealand, with the exception of international tourism and international students, the economy is doing better than all predictions. Life is almost back to normal.



RobinBHM said:


> ...The UK has chosen pretty lax lockdowns...


I agree. I think I heard on the radio today that UK will be inforcing the breakup of gatherings of more than 15 people. What's the point? If 1 of those 15 is infected, then a further 14 carriers take it to 15 other gatherings - that's 225 people potentially infected in just one degree of separation. I hope I've got the details wrong and it's much stricter than that.



Selwyn said:


> ...They will have more covid deaths in due course, vaccine or not


You are probably correct. To an extent we've been lucky. Australia was doing better than us at just over 4 deaths per million - but then it got away on them in Melbourne and it climbed to 35.6 deaths per million before they got it back under control. But that's still a HELL of a lot better than the result in countries that put economics first (and are suffering the economic impact of procrastinated partial shutdowns)



RobinBHM said:


> Yes this is true
> 
> Decisive harder faster lockdowns would've resulted in lower deaths.


Yes, and less economic hardship.



Terry - Somerset said:


> ...We should not assume our personal balance of life vs economy vs personal freedoms is absolute, but that a range of opinions is justified...


The arguement about personal freedoms is bol-locks (and I'm not suggesting you're promoting it). There are lots of things we have to restrict in order to protect other members of society - driving only on the correct side of the road is a simplistic example. Locking down to protect yourself and others as a temporary measure is just sensible. Long term measures need to be more thoroughly debated in democratic societies like ours and yours.

But I agree, there are countries where governments might take advantage of lockdowns to erode personal freedoms. But the UK and NZ are not included in that list. There are also people who are paranoid...

My tuppence worth.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## D_W

selly said:


> No they didn't.
> 
> Are you a pensioner or in a comfortable financial position by the way?



Pensioners and folks with state jobs were the loudest about shutting down here, too, as they thought they had protected income. The pensioners do. The state and local gov workers found out the hard way that they could be furloughed.

Now, the teachers union will be at odds with the new president, who wants all of the schools reopened. That'll be interesting. The teachers unions here generally will take whatever they can get regardless of reality. If they can have 3.5 hours of teleteaching a day instead of 7 on site, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep that far longer than needed. But they leave their support staff out of their contracts, and those folks are unemployed.


----------



## Selwyn

Vann said:


> That's correct. Our PM announced that covid was serious, that we needed to take drastic and immediate action to try to limit it.
> We have had 5 deaths per million of population.
> In the USA it was described as just a flu, nothing to worry about. They have 1,239 (and climbing) per million.
> In Britain Boris wrung his hands, apparently worried about economic impact, and hoping for herd immunity - and you have 1,396 deaths per million.
> 
> 
> That's correct. Here in New Zealand, with the exception of international tourism and international students, the economy is doing better than all predictions. Life is almost back to normal.
> 
> 
> I agree. I think I heard on the radio today that UK will be inforcing the breakup of gatherings of more than 15 people. What's the point? If 1 of those 15 is infected, then a further 14 carriers take it to 15 other gatherings - that's 225 people potentially infected in just one degree of separation. I hope I've got the details wrong and it's much stricter than that.
> 
> 
> You are probably correct. To an extent we've been lucky. Australia was doing better than us at just over 4 deaths per million - but then it got away on them in Melbourne and it climbed to 35.6 deaths per million before they got it back under control. But that's still a HELL of a lot better than the result in countries that put economics first (and are suffering the economic impact of procrastinated partial shutdowns)
> 
> 
> Yes, and less economic hardship.
> 
> 
> The arguement about personal freedoms is bol-locks (and I'm not suggesting you're promoting it). There are lots of things we have to restrict in order to protect other members of society - driving only on the correct side of the road is a simplistic example. Locking down to protect yourself and others as a temporary measure is just sensible. Long term measures need to be more thoroughly debated in democratic societies like ours and yours.
> 
> But I agree, there are countries where governments might take advantage of lockdowns to erode personal freedoms. But the UK and NZ are not included in that list. There are also people who are paranoid...
> 
> My tuppence worth.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



You would think listening to the media that outside the obvious first wave (care home mess up included) that we are experiencing unprecedented levels of mortality. We are not. And this is why fanatics like Retired Robin wants even stricter lockdown fanaticism but has no thought for those who will have to pay him out


----------



## Selwyn

D_W said:


> Pensioners and folks with state jobs were the loudest about shutting down here, too, as they thought they had protected income. The pensioners do. The state and local gov workers found out the hard way that they could be furloughed.
> 
> Now, the teachers union will be at odds with the new president, who wants all of the schools reopened. That'll be interesting. The teachers unions here generally will take whatever they can get regardless of reality. If they can have 3.5 hours of teleteaching a day instead of 7 on site, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep that far longer than needed. But they leave their support staff out of their contracts, and those folks are unemployed.



I do have sympathy with teachers. They could be vaccinated asap but we won't do it because of need to retain the lockdown narrative for a while yet


----------



## D_W

Vann said:


> In the USA it was described as just a flu, nothing to worry about.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



If this is being touted as the average sentiment here, it's grossly inaccurate. A small minority may say something like that. For 90 percent of the population, the discussion is about weighing the real risk against the rights of small businesses.


----------



## Deadeye

Sigh.

ICBA to argue, but this site includes well-evidenced rebuttals to some of the nonsense in this thread.

www.covidfaq.co


----------



## Rorschach

D_W said:


> Pensioners and folks with state jobs were the loudest about shutting down here, too, as they thought they had protected income. The pensioners do.



Pensioners are going to get a rude awakening I think, their triple lock and vote buying benefits like free bus passes will be out for the taking I reckon.


----------



## D_W

Selwyn said:


> I do have sympathy with teachers. They could be vaccinated asap but we won't do it because of need to retain the lockdown narrative for a while yet



They're being vaccinated here right now. Teachers and daycare workers. For the rest of us, the vaccine isn't available. The first wave was health care workers and nursing home residents + individuals over 75 (which the CDC has revised to over 65). My parents are in the over 65 group, but not over 75. I'm thankful that they can get the vaccine - and they're doing it next week. 

I've heard a few people who have daycare clearance, etc, but haven't worked in daycare in years cutting in line because the hospitals/health systems giving the vaccine aren't set up to check anything. 

Anyway, back to the teachers - they're all eligible and supplied for vaccination everywhere on my end of the country ,but there are suddenly collective bargaining issues. The contracts (most in place before covid) don't require teachers to be vaccinated and there's no way to require it unless bargaining is reopened and it's agreed as part of the contract. I can't imagine any of the union reps pushing for this as they'll just get voted out next time. Not because more teachers don't want vaccinated than do, but rather the effect of losing some minority vote automatically and then having to win more than the majority of the rest (and there are certainly a few teachers here who like teaching from home and will do it as long as they can - esp. specialty teachers. The gym teacher here has been getting away with putting together one 15-minute video a day and replaying it for kids who would normally be in class for 40 minutes. More or less has the kids doing 15 minutes of calisthenics. 

Another one that we know is in a district (these are decided at the local level) where the parents are affluent and conservative, and they want the kids in school full time, but for the objectors to sending kids, the teachers also have to publish concurrent material to the "virtual school" component for parents who refuse to enroll in B&M, so those teachers are having to do more and would like to go back. 

Health care system here (one of them) has notified us that they have no additional doses for second phase. But this is the states, so we don't have to get them from our particular health system - all we have to do is find one private or public vendor or health system with the vaccine and get it there and it's covered. 

(spouse works in health care part time, so she's already vaccinated). The data here shows that transmission from kid to kid in school is low, and transmission from affected teacher to students (all wearing masks in school) is practically zero. Kids in my locale are in school part time - the teacher teaches to the ipad and the kids in school are just present for it also doing their work on their ipads while the other half of the class is remote. If teachers are vaccinated, there's practically no reason for schools not to be in session here. It's very apparent that the pace of learning is much slower with remote learning than in regular school schedule.


----------



## Droogs

i can assure you that it is not. Direct info from SWMBO union rep just under 40% of Scottish teachers and classroom assistants are in quarrintine at any one time. so far out of 1/2 mil UK total teachers just over 0.4% have died from covid. Here the teachers are happy to go back to school if blended learning is adopted as currently there are still as many as 18 kids in a class with 8 desks. and you can not be more than 2m away all the time. I know one school which had half the supply teachers of edinburgh (city only has 26 in total) in it due to staff having covid and most claiming they caught it at school


----------



## Rorschach

Vaccinating the teachers won't have any effect on getting them back into the classroom.

From a moral and practical standpoint it is the elderly that should be vaccinated first.


----------



## Droogs

What those that aren't comatose or dead yet Rorschach


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> What those that aren't comatose or dead yet Rorschach



That's rather unnecessary, don't get like rafezetter now.


----------



## Droogs

I see, we are not meant to point out your cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy or atttempt to correct it?


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> I see, we are not meant to point out your cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy or atttempt to correct it?



Where is the hypocrisy?


----------



## Droogs

You claiming a moral standpoint that the elderly should get it first when you in fact promote letting them die for you profit line and previous claim the young (ie you) should get it first to help the economy


----------



## Vann

D_W said:


> If this is being touted as the average sentiment here...


No, I was meaning from the leaders of the countries - in your case the recently departed yellow one.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> You claiming a moral standpoint that the elderly should get it first when you in fact promote letting them die for you profit line and previous claim the young (ie you) should get it first to help the economy



I didn't say I wanted them too, I have always stated they should protect themselves (if they want to). When did I claim the young should get it first? I don't recall doing so but happy to be proved wrong. If the vaccine stopped transmission then yes it would make sense for the young to get it, but it doesn't, it only stops you getting very ill, so in that case the elderly should get it.


----------



## billw

Vann said:


> No, I was meaning from the leaders of the countries - in your case the recently departed yellow one.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Has he got paler since he left office then?


----------



## Noel

Rorschach said:


> I didn't say I wanted them too, I have always stated they should protect themselves (if they want to). When did I claim the young should get it first? I don't recall doing so but happy to be proved wrong. If the vaccine stopped transmission then yes it would make sense for the young to get it, but it doesn't, it only stops you getting very ill, so in that case the elderly should get it.


 The gist I’ve got from your posts is:

Let the old shield/die/shrivel up.
Everybody else get on with life, lockdowns waste of time.


----------



## Rorschach

Noel said:


> The gist I’ve got from your posts is:
> 
> Let the old shield/die/shrivel up.
> Everybody else get on with life, lockdowns waste of time.



It's a bit more nuanced than that. I've explained plenty of times though but people seem to read what they want to read.

EDIT: I should really point out, the government policy has been to let the old shield, die and shrivel up and it's been very successful.


----------



## Noel

Rorschach said:


> It's a bit more nuanced than that. I've explained plenty of times though but people seem to read what they want to read.


. 

But not wrong, just less nuanced? Glad that’s cleared up.


----------



## Rorschach

Noel said:


> .
> 
> But not wrong, just less nuanced? Glad that’s cleared up.



Yeah, I mean you are happy for them to shield I assume? Or is wanting that bad too? I want them to shield, but I don't want them to be forced to do so. I don't want them to die, but I accept that old people die, like 600k+ every year die, and lots more in bad flu years. I lost several elderly family members in the last few years, it's sad of course, but it was going to happen one day just like one day I'll die.
As for shrivel up, I am not sure what I have said that promotes that? I think my arguments have been for the opposite.


----------



## Droogs

@Rorschach I think I can safely say that for well over 3/4 of the readers of your posts throughout all the Covid related threads the overarching message you have postulated is purely financial in motivation not moral and how you should not be put out by the actions needed to keep those less fortunate alive. Now for me even without being in my current medical situation (which only startdd just before covid) I would still have sat in the house and earned nothing if it meant even 1 person staying alive while i had to live as I have. You on the other hand have been very Trumpish regarding the well being of others if there is nothing in it for you. That is the way your arguments have come across


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> @Rorschach I think I can safely say that for well over 3/4 of the readers of your posts throughout all the Covid related threads the overarching message you have postulated is purely financial in motivation not moral and how you should not be put out by the actions needed to keep those less fortunate alive. Now for me even without being in my current medical situation (which only startdd just before covid) I would still have sat in the house and earned nothing if it meant even 1 person staying alive while i had to live as I have. You on the other hand have been very Trumpish regarding the well being of others if there is nothing in it for you. That is the way your arguments have come across



Ok well that's the way you have taken it. I should point out though, the measures that have been taken are disastrous for the country and yet have still lead to 100k deaths. That death toll will continue to increase for years after C19 is just a memory thanks to economic, social, and mental health damage that has been done. Those that we have supposedly "saved" will be long dead while middle aged people are dying slowly of cancer (or other disease) that might have been curable and the whole country lives a poorer, more miserable existence for potentially decades. If you think that a price worth paying, well ok, personally, I don't.


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> £500 incentive to go and catch it now!
> 
> Hmm now where is the best place to go and find someone to cough on me?


*Aw go on please go for it,* you know you want to, it's_ "no worse than flu" _apparently, after all 500 smackers is a good little earner for a few sniffles and you would be supporting your long term stance on herd immunity.

Please, please pretty please. From your past posts you don't know anyone with Covid but not to worry I would be absolutely delighted to help you out, I can find someone very quickly and have an envelope full of the innocuous little organisms transported to you overnight, I would even pay for the postage out of the goodness of my heart.


----------



## Rorschach

Lons said:


> *Aw go on please go for it,* you know you want to, it's_ "no worse than flu" _apparently, after all 500 smackers is a good little earner for a few sniffles and you would be supporting your long term stance on herd immunity.
> 
> Please, please pretty please. From your past posts you don't know anyone with Covid but not to worry I would be absolutely delighted to help you out, I can find someone very quickly and have an envelope full of the innocuous little organisms transported to you overnight, I would even pay for the postage out of the goodness of my heart.



It honestly doesn't worry me in the slightest. I have taken care of course because we have an extremely vulnerable person in the family and I don't want to kill them (any quicker than the government is trying to). They have had their first vaccine shot and second to come soon. We think it's possible the family might have caught it very early on now, but that is only a hunch based on symptoms and other things, but it would have been in Feb last year, impossible to say for certain now.
I am young, fit and healthy, the chances of me dying are lower than those I face when I go out for a drive, so feel free to spit in an envelope and post it to me if that makes you feel better somehow?


----------



## TRITON

> I am young, fit and healthy, the chances of me dying are lower than those I face when I go out for a drive


Famous last words  
And nobody just going out for a drive ever thought they'd end up being rushed to hospital by air ambulance. But with nearly 2000 killed on the roads and 30,000 seriously injured and a total of about 150,000 receiving some sort of injury(inc serious or killed) on the roads each year, thats not a great way of making decisions.
Certainly there are plenty who have died during this pandemic who didn't have underlying conditions, and were until infection fit and healthy. Then of course theres those who though survived have been left with debilitating conditions.

I'll wager you're super careful using a surface planer or saw bench, or do you just rely on pot luck there too ?..


----------



## doctor Bob

Some of you need to take a break.


----------



## Rorschach

TRITON said:


> I'll wager you're super careful using a surface planer or saw bench, or do you just rely on pot luck there too ?..



I use power tools in exactly the same way as I use my car, carefully. I am also careful when I go out, I try to keep a distance from people, I wash my hands, I don't kiss random strangers anymore. But I behaved pretty much like this before, I would never invade someone's personal space if I could avoid it, that's just common courtesy, I always washed my hands when I could when in public/shopping. Whenever I caught the tube I would avoid touching handrails and if I had no choice I would use handgel ASAP. Honestly my behaviour in the last year was only really changed by having to wear a mask.

I accept there is risk in my life, but I do my best to mitigate that risk when I can/when it is practical. I would be a lot safer if I didn't drive and didn't operate power tools, but at what cost to other aspects of my life? 

Once again, attacks from the winning side, it's like the opposite of the Brexit thread!


----------



## Lons

Rorschach said:


> so feel free to spit in an envelope and post it to me if that makes you feel better somehow?


Sorry that wouldn't work, I don't have Covid so would have to ask someone else to so it, spitting is a filthy habit anyway. 
What was your address again? Oh yes I remember you're Mr. anonymous.


----------



## Rorschach

TRITON said:


> Certainly there are plenty who have died during this pandemic who didn't have underlying conditions, and were until infection fit and healthy.



How many is plenty? 5, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? Do you have a number? It can't be that many otherwise they would be all over the news. I suspect the number to be well below 4 figures and that is out of 10's of millions of infections. Of course it also depends on what you consider young and healthy.


----------



## TRITON

> Once again, attacks from the winning side



Attacks ?? 
You sound paranoid.
Its good you take precautions ,like we all are, but i reckon you shouldnt stick your head in a bucket of sand and hope to good fortune.


----------



## Selwyn

Noel said:


> The gist I’ve got from your posts is:
> 
> Let the old shield/die/shrivel up.
> Everybody else get on with life, lockdowns waste of time.



I haven't got that impression at all.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> *Aw go on please go for it,* you know you want to, it's_ "no worse than flu" _apparently, after all 500 smackers is a good little earner for a few sniffles and you would be supporting your long term stance on herd immunity.
> 
> Please, please pretty please. From your past posts you don't know anyone with Covid but not to worry I would be absolutely delighted to help you out, I can find someone very quickly and have an envelope full of the innocuous little organisms transported to you overnight, I would even pay for the postage out of the goodness of my heart.



For the majority of "cases" it isn't even as bad as flu. You need a test to see if you are ill ffs! You know when you have flu!

It is catastrophic for some and we have a pretty good idea of the type of person it is catastrophic for.


----------



## Selwyn

TRITON said:


> Famous last words
> And nobody just going out for a drive ever thought they'd end up being rushed to hospital by air ambulance. But with nearly 2000 killed on the roads and 30,000 seriously injured and a total of about 150,000 receiving some sort of injury(inc serious or killed) on the roads each year, thats not a great way of making decisions.
> Certainly there are plenty who have died during this pandemic who didn't have underlying conditions, and were until infection fit and healthy. Then of course theres those who though survived have been left with debilitating conditions.
> 
> I'll wager you're super careful using a surface planer or saw bench, or do you just rely on pot luck there too ?..



Well then its simple then isn't. Shut the roads until no one can die on the roads


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> Sorry that wouldn't work, I don't have Covid so would have to ask someone else to so it, spitting is a filthy habit anyway.
> What was your address again? Oh yes I remember you're Mr. anonymous.



How do you know you don't have covid? Take a test every day. You may be asymptomatic and one day that test may be positive - ergo - you have covid


----------



## TRITON




----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> For the majority of "cases" it isn't even as bad as flu. You need a test to see if you are ill ffs!



And in at least some of those asymptomatic cases (where there has been reason to do a scan) there has nonetheless been extensive lung damage.


----------



## Vann

Noel said:


> The gist I’ve got from your posts is:
> 
> Let the old shield/die/shrivel up.
> Everybody else get on with life, lockdowns waste of time.


That's been my impression of Rorschach's posts too.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann

Selwyn said:


> I haven't got that impression at all.


Going by the number of people Rorschach has riled up, I'd say most have have got that impression from him. I get the impression your thoughts are similar, maybe that's why you haven't noticed?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Danieljw

Bale said:


> I'm not going to argue the point with anyone about this. Using a radial arm saw on a pull cut is dangerous. I have seen the after effects of too many accidents involving a "human/machine interface" over many years to be complacent about this stuff. The machine always wins. Just because some ill-informed "teacher" with little to no practical experience or 1001 morons with a youtube account say something is OK, does not make it OK. Your opening phrase stated " I admit that sounds safer ". Stick with that and you'll be fine.
> 
> Pete





Deadeye said:


> Don't forget Dyson - he was a big fan. I'd thank him in person but he's living in Singapore now.





Amateur said:


> My hope is that eventually the importance of not having to totally rely on China for instance, will sink in to our politicians brains?
> Some manufacturing should be brought back and this Power House of the North that's being talked about will become reality..


Well said!


----------



## NormanB

Droogs said:


> i can assure you that it is not. Direct info from SWMBO union rep just under 40% of Scottish teachers and classroom assistants are in quarrintine at any one time. so far out of 1/2 mil UK total teachers just over 0.4% have died from covid. Here the teachers are happy to go back to school if blended learning is adopted as currently there are still as many as 18 kids in a class with 8 desks. and you can not be more than 2m away all the time. I know one school which had half the supply teachers of edinburgh (city only has 26 in total) in it due to staff having covid and most claiming they caught it at school


Would you be able to give the reference to the data that supports the 0.4% Covid morbidity for this occupational group. I have been searching for this data granularity without much success.


----------



## Amateur

Rorschach said:


> Pensioners are going to get a rude awakening I think, their triple lock and vote buying benefits like free bus passes will be out for the taking I reckon.



And while your at it they might as well have the plug pulled on their life support. ?
If your going to "Think It", you might as well do it properly
.


----------



## Jacob

Amateur said:


> And while your at it they might as well have the plug pulled on their life support. ?
> If your going to "Think It", you might as well do it properly
> .


If it's a cull it'd make more sense to let the young die first.
Think ahead - they are going to cost a bomb to keep fed, educated and healthy but there will be no jobs and nothing but a lifetime of idleness and dependency in front of them.
Whereas we elderly will be quietly slipping away quite soon and ceasing to be a burden.


----------



## Rorschach

Amateur said:


> And while your at it they might as well have the plug pulled on their life support. ?
> If your going to "Think It", you might as well do it properly
> .



Another unnecessary attack that in no way represents what I have just said.


----------



## Amateur

I have found, for what it's worth, that younger people have tended to be rather blase about covid 19.
Many would rather believe the stuff from disinformation sites.
hence the anti vaccination support.
To actually have a mind set which indicates they don't trust the establishment is a worrying situation.
The depth of feeling in some of the posts here indicate that there is little empathy for the older age groups. 
So if it's acceptable to wipe out the elderly and think nothing of it, what do these people actually think about their own elderly parents?
Do they despise society and the establishment so much they would let their own parents be treated in the way they describe here?


----------



## Rorschach

Vann said:


> Going by the number of people Rorschach has riled up, I'd say most have have got that impression from him. I get the impression your thoughts are similar, maybe that's why you haven't noticed?
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



I think it just shows how many people live in a comfortable little fantasy world where they don't consider the tough aspects of life. I don't blame them, the vast majority of the country live like that, it's a post WW2 thing because by and large life has been good and only got better since then.

I know when this first started and I having conversations with people I would ask them how many people die in this country per year, the answers I got were in the 10's of thousands, basically most thought that at worst a couple of hundred people died per day. They were horrified to learn it was nearly 2000 a day on average and instead of saying "wow I new knew that" their reaction was "that's awful, how can we stop it!?". Going forward though I think the whole country will gain a new attitude once the real pain starts setting in. We would have noticed sooner if a few journo's had suffered.


----------



## Rorschach

Amateur said:


> Do they despise society and the establishment so much they would let their own parents be treated in the way they describe here?



How have I described they should be treated? I'll say it AGAIN. The elderly should protect themselves (if they want to) and should be helped if needed. What is so difficult about that? Is that an awful thing to want?


----------



## doctor Bob

Seriously chaps get a grip, these posts are not doing you any favours.

Last few pages are shining a bad light on all off you.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Seriously chaps get a grip, these posts are not doing you any favours.



My reputation was shot long ago


----------



## Sandb1g

I try to put a wanted post up for a spincast machine or similar but can’t see a new post button?


----------



## billw

Sandb1g said:


> I try to put a wanted post up for a spincast machine or similar but can’t see a new post button?



Think you need min 25 posts before being allowed to post in the FS/W forum.


----------



## Selwyn

Amateur said:


> I have found, for what it's worth, that younger people have tended to be rather blase about covid 19.
> Many would rather believe the stuff from disinformation sites.
> hence the anti vaccination support.
> To actually have a mind set which indicates they don't trust the establishment is a worrying situation.
> The depth of feeling in some of the posts here indicate that there is little empathy for the older age groups.
> So if it's acceptable to wipe out the elderly and think nothing of it, what do these people actually think about their own elderly parents?
> Do they despise society and the establishment so much they would let their own parents be treated in the way they describe here?



Er no. Get the elderly to shield themselves, its not rocket science. I do the shopping for my parents and they just get in with their lives sensibly. They don't want to see my children denied education and jobs, they want to see them carry on with what they need to do in their lives. Its incredibly selfish from elderly wanting the whole country locked up in the name of solidarity.

Have special opening times in the shops for them. They don't have to keep the economy going but the young people do and they have to get out there and earn money to fund the elderly. I can't understand why people are so blase about all this - younger people know the pain to come for them. We have all the data on the under 60's for Covid and the time spent in hospital and yet the elderly on here want to keep locking down so we can have a glut of late cancer referrals for mothers and children later on. Do they despise their offspring that much?

A huge amount of people dying of covid are over the average age of death for this country. A huge amount are in care homes. Care homes are a place people send old people because generally they can't look after themselves and they don't want to look after them. You can dress it up how you want.


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> How do you know you don't have covid? Take a test every day. You may be asymptomatic and one day that test may be positive - ergo - you have covid


Because I do know I haven't and feel no overwhelming need to explain how and why to you.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> Because I do know I haven't and feel no overwhelming need to explain how and why to you.



You may be an asymptomatic super spreader


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> You may be an asymptomatic super spreader


You're on a different planet.


----------



## Droogs

NormanB said:


> Would you be able to give the reference to the data that supports the 0.4% Covid morbidity for this occupational group. I have been searching for this data granularity without much success.


@NormanB I got it at either the ONS or from the the site schoolweek.co.uk. I was searching for the infection rate of teachers in scotland but this national figure came up in the list


edit
finally found the url The data is from may last year but I don't think the rate will have much variation since then, unless a lot of older/medical retired teachers came back into the profession to help

hth


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Get the elderly to shield themselves



Hundreds of NHS staff and many essential workers have now died from Covid.

Your over simplistic argument isn't a realistic solution, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.


----------



## Jacob

Just had the jab. Seems pretty organised here in Derbyshire. Had to drive through deep snow to get there!


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> . Its incredibly selfish from elderly wanting the whole country locked up in the name of solidarity



That is incorrect.

Without strict non pharmaceucical interventions to lower the infection rate, people getting ill from Covid will increase.

More hospital admissions means less capacity for other treatments.

Addenbrooks have now taken over a children's ward for Covid........so that is a clear example of how Covid virus is affecting younger people......Yet you want less lockdown, more infection, more people in hospital from Covid, more damage to other sectors of society than the elderly.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We have all the data on the under 60's for Covid



Yes we do

53,000. 18 to 64 year olds ended up in hospital with Covid between Sept and Jan

In the last few weeks, for example, adults aged 18-64 have accounted for 40% of daily Covid admissions to hospitals


your over simplistic argument of old versus young does not work (it never did anyway)


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Hundreds of NHS staff and many essential workers have now died from Covid.
> 
> Your over simplistic argument isn't a realistic solution, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.



They died early on when we had a pandemic. That was then, this is now. We cannot bring those people back


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes we do
> 
> 53,000. 18 to 64 year olds ended up in hospital with Covid between Sept and Jan
> 
> In the last few weeks, for example, adults aged 18-64 have accounted for 40% of daily Covid admissions to hospitals
> 
> 
> your over simplistic argument of old versus young does not work (it never did anyway)



You do realise people can go in and out of hospital very quickly? 

The data doesn't support younger people dying of covid or in ICU more


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> They died early on when we had a pandemic. That was then, this is now. We cannot bring those people back


No, they continue to die.

If we allow more infections, more will die.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You do realise people can go in and out of hospital very quickly?
> 
> The data doesn't support younger people dying of covid or in ICU more


You do realise more younger people being hospitalised means more cases of long term health issues.

You do realise if we end restrictions, the R rate will go up and more people will end up in hospital and more will die


----------



## Droogs

We are still in a pandemic now. No we can't bring them back that would be walking dead territory but we can do everything to prevent as many other people from joining them uneccessarily just for the sake of a few pence more in yours and rorschach's pocket.

after all if we apply your and rorschach's reasons for not doing as we are then, perhaps we should apply it to all disease and not have a health service at all and everybody takes their chances. Which is fine if you are happy with the fact that you being Welsh (I presume) have a really bad risk of dying very young without any medical interventions.


----------



## Rorschach

@Droogs if only it were as simple as a few pence in the pocket. You have no idea what is coming for us, you included.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The data



The data is based on the levels of people going into hospital and death rates DESPITE significant interventions.

If interventions are stopped (which is what you want), infection rate will increase and hospitals and economy will be damaged more, not less.


Unfortunately you are still arguing against lockdowns ......using data that has been the result of the lockdowns reducing infection spread. You are effectively contradicting yourself.


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> We are still in a pandemic now. No we can't bring them back that would be walking dead territory but we can do everything to prevent as many other people from joining them uneccessarily just for the sake of a few pence more in yours and rorschach's pocket.
> 
> after all if we apply your and rorschach's reasons for not doing as we are then, perhaps we should apply it to all disease and not have a health service at all and everybody takes their chances. Which is fine if you are happy with the fact that you being Welsh (I presume) have a really bad risk of dying very young without any medical interventions.



We are not in a pandemic now. It is now an endemic virus. Its nothing to do with pence in my pocket - I have done very well out of it thanks. But a lot of people I know have not and they will suffer more and I care more about those lives than you. 

We did actually apply my theory to all diseases before Covid. Health economists make decisions all the time.

Lockdowns do not work. You need to be at least slightly capable of looking at the longer term impact of the lockdown. Just a tiny bit.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> The data is based on the levels of people going into hospital and death rates DESPITE significant interventions.
> 
> If interventions are stopped (which is what you want), infection rate will increase and hospitals and economy will be damaged more, not less.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you are still arguing against lockdowns ......using data that has been the result of the lockdowns reducing infection spread. You are effectively contradicting yourself.



I don't want interventions stopped, just different interventions but you cannot conceive of anything different working. You'd be a terrible engineer! lol.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> @Droogs if only it were as simple as a few pence in the pocket. You have no idea what is coming for us, you included.


Ahh the good old lockdown versus economy argument.

It's a false argument as no lockdown would result in hospitals being totally overwhelmed forcing more draconian lockdown measures creating more economic damage

In fact that's exactly what this govt has done.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdowns do not work



Yes they do.

You are incorrect, please avoid presenting opinion as fact.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The data is based on the levels of people going into hospital and death rates DESPITE significant interventions.
> 
> If interventions are stopped (which is what you want), infection rate will increase and hospitals and economy will be damaged more, not less.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you are still arguing against lockdowns ......using data that has been the result of the lockdowns reducing infection spread. You are effectively contradicting yourself.



I didn't say stop interventions. Working from home is fine if you can do it. I didn't agree with shutting pubs and resturants, I didnt agree with shutting independent shops, I don't agree with shutting schools, leisure facilties etc.

There is no evidence without lockdowns that infection will spread once it is endemic- the case data will continue to ebb and flow as it is a seasonal endemic virus. And the case data doesn't even tell half the story - its the types of death, age of death and comorbidites that tell us most things.

Look at the Diamond Princess data again - that is the petri dish example for all of us. This is just basic basic biology. I'm just shocked you are so naive. All virus' get regulated by and large


----------



## Droogs

I have every idea of what is coming for us, I unlike you (given what you have previously said) have a total experience of what it is like to be poor and by this I mean destitute. I have lived in a bush for over a year and gotten 80% of my food from skips. I am proud to say i have never begged but have been close. I have spent most of my adult life working in the sh 1 ttiest of the worlds locations both when i was in the mil and after when I worked for and with UN and NGOs. I have seen the aftermath of epidemics and can scale that up to a pandemic for both health and wealth of countries. I know that due to incompetence and a lack of will to actually do what is needed ie total curfew and severe punishment for breaking it because there are a lot of pineapples who don't understand this disease is only spreading because they are moving around the disease doesnt have legs. As I said previously (which you scoffed at ) better 42 days house arrest than 42 weeks.

i hope you never have the need for real life saving help from another human being where they apply your logic to see if they can be bothered to provide it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I don't want interventions stopped, just different interventions but you cannot conceive of anything different working. You'd be a terrible engineer! lol.



The government has a massive resource of scientists doing loads of modelling.

What makes you think you know better?

Let's hear your "different interventions" 
So far all you've come up with is some platitudes about "focused protection"


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes they do.
> 
> You are incorrect, please avoid presenting opinion as fact.



Which one of our 3 lockdowns worked?


----------



## Droogs

none as they were not true lockdowns. knobheads and cockwombles were still able to move around and do what they wanted reagardless as they were not really punished.


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> I have every idea of what is coming for us, I unlike you (given what you have previously said) have a total experience of what it is like to be poor and by this I mean destitute. I have lived in a bush for over a year and gotten 80% of my food from skips. I am proud to say i have never begged but have been close. I have spent most of my adult life working in the sh 1 ttiest of the worlds locations both when i was in the mil and after when I worked for and with UN and NGOs. I have seen the aftermath of epidemics and can scale that up to a pandemic for both health and wealth of countries. I know that due to incompetence and a lack of will to actually do what is needed ie total curfew and severe punishment for breaking it because there are a lot of pineapples who don't understand this disease is only spreading because they are moving around the disease doesnt have legs. As I said previously (which you scoffed at ) better 42 days house arrest than 42 weeks.
> 
> i hope you never have the need for real life saving help from another human being where they apply your logic to see if they can be bothered to provide it.



You are off your rocker mate. 42 days house arrest would make no difference to an endemic virus. You want the same thing over and over again but it will not work


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> none as they were not true lockdowns. knobheads and cockwombles were still able to move around and do what they wanted reagardless as they were not really punished.



Your logic doesn't fit the data. All of these "waves" ease down before the lockdowns. Biology is a funny thing


----------



## Droogs

Selwyn said:


> Your logic doesn't fit the data. All of these "waves" ease down before the lockdowns. Biology is a funny thing


the data shows only that the speed of reaction to the wave has been greatly slowed by prevarication on the part of the authorities. After all if you notice a fire in the bedroom there is no point arranging for the fire brigade to come next week


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> There is no evidence without lockdowns that infection will spread once it is endemic



Covid is still a pandemic so you start from a false premise

And there's a new strain which has spread widely throughout the country.......which is the definition of a pandemic

BTW there is evidence that lockdowns lower infection rate....


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> the data shows only that the speed of reaction to the wave has been greatly slowed by prevarication on the part of the authorities. After all if you notice a fire in the bedroom there is no point arranging for the fire brigade to come next week



No it doesn't. The waves slow before lockdown


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Your logic doesn't fit the data. All of these "waves" ease down before the lockdowns. Biology is a funny thing


No they don't.

That was falsely claimed in March by lockdown sceptics









Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact


Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon




fullfact.org


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Covid is still a pandemic so you start from a false premise
> 
> And there's a new strain which has spread widely throughout the country.......which is the definition of a pandemic
> 
> BTW there is evidence that lockdowns lower infection rate....



It was a pandemic. It isn't now in the UK. Its now endemic. You will not get rid of it now


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No they don't.
> 
> That was falsely claimed in March by lockdown sceptics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact
> 
> 
> Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fullfact.org



That isn't a reputable site. I want proper statistical sites not signalling out individuals


----------



## Rorschach

Every wave had reached it's peak before lockdown started, governments own data shows this. You could argue this means the lockdown should have been started earlier (depends on your politics) but you cannot argue that the lockdown was necessary to lower the infection rate if it had already peaked.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Which one of our 3 lockdowns worked?


Based on what criteria?



By the way the UK has never had a full lockdown....that's an overly simplistic binary argument.

The UK has used a variety of non pharmaceutical interventions, non of which add up to complete lockdown.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> We are not in a pandemic now. It is now an endemic virus. Its nothing to do with pence in my pocket - I have done very well out of it thanks. But a lot of people I know have not and they will suffer more and I care more about those lives than you.
> 
> We did actually apply my theory to all diseases before Covid. Health economists make decisions all the time.
> 
> Lockdowns do not work. You need to be at least slightly capable of looking at the longer term impact of the lockdown. Just a tiny bit.



Here's a handy note for you to distinguish all those 'emic terms:



AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
ENDEMIC is something that belongs to a particular people or country.
AN OUTBREAK is a greater-than-anticipated increase in the number of endemic cases. It can also be a single case in a new area. If it’s not quickly controlled, an outbreak can become an epidemic.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> That isn't a reputable site. I want proper statistical sites not signalling out individuals


Ha ha 

Dishonest debating.

You've attacked what I linked without saying where or why.


----------



## Deadeye

Selwyn said:


> That isn't a reputable site. I want proper statistical sites not signalling out individuals



covidfaq.co has well-referenced rebuttals; you can drill down to your heart's content.
I do think it is appropriate to name/shame some individuals who aare promulgating demonstrable falsehoods in their own interests. Gupta being the most obvious. The site works through those issues and points to peer-reviewed evidence.


----------



## Amateur

Selwyn said:


> A huge amount of people dying of covid are over the average age of death for this country. A huge amount are in care homes. Care homes are a place people send old people because generally they can't look after themselves and they don't want to look after them. You can dress it up how you want.



A huge amount of elderly people are relied upon to administer the covid injections too.....
but I suppose you will refuse to have it given to you by someone that is over the age of death in this country?
Right?


----------



## Rorschach

I'd be interested as to how prominent scientists in well respected universities going against the media narrative would be benefiting? As far as I can see this will only be damaging to their careers and many seem to either want to go with the established narrative or just keep quiet. 

I can understand being sceptical about what a journalist or commentator says, that's fine but a professor at Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, they aren't exactly where nutters tend to get jobs are they?


----------



## Amateur

Selwyn said:


> Lockdowns do not work. You need to be at least slightly capable of looking at the longer term impact of the lockdown. Just a tiny bit.



I would probably agree with looking at the long term affects but for the fact that lockdown is global. 
Every country will suffer the same financial and economic hardship.
Every child that has lost education time will be in the same boat globally. 

You talk about thinking about the longer term impact of the virus....
You haven't even scratched the surface with your argument, and if you haven't done that, how can you recommend any way forward or ask folk to consider being capable of looking at the future?

One things for sure the next generations will have more opportunities that you think.


----------



## Selwyn

Amateur said:


> A huge amount of elderly people are relied upon to administer the covid injections too.....
> but I suppose you will refuse to have it given to you by someone that is over the age of death in this country?
> Right?



What are you talking about? You are claiming the resident of a care home now starts doing injections? I don't think may 83 year olds work do they?


----------



## Selwyn

Deadeye said:


> covidfaq.co has well-referenced rebuttals; you can drill down to your heart's content.
> I do think it is appropriate to name/shame some individuals who aare promulgating demonstrable falsehoods in their own interests. Gupta being the most obvious. The site works through those issues and points to peer-reviewed evidence.



Covidfaq isn't a proper source. Its a chilidish "takedown" of other points of view which are very valid

Sunetra Gupta is a very well established professional.


----------



## Selwyn

Amateur said:


> I would probably agree with looking at the long term affects but for the fact that lockdown is global.
> Every country will suffer the same financial and economic hardship.
> Every child that has lost education time will be in the same boat globally.
> 
> You talk about thinking about the longer term impact of the virus....
> You haven't even scratched the surface with your argument, and if you haven't done that, how can you recommend any way forward or ask folk to consider being capable of looking at the future?
> 
> One things for sure the next generations will have more opportunities that you think.



No every child has not lost education time. Every country will not suffer equally. 

When will you be happy to lift lockdown? How many deaths a day are acceptable to you? 0?

Good luck with that one!


----------



## Amateur

Selwyn said:


> No every child has not lost education time. Every country will not suffer equally.
> 
> When will you be happy to lift lockdown? How many deaths a day are acceptable to you? 0?
> 
> Good luck with that one!



You still don't get it.
So
I'll graciously bow out of this conversation.


----------



## Deadeye

Selwyn said:


> Covidfaq isn't a proper source. Its a chilidish "takedown" of other points of view which are very valid
> 
> Sunetra Gupta is a very well established professional.


Um. No


----------



## Deadeye

Selwyn said:


> Covidfaq isn't a proper source. Its a chilidish "takedown" of other points of view which are very valid
> 
> Sunetra Gupta is a very well established professional.


Also, there are still professors at respected universities that deny climate change. In both cases the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is against them. Gupta is pretty much ridiculed for pursuing a personal and political agenda from her professional platform.


----------



## Selwyn

Deadeye said:


> Also, there are still professors at respected universities that deny climate change. In both cases the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is against them. Gupta is pretty much ridiculed for pursuing a personal and political agenda from her professional platform.



They probably don't deny that the climate changes - it always has done. 

They may well be denying the predicted impact of it. What about the those academics who pushed the hockey stick graph?


----------



## doctor Bob

Amateur said:


> A huge amount of elderly people are relied upon to administer the covid injections too.....
> but I suppose you will refuse to have it given to you by someone that is over the age of death in this country?



are they really getting people aged 82+ to give injections, I've not heard this before.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> Covidfaq isn't a proper source. Its a chilidish "takedown" of other points of view which are very valid
> 
> Sunetra Gupta is a very well established professional.




Scraping the barrel there with Gupta, the very bottom of the barrel. 

Out of curiosity are you anti mask, anti vax, anti lockdown, climate change denier and pro Brexit?


----------



## Rorschach

Noel said:


> Scraping the barrel there with Gupta, the very bottom of the barrel.



Could you expand on this please?


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> Could you expand on this please?


Start here Sunetra Gupta: Covid-19 is on the way out - UnHerd note the date.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> Start here Sunetra Gupta: Covid-19 is on the way out - UnHerd note the date.



That doesn't help with what Noel said, that article just states she has a different point of view, it doesn't bring into question her academic credentials.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> That doesn't help with what Noel said, that article just states she has a different point of view, it doesn't bring into question her academic credentials.


Yes it was a different point of view but as things turned out she was hopelessly wrong.
Scientists with "academic credentials" can make errors of judgement too.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> Yes it was a different point of view but as things turned out she was hopelessly wrong.
> Scientists with "academic credentials" can make errors of judgement too.



They certainly can, just look at Neill Ferguson.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> They certainly can, just look at Neill Ferguson.


He admitted it and resigned.
She stayed on banging the same old drum and getting it wrong.
Here she is getting it all wrong again








BBC under fire for 'anti-lockdown' Oxford academic interview


THE BBC has been called 'grossly irresponsible' for airing an interview with an Oxford professor who opposes lockdowns and does not believe the new…




www.oxfordmail.co.uk


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob said:


> He admitted it and resigned.



I was referring to his models, I am not fussed about his personal activities.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach said:


> I was referring to his models, I am not fussed about his personal activities.


It was work in progress, for better or worse, and was duly corrected/processed/amended. He wasn't banging his own drum. Non of them are infallible. Critiqued coronavirus simulation gets thumbs up from code-checking efforts


----------



## D_W

Rorschach said:


> They certainly can, just look at Neill Ferguson.



Never heard of this guy, but it looks like he should've stuck to his guns. He had covid months prior, recovered and is essentially unlikely to get a significant case again. As the evidence stacks up that reinfections are minor and almost entirely asymptomatic, we'll probably find out that the spread from such folks (not just asymptomatic, but asymptomatic second or third cases for an individual) is nil.


----------



## D_W

I guess her comments about antibody testing aren't well received?

She's right. T cell reactivity is probably a better measure (I see her conclusion is just to ignore testing outcomes). Whether she's right overall is questionable (gupta, that is), but antibody testing isn't a very good measure of immunity. The better indicator by far is gauging the outcome of reinfection, and that shows very uncommon cases worse than asymptomatic or very mild. 

Interesting though that you can have one model, and people will praise it. Provide a model with a differing opinion and then the narrative isn't the reasonability of the model, it's that the person advocating it is a hate monger. 

That's very european, but that kind of attitude has been spreading over here for decades, too.


----------



## Jameshow

One of Gupta's recent (2019) papers :-

"Increased frequency of travel in the presence of cross-immunity may act to decrease the chance of a global pandemic." 

Bang on there then! 

Cheers James


----------



## Amateur

doctor Bob said:


> are they really getting people aged 82+ to give injections, I've not heard this before.


Bob
I didn't say they were.
I said 
"A lot of elderly people were relied on to administer the injections"
Which retired nurses doctors etc returning to help out have done.
To which Selwyn replied about the age of 82.....
If he wants to interpret what was written as something he just concocted to support his argument it's pointless continuing the conversation.
Never the less if he wanted clarification of what I had written he could have asked? Been civil.
But thats what happens when folk have a fixed picture in their minds.
From the start covid has been a moving target.
My original answer to the initial post was that Boris and the government have done a sterling job. Edging on the side of caution. Trying to strike a balance between work, education and the NHS admissions and keeping every sector of the UK population as safe and out of hospital as possible and saving lives.
It could quite easily have overwhelmed the population had they not contained it at every stage.
I think irrational views about the elderly from certain age groups would have been totally different if the younger population were the ones on ventilators dying.
The same people who were in outrage when Germany had it under control and our government were doing nothing. the calling. The complaining. Wanting an instant cure NOW.
Where are they now Germany are in total disarray?
And what about the shortages of vaccine for European countries and the inability of the EU to order and approve vaccines for so long? Stumbling at every step.
Nothing. Not a single word of support for our governments handling of ordering vaccines from multiple sources and approval.
All they can moan about today is removing the lockdown because it hinders their own personal lives.
Selfish people.


----------



## Amateur

And that is definitely my last word


----------



## Rorschach

Amateur said:


> A huge amount of elderly people are relied upon to administer the covid injections too.....
> but I suppose you will refuse to have it given to you by someone that is over the age of death in this country?
> Right?



@Amateur this is what you said. It's not unreasonable to assume that you meant 82+ year olds were giving out the vaccine.


----------



## Rorschach

Amateur said:


> views about the elderly from certain age groups would have been totally different if the younger population were the ones on ventilators dying.



Absolutely it would be completely different if this were killing young children for instance. I have no problem in admitting that I put greater value on the life of young people than very old people. It's not just me though, the NHS does and the government, they have guidelines and equations that not only put a moral value on life, but a financial value as well (I think it's 20k per year).


----------



## Deadeye

Rorschach said:


> Could you expand on this please?



Gupta is being widely ridiculed by my fellow virologists. Objections are bring raised with Oxford about the legitimacy of using that designation in the pronouncements (they fall miles short of the usual standards expected for publication).
But, hey, as I say I'm not going to change minds just provide info. The website is authored by a consortium of well regarded virologists and epidemiologists. It's as close to expert consensus as is available.
But tin hatters will always tin hat


----------



## Deadeye

Amateur said:


> Bob
> I didn't say they were.
> I said
> "A lot of elderly people were relied on to administer the injections"
> Which retired nurses doctors etc returning to help out have done.
> To which Selwyn replied about the age of 82.....
> If he wants to interpret what was written as something he just concocted to support his argument it's pointless continuing the conversation.
> Never the less if he wanted clarification of what I had written he could have asked? Been civil.
> But thats what happens when folk have a fixed picture in their minds.
> From the start covid has been a moving target.
> My original answer to the initial post was that Boris and the government have done a sterling job. Edging on the side of caution. Trying to strike a balance between work, education and the NHS admissions and keeping every sector of the UK population as safe and out of hospital as possible and saving lives.
> It could quite easily have overwhelmed the population had they not contained it at every stage.
> I think irrational views about the elderly from certain age groups would have been totally different if the younger population were the ones on ventilators dying.
> The same people who were in outrage when Germany had it under control and our government were doing nothing. the calling. The complaining. Wanting an instant cure NOW.
> Where are they now Germany are in total disarray?
> And what about the shortages of vaccine for European countries and the inability of the EU to order and approve vaccines for so long? Stumbling at every step.
> Nothing. Not a single word of support for our governments handling of ordering vaccines from multiple sources and approval.
> All they can moan about today is removing the lockdown because it hinders their own personal lives.
> Selfish people.


I think the elderly vs young debate is just a small part of "how has the Government handled the crisis?". Overall, not the worst, but not great either - and the difference is tens of thousands of lives.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> ut a professor at Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, they aren't exactly where nutters tend to get jobs are they



Flawed research is flawed research, Stanford or Bangor.

Great Barrington declaration is flawed......it makes zero serious attempt at backing up its claims with data nor does it drill down on its "focused protection" solution.

Gupta is discredited.......fodder for Daily Mail readers.

Here's a tip: try doing some deeper research rather than feeding your bias.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Covidfaq isn't a proper source. Its a chilidish "takedown" of other points of view which are very valid



Please could you back your claim with some evidence of where and why.

Perhaps you might like to share your source of information.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It was a pandemic. It isn't now in the UK. Its now endemic. You will not get rid of it now



It is still a pandemic.
It will become endemic

That is correct, we won't get rid of Covid. Nobody said we would.
The purpose of lockdowns are not to stop Covid, they are to reduce infection rate....which is what they do.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No it doesn't. The waves slow before lockdown


No they don't.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Every wave had reached it's peak before lockdown started, governments own data shows this


Untrue.


----------



## Sandb1g

RobinBHM said:


> You do realise more younger people being hospitalised means more cases of long term health issues.
> 
> You do realise if we end restrictions, the R rate will go up and more people will end up in hospital and more will die


Very good point


----------



## Sandb1g

RobinBHM said:


> Ahh the good old lockdown versus economy argument.
> 
> It's a false argument as no lockdown would result in hospitals being totally overwhelmed forcing more draconian lockdown measures creating more economic damage
> 
> In fact that's exactly what this govt has done.


Total agree


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> Interesting though that you can have one model, and people will praise it. Provide a model with a differing opinion and then the narrative isn't the reasonability of the model, it's that the person advocating it is a hate monger



Gupta has been proven incorrect, that is why she is discredited.


----------



## RobinBHM

Sandb1g said:


> Total agree



Fron Consett eh?

I always remember that Phileas Fogg advert: Made in Medomsley Road, Consett.


----------



## Sandb1g

RobinBHM said:


> Fron Consett eh?
> 
> I always remember that Phileas Fogg advert: Made in Medomsley Road, Consett.


Yep right next to the international airport lol


----------



## Sandb1g

It was 6 blokes took there redundancy from the steel works and set that company up


----------



## Jameshow

Covid: Number of patients on ventilators passes 4,000 for first time


Pressures on intensive care units are seeing one in 10 patients transferred to a different site.



www.bbc.co.uk





This view of the NHS and the graphs make grim reading. 

The government has no option but make interventions to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. 

Cheers James


----------



## Mark Hancock

Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.


Jameshow said:


> Covid: Number of patients on ventilators passes 4,000 for first time
> 
> 
> Pressures on intensive care units are seeing one in 10 patients transferred to a different site.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This view of the NHS and the graphs make grim reading.
> 
> The government has no option but make interventions to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
> 
> Cheers James


Spent half an hour on the phone with my step daughter and this is in line with what she talked about at the hospital where she works. She's a nurse in A&E and her hospital now has an additional ward for covid patients. She spent some time yesterday sitting with a patient until the patient's daughter arrived....the patient was classed as "end of life" so relatives are allowed in. My daughter now hates going to work because of having to deal with situations like that on a daily basis...she's not even on the covid wards but dailly has to deal with the idiots using A&E as a doctor's surgery for minor/insignificant "injuries" like a scratch on a finger who think the pandemic is just a hoax whilst 23 (that's the number she told me) ambulances queue up outside the hospital because there aren't enough staff and beds to deal with them.

Why am I posting this? 

Because I'm worried to death about my 2 step daughters; one is a nurse who works in A&E and her twin is a care assistant in a care home. The latter tested positive for covid 10 days ago and thankfully has got through it OK.....this time.
Because I am sick to death of seeing the keyboard warriors on this forum who have no contact with day to day reality posting comments based on nothing more than sitting at home googling opinions and statistics that they have found which agree with their agenda. Statistics are are not reality; they can be presented in numerous ways to say the say the same thing; e.g. they was one yesterday saying that there is a 40% increase in getting the virus if you didn't have the second vaccine within a certain time but if you checked the data it could also be presented as 4% increase...same data just expressed another way but obviously not as sensational and headline grabbing.
Those that argue against the lockdowns...speak to my step daughter who is the nurse and listen to what she and her colleagues think of your "theories"....I'd personnally like to see those "free thinkers" endure just for one week in a hospital...I doubt any of them would survive it.
I've no expectation of any rational response/discussion to this from any of the keyboard warriors that have caused me to write this post so my apologies if I don't respond... too many other important things to worry about at the moment like my family.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Your logic doesn't fit the data. All of these "waves" ease down before the lockdowns. Biology is a funny thing



Hi Selwyn

I must be missing something here so can you help me please?

When I look at the graphs the r rate, number of people in hospital and number of deaths is rising prior to each “lockdown”. The “lockdown” is then applied and after a delay each of the measures starts to fall. This to me indicates the cause of the reduction being the intervention that has taken place (imperfect though “lockdowns” may be).

I wonder if you could explain what I am missing that indicates the waves were already easing down and also your view that “lockdowns” don’t work? 

Many thanks in anticipation of your explanation of what I and others have missed.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> It is naive to think if there was no lockdown, suddenly other NHS services would be freed up.



It's naive to think that lockdown is stopping a seasonal respiratory disease and is


Rorschach said:


> @Amateur this is what you said. It's not unreasonable to assume that you meant 82+ year olds were giving out the vaccine.





Blackswanwood said:


> Hi Selwyn
> 
> I must be missing something here so can you help me please?
> 
> When I look at the graphs the r rate, number of people in hospital and number of deaths is rising prior to each “lockdown”. The “lockdown” is then applied and after a delay each of the measures starts to fall. This to me indicates the cause of the reduction being the intervention that has taken place (imperfect though “lockdowns” may be).
> 
> I wonder if you could explain what I am missing that indicates the waves were already easing down and also your view that “lockdowns” don’t work?
> 
> Many thanks in anticipation of your explanation of what I and others have missed.



Because in all cases the epidemic curve is slowing before lockdown is enacted.


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> It's naive to think that lockdown is stopping a seasonal respiratory disease and is
> 
> Because in all cases the epidemic curve is slowing before lockdown is enacted.



Thanks for taking the time to respond Selly.

What do you mean by the “epidemic curve”? I can only find published data that relates to the rate of infection, positive test results, hospital admissions and deaths. All are increasing until after the “lockdown” is enacted.

Perhaps you or Selwyn (you are different people aren’t you?) could post a link to the epidemic curve so we can all understand what is being missed?

Many thanks in anticipation of this.


----------



## Sandb1g

Jameshow said:


> Covid: Number of patients on ventilators passes 4,000 for first time
> 
> 
> Pressures on intensive care units are seeing one in 10 patients transferred to a different site.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This view of the NHS and the graphs make grim reading.
> 
> The government has no option but make interventions to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
> 
> Cheers James


.


----------



## selly

Mark Hancock said:


> Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.
> 
> Spent half an hour on the phone with my step daughter and this is in line with what she talked about at the hospital where she works. She's a nurse in A&E and her hospital now has an additional ward for covid patients. She spent some time yesterday sitting with a patient until the patient's daughter arrived....the patient was classed as "end of life" so relatives are allowed in. My daughter now hates going to work because of having to deal with situations like that on a daily basis...she's not even on the covid wards but dailly has to deal with the idiots using A&E as a doctor's surgery for minor/insignificant "injuries" like a scratch on a finger who think the pandemic is just a hoax whilst 23 (that's the number she told me) ambulances queue up outside the hospital because there aren't enough staff and beds to deal with them.
> 
> Why am I posting this?
> 
> Because I'm worried to death about my 2 step daughters; one is a nurse who works in A&E and her twin is a care assistant in a care home. The latter tested positive for covid 10 days ago and thankfully has got through it OK.....this time.
> Because I am sick to death of seeing the keyboard warriors on this forum who have no contact with day to day reality posting comments based on nothing more than sitting at home googling opinions and statistics that they have found which agree with their agenda. Statistics are are not reality; they can be presented in numerous ways to say the say the same thing; e.g. they was one yesterday saying that there is a 40% increase in getting the virus if you didn't have the second vaccine within a certain time but if you checked the data it could also be presented as 4% increase...same data just expressed another way but obviously not as sensational and headline grabbing.
> Those that argue against the lockdowns...speak to my step daughter who is the nurse and listen to what she and her colleagues think of your "theories"....I'd personnally like to see those "free thinkers" endure just for one week in a hospital...I doubt any of them would survive it.
> I've no expectation of any rational response/discussion to this from any of the keyboard warriors that have caused me to write this post so my apologies if I don't respond... too many other important things to worry about at the moment like my family.



So your daughter isn't in the covid ward and yet you are claiming the extra pressure on her is because of covid deniers? You are swallowing the govt narrative that the spread is down to "deniers" ie semi religious idea that unless you believe then you will die or are a sinner. It's not rational

The virus will spread regardless the evidence of this is the epidemic curve in Europe. We need some better weather to improve it and vaccination will help. Its quite trendy to claim that those who don't want total lockdown (because of the problems with it) are deniers but most are not.

They want sensible measures but want to keep the economy going.


----------



## selly

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks for taking the time to respond Selly.
> 
> What do you mean by the “epidemic curve”? I can only find published data that relates to the rate of infection, positive test results, hospital admissions and deaths. All are increasing until after the “lockdown” is enacted.
> 
> Perhaps you or Selwyn (you are different people aren’t you?) could post a link to the epidemic curve so we can all understand what is being missed?
> 
> Many thanks in anticipation of this.



No go and find it.


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> No go and find it.


Having tried already to do so I will have to live in hope that Selwyn comes along and proves to be more helpful. I am sure neither of you are putting these views forward without a sound basis for your point of view.

Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond and do stay safe.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Having tried already to do so I will have to live in hope that Selwyn comes along and proves to be more helpful. I am sure neither of you are putting these views forward without a sound basis for your point of view.
> 
> Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond and do stay safe.



This site has excellent easy to read graphs with 7-day averages etc. Note that it uses ONS data which lags real time data by probably 3-7 days. The ZOE app data has so far followed the ONS curves pretty closely and claims to be more accurate/ in real time, it is usually 3-4 days ahead of the ONS curve but if will still of course have it's own lag. 
You can take from it what you like but note that even official sources state that the epidemic curves were dropping or plateauing before lockdowns were introduced, pretty sure even the BBC have said this.









United Kingdom COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer


United Kingdom Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.




www.worldometers.info


----------



## selly

Blackswanwood said:


> Having tried already to do so I will have to live in hope that Selwyn comes along and proves to be more helpful. I am sure neither of you are putting these views forward without a sound basis for your point of view.
> 
> Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond and do stay safe.



Not a problem. One day you will realise lockdowns don't do what you have been conditioned to think they do. There is loads of evidence but dont rely on the BBC. Look at the Swedish data and the diamond Princess for a start. And look at the countries who did a very hard. Lockdown (Peru) vs those who haven't. 

Nz and Australia are not so useful because they quarantined before things became endemic. 

And what a mess we will have afterwards to sort out. There will be potentially 500k excess deaths to deal with and huge unemployment. Lockdown fanatics will probably claim it was worth it

Toodlepip.


----------



## brocher

Perhaps watch this damning indictment on CNN about our government’s handling of this!


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> This site has excellent easy to read graphs with 7-day averages etc. Note that it uses ONS data which lags real time data by probably 3-7 days. The ZOE app data has so far followed the ONS curves pretty closely and claims to be more accurate/ in real time, it is usually 3-4 days ahead of the ONS curve but if will still of course have it's own lag.
> You can take from it what you like but note that even official sources state that the epidemic curves were dropping or plateauing before lockdowns were introduced, pretty sure even the BBC have said this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Kingdom COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
> 
> 
> United Kingdom Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.worldometers.info


Thanks ... but isn’t this the key graph (taken from the link you provided) which doesn’t show a peak before intevention?


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> Not a problem. One day you will realise lockdowns don't do what you have been conditioned to think they do. There is loads of evidence but dont rely on the BBC. Look at the Swedish data and the diamond Princess for a start. And look at the countries who did a very hard. Lockdown (Peru) vs those who haven't.
> 
> Nz and Australia are not so useful because they quarantined before things became endemic.
> 
> And what a mess we will have afterwards to sort out. There will be potentially 500k excess deaths to deal with and huge unemployment. Lockdown fanatics will probably claim it was worth it
> 
> Toodlepip.


It’s okay Selly. I’ll wait for Selwyn to come along with his data sources and consider them. Thanks again.


----------



## selly

Blackswanwood said:


> It’s okay Selly. I’ll wait for Selwyn to come along with his data sources and consider them. Thanks again.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> You'd be better off just staying in your bedroom for the next 2 years


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> t's naive to think that lockdown is stopping a seasonal respiratory disease and is


WRONG

Covid is not currently seasonal, it is a pandemic.

Go and read the WHO


----------



## RobinBHM

Ad hominem

It is a deflection tactic used by those who have no counter argument.

Routinely used in this thread by those who believe there is a better option than lockdowns (but are never able to provide any detail).


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Look at the Swedish data and the diamond Princess for a start



Neither prove lockdowns don't work


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Nz and Australia are not so useful because they quarantined before things became endemic



Thank you for agreeing lockdowns work

Viroligists have been say since start of last year: the harder and faster you lockdown, the less economic damage there is and less deaths.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> And what a mess we will have afterwards to sort out. There will be potentially 500k excess deaths to deal with and huge unemployment. Lockdown fanatics will probably claim it was worth



Ah the stock answer of the anti lockdowners.

Selly do you not realise no lockdown would quite simply mean community infection levels would be so high, many more people would become ill overloading hospitals.

That would lead to massive excess deaths Covid and non Covid and mass unemployment.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> They want sensible measures but want to keep the economy going


UK lockdowns have always kept the economy going.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks ... but isn’t this the key graph (taken from the link you provided) which doesn’t show a peak before intevention?
> 
> View attachment 101620



That wouldn't be the graph I would use for that determination.


----------



## Deadeye

Mark Hancock said:


> Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.
> 
> Spent half an hour on the phone with my step daughter and this is in line with what she talked about at the hospital where she works. She's a nurse in A&E and her hospital now has an additional ward for covid patients. She spent some time yesterday sitting with a patient until the patient's daughter arrived....the patient was classed as "end of life" so relatives are allowed in. My daughter now hates going to work because of having to deal with situations like that on a daily basis...she's not even on the covid wards but dailly has to deal with the idiots using A&E as a doctor's surgery for minor/insignificant "injuries" like a scratch on a finger who think the pandemic is just a hoax whilst 23 (that's the number she told me) ambulances queue up outside the hospital because there aren't enough staff and beds to deal with them.
> 
> Why am I posting this?
> 
> Because I'm worried to death about my 2 step daughters; one is a nurse who works in A&E and her twin is a care assistant in a care home. The latter tested positive for covid 10 days ago and thankfully has got through it OK.....this time.
> Because I am sick to death of seeing the keyboard warriors on this forum who have no contact with day to day reality posting comments based on nothing more than sitting at home googling opinions and statistics that they have found which agree with their agenda. Statistics are are not reality; they can be presented in numerous ways to say the say the same thing; e.g. they was one yesterday saying that there is a 40% increase in getting the virus if you didn't have the second vaccine within a certain time but if you checked the data it could also be presented as 4% increase...same data just expressed another way but obviously not as sensational and headline grabbing.
> Those that argue against the lockdowns...speak to my step daughter who is the nurse and listen to what she and her colleagues think of your "theories"....I'd personnally like to see those "free thinkers" endure just for one week in a hospital...I doubt any of them would survive it.
> I've no expectation of any rational response/discussion to this from any of the keyboard warriors that have caused me to write this post so my apologies if I don't respond... too many other important things to worry about at the moment like my family.



Not sure who you're including in your "keyboard warriers". 

My son is an A&E doctor; my daughter is an HCA pending going to medical school; I used to be a virologist and currently sit on an acute hospital Board.

I've provided a pre-publication paper authored by people that would be widely seen as expert; I've provided a website collating evidential, peer-reviewed published information addressing many myths again authored by a consortium of highly respected specialists in the field. 

I generally stay out of these threads, but there's so much nonsense spouted I thought it worthwhile to at least make some solid data available and point out that a few people (like Gupta) are miles away from the scientific consensus and viewed as dangerously irresponsible.

I'm not taking pot shots at ordinary folk who have reached incorrect conclusions; but I am condemning those who should (and probably do) know better for leading them there...and attempting to help people back to where the evidential concensus is.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Ah the stock answer of the anti lockdowners.
> 
> Selly do you not realise no lockdown would quite simply mean community infection levels would be so high, many more people would become ill overloading hospitals.
> 
> That would lead to massive excess deaths Covid and non Covid and mass unemployment.



No it wouldn't. The infection rate is fairly similar around the world


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> WRONG
> 
> Covid is not currently seasonal, it is a pandemic.
> 
> Go and read the WHO



It is evidentially seasonal


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> even official sources state that the epidemic curves were dropping or plateauing before lockdowns were introduced



No they don't.

JoinZoe website says: "it depends"








Did lockdown 2.0 work? Here’s what’s going on with COVID-19 across the country


With the English lockdown due to be lifted soon ZOE COVID Symptom Study lead scientist Professor Tim Spector discusses whether the latest lockdown measures worked.




covid.joinzoe.com





There was a tiered system in place before lockdown....and highest infection areas had pretty much same restrictions as lockdown

And BBC says: "infections actually rose after lockdown"

"When Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the UK lockdown on Monday 23 March, there were "a lot of infected people who suddenly were stuck together, and they infected each other", says KCL epidemiologist Prof Tim Spector.
The peak of the epidemic came nine days later, the researchers believe, on 1 April. They estimate more than two million people aged 20-69 had Covid-19 symptoms in the UK at this point - or 50 in every 1,000 people."


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Neither prove lockdowns don't work



I would rather see the evidence they do work. The huge areas of transmission are care homes and in nosocomial.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is evidentially seasonal


In your opinion, which is is incorrect according to WHO


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I would rather see the evidence they do work.



Detailed analysis of non pharmaceutical interventions here:









Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour


Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.




www.nature.com





Evidence shows lockdowns do work.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> That wouldn't be the graph I would use for that determination.


Okay but which one would you use?


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> No it wouldn't. The infection rate is fairly similar around the world


Clearly untrue.


----------



## RobinBHM

Blackswanwood said:


> Okay but which one would you use?


He doesn't like your graph


----------



## Blackswanwood

Not sure I follow your logic there Shelly? Staying in my bedroom won’t really help anything but thanks for the constructive suggestion.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Okay but which one would you use?



Deaths is probably the most accurate, not the actual figures as that is debatable but the curve is probably the most accurate indicator of the pandemic that we have at the moment.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Deadeye said:


> Not sure who you're including in your "keyboard warriers".
> 
> My son is an A&E doctor; my daughter is an HCA pending going to medical school; I used to be a virologist and currently sit on an acute hospital Board.
> 
> I've provided a pre-publication paper authored by people that would be widely seen as expert; I've provided a website collating evidential, peer-reviewed published information addressing many myths again authored by a consortium of highly respected specialists in the field.
> 
> I generally stay out of these threads, but there's so much nonsense spouted I thought it worthwhile to at least make some solid data available and point out that a few people (like Gupta) are miles away from the scientific consensus and viewed as dangerously irresponsible.
> 
> I'm not taking pot shots at ordinary folk who have reached incorrect conclusions; but I am condemning those who should (and probably do) know better for leading them there...and attempting to help people back to where the evidential concensus is.


Amen to that.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Deaths is probably the most accurate, not the actual figures as that is debatable but the curve is probably the most accurate indicator of the pandemic that we have at the moment.



And the Covid death statistics are all based on deaths that have happened despite govt restrictions.
And as such making comparisons with anything else is meaningless. (I.e. with flu).


----------



## RobinBHM

Deadeye said:


> point out that a few people (like Gupta) are miles away from the scientific consensus and viewed as dangerously irresponsible



The outliers like Gupta get far far more media interest than the main body of scientists who agree.

Mostly because controversy is more exciting than "the norm"


I think it's fairly obvious, this government and most others have access to a huge pool of scientists all constantly looking at data and modelling different options.

What I don't understand is why so many people on here think governments have got it wrong and they know better.

What is the psychology that drives people to think their research is better than the governments?
Is it simply some people can't handle being told what to do, for collective benefit?


----------



## selectortone

Deadeye said:


> Not sure who you're including in your "keyboard warriers".
> 
> My son is an A&E doctor; my daughter is an HCA pending going to medical school; I used to be a virologist and currently sit on an acute hospital Board.
> 
> I've provided a pre-publication paper authored by people that would be widely seen as expert; I've provided a website collating evidential, peer-reviewed published information addressing many myths again authored by a consortium of highly respected specialists in the field.
> 
> I generally stay out of these threads, but there's so much nonsense spouted I thought it worthwhile to at least make some solid data available and point out that a few people (like Gupta) are miles away from the scientific consensus and viewed as dangerously irresponsible.
> 
> I'm not taking pot shots at ordinary folk who have reached incorrect conclusions; but I am condemning those who should (and probably do) know better for leading them there...and attempting to help people back to where the evidential concensus is.



I find it hard to understand how any of the amateur experts on here can read that and then argue otherwise. But they will.


----------



## doctor Bob

If we do get variations of the virus, which make the vaccine less effective.
Do we keep locking down forever or resign ourselves that we cannot beat it and return to open life.
I feel very lucky, lockdown is OK for me, but for some it must be horrendous


----------



## Jake

The mRNA vaccines in particular can be re-done pretty quickly (talk of before the end of the year).


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> If we do get variations of the virus, which make the vaccine less effective.
> Do we keep locking down forever or resign ourselves that we cannot beat it and return to open life.
> I feel very lucky, lockdown is OK for me, but for some it must be horrendous



Depends who you ask, members on here seem to be quite happy locking down for as long as possible.

I heard a virologist interviewed (quite a while ago now, in the summer) and she was asked why did we lock down for C19 and not when we have a bad flu year. Her response was basically "we should lockdown" which to me is terrifying to be honest, there are a group of people out there who see any death as one too many and are willing to remove any freedom to achieve their goals. You will note that no-one has answered my question of what is an acceptable number of deaths, I suspect it is because they think the number should be zero but know they can't be seen to say that because it's sheer madness.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jake said:


> The mRNA vaccines in particular can be re-done pretty quickly (talk of before the end of the year).



Sorry Jake, not being arguementative, just not sure what you mean.
Are you saying it would be an annual vaccine like flue jab.


----------



## Jake

Maybe Bob, but part of the problem is that every case is a chance for the virus to mutate.


----------



## doctor Bob

So that'smy point really Jake, we seem to have had 2 mutations or more in fairly quick space of time, what if we get a resistant strain. Do we keep locking down forever.

Resistant may not be the right word, but I'm sure you all understand my drift.


----------



## Jake

Rorschach said:


> You will note that no-one has answered my question of what is an acceptable number of deaths, I suspect it is because they think the number should be zero but know they can't be seen to say that because it's sheer madness.



In the absence of effective NPIs, the death toll can be expected to be comparable to Wuhan or Lombardy with health service swamped. IFR well above 5% (which would be 3.3 million dead). I don't think that is acceptable.


----------



## Jake

We either accept the outcome above as the price for carrying on as if things were normal, or we try to suppress the number of cases so there are fewer chances for mutation pending vaccine roll-out and (responsibly obtained) herd immunity.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You will note that no-one has answered my question of what is an acceptable number of deaths



you are the one that wants less or no lockdown

you need to tell us what is an acceptable number of deaths

please can you provide the modelling for the number of deaths as a result of no lockdown

please can you provide the modelling of extra non covid deaths a a result of no lockdown


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Deaths is probably the most accurate, not the actual figures as that is debatable but the curve is probably the most accurate indicator of the pandemic that we have at the moment.


Okay ...so using deaths from your link this is what I see? The peaks seem to be after interventions have been made?






I genuinely don’t see how it can be claimed that any of the waves peaked before lockdowns came into play and it doesn’t necessarily follow that having that view means I’m pro-lockdown at any cost.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You will note that no-one has answered my question of what is an acceptable number of deaths, I suspect it is because they think the number should be zero but know they can't be seen to say that because it's sheer madness.


nicely set up strawman


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> you are the one that wants less or no lockdown
> 
> you need to tell us what is an acceptable number of deaths
> 
> please can you provide the modelling for the number of deaths as a result of no lockdown
> 
> please can you provide the modelling of extra non covid deaths a a result of no lockdown



The modelling is just that - modelling. 

The extra covid deaths because of lockdown are 30k for 2020 but have been modelled by Bristol Uni at potentially 500k later on. If that doesn't bother you then you really swallow the whole thing.

Infection in the home is way worse now than before


----------



## RobinBHM

RobinBHM said:


> please can you provide the modelling for the number of deaths as a result of no lockdown
> 
> please can you provide the modelling of extra non covid deaths a a result of no lockdown



It seems Rorschach cant provide any modelling or data to back his "non lockdown" solution....but continues to argue the case for it.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Okay ...so using deaths from your link this is what I see? The peaks seem to be after interventions have been made?
> 
> View attachment 101635
> 
> I genuinely don’t see how it can be claimed that any of the waves peaked before lockdowns came into play and it doesn’t necessarily follow that having that view means I’m pro-lockdown at any cost.



Yes the peak is after intervention but the key really is how soon. If the peak of deaths was 1 day after intervention then clearly the lockdown wasn't needed because it is impossible that people would stop dying that quickly. The argument really depends on how long you think it takes from infection to death and compare that to the date between lockdown and deaths peaking. It's generally accepted that the peak of deaths was around April 7th-9th (the graph shows later but data lags the actual deaths by several days at least). That puts it around 2 weeks after lockdown started. Your opinion on what this means will depend on if you think 2 weeks is an acceptable time from infection to death, most doctors would say it is 3 weeks minimum, possibly 4 weeks. 

I'm not going to try and convince you, you can take what you like from that data, I know what I think and I am not alone in that opinion


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The extra covid deaths because of lockdown are 30k for 2020




If covid admissions are filling hospitals stopping other treatments....please explain how no lockdown will not do the same, but worse?


----------



## doctor Bob

My gut feeling now is normallity is gone, yes things will open up in the summer but events, gatherings, live entertainment and hospitality are as good as gone for 2-3 years.
Holidays will become a thing for wealthy people.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> That puts it around 2 weeks after lockdown started. Your opinion on what this means will depend on if you think 2 weeks is an acceptable time from infection to death, most doctors would say it is 3 weeks minimum, possibly 4 weeks.



Incorrect

average time of death from symptom to death in 1st lockdown = 13 days
average time of infection to start of symptoms = 4 days

time from 23rd march to 8th April = 16 days

And once you add in the fact that significant restrictions started before lockdown and for tolerance in the dats accuracy, your argument is incorrect

sources:


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928729/S0803_CO-CIN_-_Time_from_symptom_onset_until_death.pdf











If you've been exposed to the coronavirus - Harvard Health


As COVID-19 continues to spread, the chances that you will be exposed and get sick continue to increase. If you've been exposed to someone with COVID-19 or begin to experience symptoms of the disease, you may be asked to self-quarantine or self-isola...




www.health.harvard.edu




.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> Yes the peak is after intervention but the key really is how soon. If the peak of deaths was 1 day after intervention then clearly the lockdown wasn't needed because it is impossible that people would stop dying that quickly. The argument really depends on how long you think it takes from infection to death and compare that to the date between lockdown and deaths peaking. It's generally accepted that the peak of deaths was around April 7th-9th (the graph shows later but data lags the actual deaths by several days at least). That puts it around 2 weeks after lockdown started. Your opinion on what this means will depend on if you think 2 weeks is an acceptable time from infection to death, most doctors would say it is 3 weeks minimum, possibly 4 weeks.
> 
> I'm not going to try and convince you, you can take what you like from that data, I know what I think and I am not alone in that opinion


Okay thanks and it’s fine by me for us to have different opinions.

I think what you are saying is subtly different to the assertion from Selwyn and backed up by Selly (albeit Selwyn has not yet replied to me asking if he could substantiate his view with data).

On your point the alternative view that I take is that lockdowns have been preceded by a message of “it’s coming” and this has possibly resulted in changes in behaviour that curtail the spread. 

I also think the missing piece of information (which we will never have) in a lot of the points of debate is what would have happened if a different course had been taken. In the case of lockdowns the consensus amongst most of the scientific community seems to be that not having done it would have been far worse. 

I’m out of this debate now as it’s reached and gone past some time ago the point where there is anything new being said. Although is Selwyn would share his secret source of insight that may freshen things up a bit 

Stay safe.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> If covid admissions are filling hospitals stopping other treatments....please explain how no lockdown will not do the same, but worse?



I don't think lockdown makes any difference I've told you that.

I wasn't against the very first one for a few weeks whilst we got our house in order but that went on far too long. The later ones have been pointless and do more harm than good.


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> My gut feeling now is normallity is gone, yes things will open up in the summer but events, gatherings, live entertainment and hospitality are as good as gone for 2-3 years.
> Holidays will become a thing for wealthy people.



The rich have got very rich and the poor will become poorer.


----------



## doctor Bob

Selwyn said:


> The rich have got very rich and the poor will become poorer.


Agreed, covid unemployment seems to be really hitting low paid jobs.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Okay thanks and it’s fine by me for us to have different opinions.
> 
> I think what you are saying is subtly different to the assertion from Selwyn and backed up by Selly (albeit Selwyn has not yet replied to me asking if he could substantiate his view with data).
> 
> On your point the alternative view that I take is that lockdowns have been preceded by a message of “it’s coming” and this has possibly resulted in changes in behaviour that curtail the spread.
> 
> I also think the missing piece of information (which we will never have) in a lot of the points of debate is what would have happened if a different course had been taken. In the case of lockdowns the consensus amongst most of the scientific community seems to be that not having done it would have been far worse.
> 
> I’m out of this debate now as it’s reached and gone past some time ago the point where there is anything new being said. Although is Selwyn would share his secret source of insight that may freshen things up a bit
> 
> Stay safe.



You can pretend that we don't have any alternative information on what may have happened if you want but that would be to ignore a history of immunology. It would mean to ignore Sweden and Belarus. Ignore the Diamond Princess petri dish etc. 

If the internet hadn't been invented we would hardly even notice covid outside of hotspots


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> Agreed, covid unemployment seems to be really hitting low paid jobs.



Its a tragedy looming. A huge one.

Idiots think those jobs will start again after furlough. They won't


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I don't think lockdown makes any difference I've told you that


thats opinion only

heres some data from a respected source** that says lockdowns do make a difference:

from *nature.com published 21st Jan 2021*

" Using daily data from 175 countries, we show that, even after controlling for other concurrent lockdown policies, cancelling _public events_, imposing restrictions on _private gatherings_ and closing _schools_ and _workplaces_ had significant effects on reducing COVID-19 infections. "








Estimating worldwide effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 incidence and population mobility patterns using a multiple-event study - Scientific Reports


Various non-pharmaceutical interventions were adopted by countries worldwide in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic with adverse socioeconomic side effects, which raises the question about their differential effectiveness. We estimate the average dynamic effect of each intervention on the...




www.nature.com







** *Nature* was one of the world's most cited scientific journals by the Science Edition of the 2019 Journal Citation Reports (with an ascribed impact factor of 42.778), making it one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Ignore the Diamond Princess


This is what the Diamond Princess proved:

the day the quarantine was introduced, one person could go on to infect more than 7 others. 

But after people were confined to their rooms, the average number of others to whom one infected person passed the virus dropped below one. This suggests that the quarantine averted a lot of infections 

from nature.com








What the cruise-ship outbreaks reveal about COVID-19


Close confines help the virus to spread, but closed environments are also an ideal place to study how the new coronavirus behaves.




www.nature.com





*It proved lockdowns work*


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> This is what the Diamond Princess proved:
> 
> the day the quarantine was introduced, one person could go on to infect more than 7 others.
> 
> But after people were confined to their rooms, the average number of others to whom one infected person passed the virus dropped below one. This suggests that the quarantine averted a lot of infections
> 
> from nature.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the cruise-ship outbreaks reveal about COVID-19
> 
> 
> Close confines help the virus to spread, but closed environments are also an ideal place to study how the new coronavirus behaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It proved lockdowns work*



That is nearly a year old and totally oudated. It wasnt a proper quarantine in any form. It did give us a very good idea of how a virus in the petri dish of a ship is becomes limited though and an idea of the IFR of covid early on.

The case fatality rate of Covid is very low


----------



## NormanB

Lons said:


> Because I do know I haven't and feel no overwhelming need to explain how and why to you.


----------



## NormanB

Droogs said:


> @NormanB I got it at either the ONS or from the the site schoolweek.co.uk. I was searching for the infection rate of teachers in scotland but this national figure came up in the list
> 
> 
> edit
> finally found the url The data is from may last year but I don't think the rate will have much variation since then, unless a lot of older/medical retired teachers came back into the profession to help
> 
> hth


Thanks
Much as I thought, no substantive evidence at all, as caveated by the authors. That is the danger of people reading these studies and drawing and amplifying the conclusions to make a point which the authors would absolutely disassociate themselves from.


----------



## NormanB

Selwyn said:


> snipped
> 
> Sunetra Gupta is a very well established professional.



She has been a professional for a long time = very well established.
She has also been comprehensively discredited.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

A few somewhat disconnected thoughts.

I am inclined to believe the consensus of scientific opinion. It may be wrong, but is likely to be much more reliable than relying on outlier opinions. Gupta sits comfortably in the latter group.

Suggesting lockdown does not work based on when cases and deaths began to fall subsequently is flawed. It is also a completely counter-intuitive. Partly due to the reluctance of the UK govt to act early, it is more likely behaviours changed in anticipation of lockdown. 

Many suggested in summer 2020 that the Covid problem was over. They were evidently very wrong as cases increased rapidly from September, not helped by a mutated virus.

The base and best data is provided by ONS. Relying on some form of modified data set (time slipped etc?) simply confuses the issue. My instinct is to distrust conclusions so drawn.

The virus cannot be completely eliminated and will only become a "non-threat" with herd immunity. (70%+) Lockdown slows transmission but simply extends duration and economic hardship. The vaccine in supporting herd immunity now means duration may be less of an issue.

Implicit in less than 100% immunity is the acceptance that cases will continue to emerge. We need to be explicit about the acceptable level of infection and death. This is no different to other viruses - eg flu.

The government are being very evasive. As of now there may be insufficient data, but this should rapidly emerge:

does the vaccine stop onward virus transmission
what is the efficacy of 12 week wait for 2nd jab vs 2/3 weeks
even if timing is uncertain - what are the priorities for relaxation
In any event when it becomes evident that the NHS load is declining materially, enforcing restrictions will become increasingly unsustainable.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> A few somewhat disconnected thoughts.
> 
> I am inclined to believe the consensus of scientific opinion. It may be wrong, but is likely to be much more reliable than relying on outlier opinions. Gupta sits comfortably in the latter group.
> 
> Suggesting lockdown does not work based on when cases and deaths began to fall subsequently is flawed. It is also a completely counter-intuitive. Partly due to the reluctance of the UK govt to act early, it is more likely behaviours changed in anticipation of lockdown.
> 
> Many suggested in summer 2020 that the Covid problem was over. They were evidently very wrong as cases increased rapidly from September, not helped by a mutated virus.
> 
> The base and best data is provided by ONS. Relying on some form of modified data set (time slipped etc?) simply confuses the issue. My instinct is to distrust conclusions so drawn.
> 
> The virus cannot be completely eliminated and will only become a "non-threat" with herd immunity. (70%+) Lockdown slows transmission but simply extends duration and economic hardship. The vaccine in supporting herd immunity now means duration may be less of an issue.
> 
> Implicit in less than 100% immunity is the acceptance that cases will continue to emerge. We need to be explicit about the acceptable level of infection and death. This is no different to other viruses - eg flu.
> 
> The government are being very evasive. As of now there may be insufficient data, but this should rapidly emerge:
> 
> does the vaccine stop onward virus transmission
> what is the efficacy of 12 week wait for 2nd jab vs 2/3 weeks
> even if timing is uncertain - what are the priorities for relaxation
> In any event when it becomes evident that the NHS load is declining materially, enforcing restrictions will become increasingly unsustainable.



Lockdown doesn't slow transmission. The evidence suggests the transmission is slowing before lockdown. If you say its flawed to state that lockdown based on when cases and deaths fall then ergo shall we do the same for mask wearing then? Because the more masks we have worn the more cases have risen. Even the Wales early lockdown data shows that. 

The Covid problem will probably be "over" this summer as well as it has already become seasonal like other covid virus. There is a good deal of evidence that people sitting about in the same house is as likely to increase transmission as when going out and about and mixing with others for a shorter length of time/ outside/ in different areas isn't any worse. It may seem paradoxical but it is also consistent with a lot of hard lockdown countries once the virus is endemic. 

What is keeping the lockdown going is the furlough.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> That is nearly a year old and totally oudated. It wasnt a proper quarantine in any form. It did give us a very good idea of how a virus in the petri dish of a ship is becomes limited though and an idea of the IFR of covid early on.
> 
> The case fatality rate of Covid is very low


Incorrect on all counts.


----------



## Jacob

Selwyn said:


> ..... Because the more masks we have worn the more cases have risen. Even the Wales early lockdown data shows that.


If it was cause and effect it was more likely the other way around; that as cases rose the argument for mask wearing became more convincing.
It's a bit like the false teeth conundrum; more dead people have false teeth compared to the average, ergo false teeth are a cause of death.
If you are looking for a change of subject Selwyn you could try scrub planes? It could run and run!
Or what about a new sharpening thread?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown doesn't slow transmission



Yes it does.

The evidence proves it









Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour


Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.




www.nature.com





I note that you persist in the binary "lockdown" argument.

There's no such thing as a lockdown as such, its a bunch of separate non pharmaceutical interventions.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> y become seasonal like other covid virus


No it hasn't.

Researchers predict that COVID-19 will likely become seasonal, waning in the summer and prevalent in the winter. But, only once herd immunity is achieved through natural infection or vaccinations

Why are you so adverse to facts


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> What is keeping the lockdown going is the furlough



Covid is the reason the lockdown continues.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The evidence suggests the transmission is slowing before lockdown


In your opinion, which is not backed up by evidence.

I have already provided the evidence that disproves that, as have others.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It did give us a very good idea of how a virus in the petri dish of a ship is becomes limited though



There isn't such a limiting factor in the community though....as shown by areas of the country that have peaks at different times.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> You can pretend that we don't have any alternative information on what may have happened if you want but that would be to ignore a history of immunology. It would mean to ignore Sweden and Belarus. Ignore the Diamond Princess petri dish etc.
> 
> If the internet hadn't been invented we would hardly even notice covid outside of hotspots



I am not pretending we don’t have any alternative information Selwyn but I cannot find anything that points to your assertion that the “epidemic curve“ has peaked before each lockdown.

Look at Sweden, Belarus and the Diamond Princess hardly constitutes a reasoned argument. I was wondering if you were an expert in immunology, epidemiology or another field of data analysis but am now thinking not.

Anyway - stay safe - neither of us are running the country so it doesn’t really matter that our opinions differ.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Anyway - stay safe - neither of us are running the country so it doesn’t really matter that our opinions differ.



Why can't all the contributors have an attitude like this?


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> Why can't all the contributors have an attitude like this?


You must see the irony


----------



## Rorschach

Petehpkns said:


> You must see the irony



Why? I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, I think they are wrong and I enjoy the debate but I don't attack them personally for it. I don't even say horrible things about rafezetter and he regularly calls me a genocidal nazi.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> I am not pretending we don’t have any alternative information Selwyn but I cannot find anything that points to your assertion that the “epidemic curve“ has peaked before each lockdown.
> 
> Look at Sweden, Belarus and the Diamond Princess hardly constitutes a reasoned argument.  I was wondering if you were an expert in immunology, epidemiology or another field of data analysis but am now thinking not.
> 
> Anyway - stay safe - neither of us are running the country so it doesn’t really matter that our opinions differ.



Don't dismiss these key areas which are showing us another way. The Dakotas too. Florida too


----------



## Petehpkns

Rorschach said:


> Why? I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, I think they are wrong and I enjoy the debate but I don't attack them personally for it. I don't even say horrible things about rafezetter and he regularly calls me a genocidal nazi.



Post 544 
“@RobinBHM see you can you can use evidence, that wasn't so hard was it?”


----------



## Deadeye

__





The information warriors fighting 'robot zombie army' of coronavirus sceptics






www.msn.com





A bit more about the website I pointed at.


----------



## billw

Regardless of the government's reaction, it's quite sobering to think that we've now spent theb


Deadeye said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information warriors fighting 'robot zombie army' of coronavirus sceptics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more about the website I pointed at.



Well, one of the problems with free speech is that you can freely transmit absolute ballcocks over and over again and there's no recourse even when you've been proved wrong. Hard to argue when the reply is "well your facts are wrong". 

Worse still, there's probably no feasible way of making it illegal to be a serial liar because it would inevitably infringe on rights and the public would have an absolute meltdown.


----------



## Misterdog

All we needed to do was follow the science.



> As recently as October, an international review of pandemic planning ranked the UK the second best prepared country in the world (behind the US).
> 
> 3. RAPID RESPONSE TO
> AND MITIGATION OF THE
> SPREAD OF AN EPIDEMIC
> Rank Score
> 1 United Kingdom 91.9



Though maybe some science is different to others ?


----------



## doctor Bob

0.5 million vaccines per day, like or loath the government, something is going right.
Feel free to knock the gov't and say it's the NHS or someone else, but for me I don't care all I want to see is high numbers. Whoever is in control of this is doing a good job.
Sure someone will be along explaining that X person in charge would have tripled it by now, or they know granny whatsymecally who's 99 with 6 co mortality illnesses .............. but life is full of pessimists, being 2nd or 3rd in the world for vaccine doses cannot be a bad thing. Some will, unfortunately politics and opinions are binary and not blended these days.

I really am delighted that generally the program for innoculation seems to be going very very well.


----------



## doctor Bob

So when would you all say pinapples, and start to break rules. I assume the majority have bent the rules already, so I mean proper break them
Anyone who says they have not bent the rules slightly is a true saint. For me it was taking my parents to have there vaccination. I'm not in their bubble, but I wasn't going to rely on a taxi, for 2 x 87y/o, one of whom is wheelchair bound.

For me, maybe if we are still in lockdown in the summer. I'll start to see my parents.


----------



## Notters

RobinBHM said:


> In your opinion, which is not backed up by evidence.
> 
> I have already provided the evidence that disproves that, as have others.


OH GAWD!


----------



## RobinBHM

Petehpkns said:


> Post 544
> “@RobinBHM see you can you can use evidence, that wasn't so hard was it?”



Clearly Rorschach does have a problem with other people having opinions.....especially ones backed up with evidence.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> So when would you all say pinapples, and start to break rules. I assume the majority have bent the rules already, so I mean proper break them
> Anyone who says they have not bent the rules slightly is a true saint. For me it was taking my parents to have there vaccination. I'm not in their bubble, but I wasn't going to rely on a taxi, for 2 x 87y/o, one of whom is wheelchair bound.
> 
> For me, maybe if we are still in lockdown in the summer. I'll start to see my parents.



Some might be surprised to hear but I have bent/broken very few rules considering I hate them so much. The only one that comes to mind right now is that we formed a "bubble" before bubbles were legal. Oh and we did break the rule of 6 a couple of times as it was farcical that we could send the children outside and be legal, then swap the children for the parents on the same day and still be legal. Madness.


----------



## julianf

doctor Bob said:


> I really am delighted that generally the program for innoculation seems to be going very very well.



You know penicillin, and how it doesn't really work that well any more?

How, whenever you're on a course of antibiotics, you're strongly encouraged to complete the course, no matter what, so as to protect the rest of society from resistance?

You are aware of how the UK government is bending statistics, once again, by not meeting the correct window between jabs?



> The doctors' union said the UK's strategy "has become increasingly isolated internationally" and "is proving evermore difficult to justify".



Again, - 



doctor Bob said:


> I really am delighted that generally the program for innoculation seems to be going very very well.



Its not my intention to be confrontational, however, i must point out the difference between your opinion and the opinion of others.









Covid: Gap between Pfizer vaccine doses should be halved, say doctors


Delaying second Pfizer doses to give more people their first is "difficult to justify", says BMA.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Droogs

Perhaps the BMA should go on strike until Bog Gob and his ilk agree to them doing it properly


----------



## doctor Bob

julianf said:


> Its not my intention to be confrontational, however, i must point out the difference between your opinion and the opinion of others.



Of course, no problem, just pleased I'm an optimist it make life much more fun and colourful.
Don't get ,me wrong like you I'm not being confrontational, I just feel it's important to tell you that I'm very happy positive person and I really like it that way, rather than being dower.


----------



## doctor Bob

Droogs said:


> Perhaps the BMA should go on strike until Bog Gob and his ilk agree to them doing it properly


Are you serious?


----------



## Droogs

no Bob it is just an irreverant and flippant remark, though  who knows ...


----------



## Terry - Somerset

2/3 weeks or 12 weeks - from a public health perspective if the latter gives over 50% of the benefit compared to the former it is no contest.

Ask yourself (best Clint Eastwood style) "do you feel lucky punk". How would you feel if you were one of the 50% not vaccinated because the rollout stuck to the original 2/3 week second jab.

As far as breaking the rules - I will assess my own risk and that of the community. Right now the government are being evasive - but in 3/4 weeks they should have enough data to understand:

vaccine effectiveness in practice noting that it takes a few weeks for resistance to develop
the extent of virus transmission post vaccine.
By middle/end of February, a very material virus related change aside, people will increasingly act on their assessment risk and simply ignore restrictions - in particular the vaccinated and the young. 

Lockdown is effective when only a small number push the envelope. Policing restrictions will be impossible when millions are prepared to simply ignore the rules.


----------



## julianf

Terry - Somerset said:


> 2/3 weeks or 12 weeks - from a public health perspective if the latter gives over 50% of the benefit compared to the former it is no contest.



The concern about binning the antibiotics when you start feeling better is not so much about you getting ill again, but about what you are trying to kill off becoming resilliant.

Again, that is a significant reason why so many antibiotics are becoming useless in so many treatments.

That's antibiotics. Which humanity has already largely diminished the effectiveness of due to misuse.

The concern is that, if the vaccine for covid is misused in a similar way, then, in a similar way, it's effectiveness, for humanity in general, not just those on our little island, will be diminished.

That is what other countries, looking at the UK's behaviour, are concerned about.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

doctor Bob said:


> So that'smy point really Jake, we seem to have had 2 mutations or more in fairly quick space of time, what if we get a resistant strain. Do we keep locking down forever.
> 
> Resistant may not be the right word, but I'm sure you all understand my drift.


Bob - we've had thousands of different mutations/variants (difficult to quantify because most countries have less widely deployed technology than the UK does to analyse the genetic information in the viral material). Most have little or no effect. Those variants that manage to perpetuate themselves - because they can 'outcompete' (in a Darwinian sense) other variants (by being slightly more easy to transmit, for eample) become 'dominant' but regional variations exist over time.

Whether or not existing vaccines (coupled with the existing immunity in everybody's immune systems) can continue to stop people getting seriously ill is unknowable. What is knowable is that the vaccines can be "tweaked" to take account of genetic mutations in the virus within months not years - just like we do with the flu vaccine every year. It's thought that the flu virus mutations primarily in the far east where humans, pigs and ducks live in each others' ordure large numbers - the virus moves between these species, but of course new variations can pop up wherever a virus starts replicating in a "host".

The whole point of "lockdown"-type measures is to try and keep a lid on the speed of transmission between people - so that the proportion made seriously ill by the virus at any one time do not overburden/break our health care system (bearing in mind that we *all *need a functioning healthcare system).

We may need more lockdown-type measures in future if we need to buy time to vaccinate people without blowing up our healthcare system - if new variants arise which are dangerous and are not sufficiently curbed by the general levels of immunity (whe) but they shouldn't be nearly as bad as we've had so far - especially as the new mRNA vaccines like the Pfized/Biontech represent genuine technological progress.


julianf said:


> The concern about binning the antibiotics when you start feeling better is not so much about you getting ill again, but about what you are trying to kill off becoming resilliant.
> 
> Again, that is a significant reason why so many antibiotics are becoming useless in so many treatments.
> 
> That's antibiotics. Which humanity has already largely diminished the effectiveness of due to misuse.
> 
> The concern is that, if the vaccine for covid is misused in a similar way, then, in a similar way, it's effectiveness, for humanity in general, not just those on our little island, will be diminished.
> 
> That is what other countries, looking at the UK's behaviour, are concerned about.


Sorry, I think you've misunderstood...


----------



## doctor Bob

julianf said:


> The concern about binning the antibiotics when you start feeling better is not so much about you getting ill again, but about what you are trying to kill off becoming resilliant.
> 
> Again, that is a significant reason why so many antibiotics are becoming useless in so many treatments.
> 
> That's antibiotics. Which humanity has already largely diminished the effectiveness of due to misuse.
> 
> The concern is that, if the vaccine for covid is misused in a similar way, then, in a similar way, it's effectiveness, for humanity in general, not just those on our little island, will be diminished.
> 
> That is what other countries, looking at the UK's behaviour, are concerned about.



I see your point but can't help but think in a pandemic I'd rather have a bit of thinking outside the box than standard procedure by everyone, otherwise we maybe wasting valuable time.


----------



## Noel

Reports in the German press that the AZ-Ox vaccine has only 8% effectiveness in the over 65s. Surely trial data would have flagged this up?


----------



## Jameshow

On an allied note anyone noticed the large discrepancy between the sexes in today's evaluation of job roles in relation to covid. 









Covid: Teachers 'not at higher risk' of death than average


The highest-risk job roles were in restaurants, care work and manufacturing.



www.bbc.co.uk





What stuck me was the mortality difference between the sexes. 

Had it been the other way around or Bame there would have been an uproar or inquiry. 

Genes? Diet?.....comorbidities....????? 

Cheers James


----------



## doctor Bob

Noel said:


> Reports in the German press that the AZ-Ox vaccine has only 8% effectiveness in the over 65s. Surely trial data would have flagged this up?



You would have thought so, total disaster if that's correct.


----------



## julianf

Woody2Shoes said:


> Sorry, I think you've misunderstood...



Possibly. Could you explain to me the international concern raised at the UK's poor regard for the recommended time scale between doses?

I think it unlikley that anyone else really cares how the UK mismanages their business unless it has implications outside of our shores, however, my parallel with antibiotic resistance may be inaccurate.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> I see your point but can't help but think in a pandemic I'd rather have a bit of thinking outside the box than standard procedure by everyone, otherwise we maybe wasting valuable time.



I think the decision was prompted by the Kent variant.

Yes it's a bit of a gamble, but to me the best option.......we just don't have the time to faff about waiting for 100% certainty of data from extensive studies.


----------



## Noel

Noel said:


> Reports in the German press that the AZ-Ox vaccine has only 8% effectiveness in the over 65s. Surely trial data would have flagged this up?



German press now saying that EMA will not approve the AZ-Ox vaccine for over 65s. There were reports in December that the trials did not involve over 55s when the half dose first jab was used.
Whatever the case is, once any sort of controversy becomes public knowledge it'll only make take-up for that vaccine more difficult and will give the anti vaxxers more ammunition. Tough days ahead for AZ.


----------



## Nigel Burden

Noel said:


> Reports in the German press that the AZ-Ox vaccine has only 8% effectiveness in the over 65s. Surely trial data would have flagged this up?



Isn't Pfizer Biontec joint US German. Or is that just me being cynical?

Nigel.


----------



## Rorschach

828,000 extra unemployed I see today, that is with the furlough scheme still ongoing. I dread to think what those figures will be when furlough ends.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Nigel Burden said:


> Isn't Pfizer Biontec joint US German. Or is that just me being cynical?
> 
> Nigel.


Yes I believe so


----------



## Billy_wizz

Terry - Somerset said:


> 2/3 weeks or 12 weeks - from a public health perspective if the latter gives over 50% of the benefit compared to the former it is no contest.
> 
> Ask yourself (best Clint Eastwood style) "do you feel lucky punk". How would you feel if you were one of the 50% not vaccinated because the rollout stuck to the original 2/3 week second jab.
> 
> As far as breaking the rules - I will assess my own risk and that of the community. Right now the government are being evasive - but in 3/4 weeks they should have enough data to understand:
> 
> vaccine effectiveness in practice noting that it takes a few weeks for resistance to develop
> the extent of virus transmission post vaccine.
> By middle/end of February, a very material virus related change aside, people will increasingly act on their assessment risk and simply ignore restrictions - in particular the vaccinated and the young.
> 
> Lockdown is effective when only a small number push the envelope. Policing restrictions will be impossible when millions are prepared to simply ignore the rules.


As I recall more will die from not getting the first dose than will die because of a delayed second dose and the delayed dose will make it 1 or 2% less effective but can't find where I read it now


----------



## Chris152

Noel said:


> Reports in the German press that the AZ-Ox vaccine has only 8% effectiveness in the over 65s. Surely trial data would have flagged this up?


'A later statement by the German health ministry suggested the report had mixed up the efficacy rate for over-65s with the number of seniors involved in AstraZeneca’s trials...
“At first sight it appears that two things have been muddled in the reports,” said the statement. “Around 8% of participants in the AstraZeneca efficacy trials were aged between 56 and 69 years old, only three to four per cent were over 70. This does not result in an efficacy of only 8% among seniors.” '








Germany challenges AstraZeneca Covid vaccine efficacy reports


Report said ministers expected EU regulator’s assessment to show jab was only 8% effective among over-65s




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Noel

Chris152 said:


> 'A later statement by the German health ministry suggested the report had mixed up the efficacy rate for over-65s with the number of seniors involved in AstraZeneca’s trials...
> “At first sight it appears that two things have been muddled in the reports,” said the statement. “Around 8% of participants in the AstraZeneca efficacy trials were aged between 56 and 69 years old, only three to four per cent were over 70. This does not result in an efficacy of only 8% among seniors.” '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany challenges AstraZeneca Covid vaccine efficacy reports
> 
> 
> Report said ministers expected EU regulator’s assessment to show jab was only 8% effective among over-65s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com




Saw similar reports this morning in the German press, hopefully there is no truth in the matter although I did see something about data differences between what the MHRA and what the German health ministry has received. EMA due to decide on approval/CMA on Friday I think.


----------



## John Brown

I can't be bothered with any of this, except to say that the new thinking re. antibiotics seems to be, stop taking them when you feel better. I have no axe to grind, just sharing what I read.


----------



## selectortone

Noel said:


> Saw similar reports this morning in the German press, hopefully there is no truth in the matter although I did see something about data differences between what the MHRA and what the German health ministry has received. EMA due to decide on approval/CMA on Friday I think.


Well, that was a completely unnecessary cause for concern for us old fogies - on top of everything else.. Those tw*ts at that German newspaper should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Well, that was a completely unnecessary cause for concern for us old fogies - on top of everything else.. Those tw*ts at that German newspaper should be ashamed of themselves.



Over reacting, like your sig line


----------



## Droogs

I hadn't even notice until you pointed it out R, squirted tea up my nose


----------



## Blackswanwood

Someone explained the difference in the variants of the virus to me today ...


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> Someone explained the difference in the variants of the virus to me today ...
> 
> View attachment 101863



Isn't that a Hollywood though? A Brazilian would have a line going down the middle.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> 828,000 extra unemployed I see today, that is with the furlough scheme still ongoing. I dread to think what those figures will be when furlough ends.



And if the strategy had been no lockdown.....it would've been as bad or most likely worse.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> And if the strategy had been no lockdown.....it would've been as bad or most likely worse.



You have no idea if that is the case. Some countries who didn't do lockdown are not doing worse, especially once the virus has unfiltrated the population.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> And if the strategy had been no lockdown.....it would've been as bad or most likely worse.



I don't think it's necessary to try for one upmanship, it was an umemployment statement, it's shiit for those 800k.


----------



## julianf

The BBC news gets condemned by the right for being too left, and by the left for being too right. This, more than anything else, i think, gives it credibility.

Today, this report - 









Covid deaths: Why is the UK's death toll so bad?


As the number of people who died reaches six figures, the factors that led to this terrible total.



www.bbc.co.uk





Given that most of the rest of the world, when you look at the data, has performed better than the UK in, well, more or less any way you care to examine, you have to wonder - 

Is it that our set of circumstances are so uniquely poor that noone could have done better, or
Do we have a one-trick-pony of a government, voted in and set up on the single issue of Brexit, that has found itself wholly incompetent with regard to handling a difficult time?


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> I don't think it's necessary to try for one upmanship, it was an umemployment statement, it's shiit for those 800k.


Bah faux outrage  


It is not one upmanship.

It was not unemployment statement....we all know Rorchach's intent behind the post.


----------



## julianf

I read something today - 

If you gave someone ten grand a day, starting at the end of the bronze age (ie a fair while back) and continued from then until now, then you would have had enough to foot the bill for ********* (deliberately blank - answers on a post card)


Because i like to check things like that, i did the sums, and they are wrong. Its actually ten grand a day, every day, since the end of the bronze age, and THEN the back again.

The sheer scale of that government screw up is hard to even comprehend.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> It was not unemployment statement....we all know Rorchach's intent behind the post.



And vice versa, nothing more than showboating.

Flinkingnobbit


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You have no idea if that is the case. Some countries who didn't do lockdown are not doing worse, especially once the virus has unfiltrated the population.



There is no such thing as "a lockdown"

Every country has taken various non pharmaceutical interventions.


----------



## doctor Bob

julianf said:


> I read something today -
> 
> If you gave someone ten grand a day, starting at the end of the bronze age (ie a fair while back) and continued from then until now, then you would have had enough to foot the bill for ********* (deliberately blank - answers on a post card)
> 
> 
> Because i like to check things like that, i did the sums, and they are wrong. Its actually ten grand a day, every day, since the end of the bronze age, and THEN the back again.
> 
> The sheer scale of that government screw up is hard to even comprehend.



Jeremy Corbyns duffle coat collection, what do I win.

I think you should start a riddle thread.


----------



## Rorschach

Has the government screwed up? Yes, in lots of ways and we can all disagree on those ways. On the death toll though I don't think it's that awful considering it is a new virus for which we had no vaccine and no treatment plan. Take out the care home figures and the death toll drops by more than a third, split the number over two winters and it comes more into line with having a couple of bad flu years. The average age of death is 83(ish) and clearly bodies are not piling up on the streets. Most importantly children and the younger groups are barely affected. 

I am not going to compare to other countries, it's too difficult with the demographics as well as counting of deaths etc but it's safe to say no-one has fared well in this taken as whole. Low death numbers come with other costs, maybe not realised for years to come. As I have always said, we won't know the true picture for years to come, if ever.

Countdown to condemnation from the usual suspects in 3........2.........1........


----------



## selly

julianf said:


> The BBC news gets condemned by the right for being too left, and by the left for being too right. This, more than anything else, i think, gives it credibility.
> 
> Today, this report -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid deaths: Why is the UK's death toll so bad?
> 
> 
> As the number of people who died reaches six figures, the factors that led to this terrible total.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that most of the rest of the world, when you look at the data, has performed better than the UK in, well, more or less any way you care to examine, you have to wonder -
> 
> Is it that our set of circumstances are so uniquely poor that noone could have done better, or
> Do we have a one-trick-pony of a government, voted in and set up on the single issue of Brexit, that has found itself wholly incompetent with regard to handling a difficult time?



How can the govt realistically control an endemic virus in a democracy? It cannot. We have never put our army on the street. 

All countries will have an ebb and flow of this virus. Some circumstances will see us do less well (way of recording deaths, care homes, nosocomial infections) and some circumstances will see us do better (vaccine, many parts of the country have minute deaths, even 100k in 67 million isn't massive considering our mega city and other large cities) 

There will be lots of things in hindsight that could have been done better but treating the deaths as a daily chart to compare with other countries is virtually meaningless at the moment.

We are still in a position where we have to live with this virus and let it spread


----------



## Droogs

selly said:


> How can the govt realistically control an endemic virus in a democracy? It cannot. We have never put our army on the street.



That statement really really shows just how ignorant you are


----------



## selly

Droogs said:


> That statement really really shows just how ignorant you are



No its shows how realistic I am. 

Deaths from Covid are 0.14%. If you are thick enough to pretend that every death is the same value then it shows how ignorant of medical decisions you are.

Fantasies about big govt taking control need to be left in your head


----------



## Rorschach

Well that was interesting, Jonathon Ashworth on the radio this morning, not a man I usually agree with but he was brave enough to admit that we will have to decide on an acceptable number of deaths going forward. I think this is the first time I have heard an MP say something other than basically "zero covid". Common sense is returning! (maybe).


----------



## Droogs

No its shows your ignorance of British history and the use of the British army as a tool of subjugation of the British population and your ignorance of the rules of English usage vis a vie grammar and syntax.


----------



## julianf

doctor Bob said:


> Jeremy Corbyns duffle coat collection, what do I win.
> 
> I think you should start a riddle thread.



Ill give you a clue,

£10,000 per day
for the past 3200 years
works out at about 11 billion

What has the government spent £22 billion (I know the exact figure is debated, but, hey, lets not argue over "small" change!) on, to no real benefit to the general public at large?


----------



## julianf

selly said:


> There will be lots of things in hindsight that could have been done better but treating the deaths as a daily chart to compare with other countries is virtually meaningless at the moment.



I previously asked you if there were any statistics that would show our governments handling of this situation in a favourable light.

You did reply, but, like a politician - with a lot of words and no actual answer to the question.

I didn't mention it at the time, as I saw little point in doing so, but now that you are quoting me again, might I ask again, please?


----------



## Rorschach

@selectortone do you definitely fall into the expendable category?


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> I hadn't even notice until you pointed it out R, squirted tea up my nose



He's changed it now, not as funny


----------



## Droogs

aw


----------



## selectortone

Droogs said:


> aw


I was politely advised by a mod that the previous sig was against board guidelines


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Was politely advised by a mod that the previous sig was against board guidelines



I'm shocked, you mean insinuating I was a Nazi exterminator was against the rules? Well I never.


----------



## selectortone

I'm sure you'd just be "following orders".


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> I previously asked you if there were any statistics that would show our governments handling of this situation in a favourable light.
> 
> You did reply, but, like a politician - with a lot of words and no actual answer to the question.
> 
> I didn't mention it at the time, as I saw little point in doing so, but now that you are quoting me again, might I ask again, please?



How about the 1.6 million people who had covid and didn't die? You almost seem dissapointed they survived! Let alone those who have not been affected. 

Excess deaths longer term will be where the data is most evident. We will have had excess deaths last April.

How do you feel about the 30k excess non covid deaths?


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> No its shows your ignorance of British history and the use of the British army as a tool of subjugation of the British population and your ignorance of the rules of English usage vis a vie grammar and syntax.



I'll leave your semi flaccid fantasies about the army to yourself. You probably think you sound clever mentioning syntax but just pompous. When have we had martial law in the UK?


----------



## Droogs

Ever heard of Peterloo or the battle of Suchiehall street or Bloody Sunday or any of the other dozen occassions the army was used to fire on kill and suppress the civillian population. I suggest you go read the meaning of the word ignorance and learn english syntax in order that you can recognise when someone is pointing out where you are incorrect about something and is not actually trying to insult you and hopefully preventing your own kneejerk attempt at an insult as you have done here.

I would suggest you wallow in your own semi flaccid fantasies regarding politics and world affairs rather than play with the grown ups


----------



## doctor Bob

I was thinking about just what the kids are missing out on at the moment, for kids doing GCSE's it's the above, just a general all round knowledge of general subjects.
Basic science, history, volcanisity, glaciation, european history and geography, Maths, english and books for literature which stick in your mind, the basics of knowledge forthe rest of their lives, very sad state of affairs.


----------



## Amateur

doctor Bob said:


> 0.5 million vaccines per day, like or loath the government, something is going right.
> Feel free to knock the gov't and say it's the NHS or someone else, but for me I don't care all I want to see is high numbers. Whoever is in control of this is doing a good job.
> Sure someone will be along explaining that X person in charge would have tripled it by now, or they know granny whatsymecally who's 99 with 6 co mortality illnesses .............. but life is full of pessimists, being 2nd or 3rd in the world for vaccine doses cannot be a bad thing. Some will, unfortunately politics and opinions are binary and not blended these days.
> 
> I really am delighted that generally the program for innoculation seems to be going very very well.



I think you put that very well Bob, hit the nail on the head.
I think posts like this make a more healthy forum.


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> Ever heard of Peterloo or the battle of Suchiehall street or Bloody Sunday or any of the other dozen occassions the army was used to fire on kill and suppress the civillian population. I suggest you go read the meaning of the word ignorance and learn english syntax in order that you can recognise when someone is pointing out where you are incorrect about something and is not actually trying to insult you and hopefully preventing your own kneejerk attempt at an insult as you have done here.
> 
> I would suggest you wallow in your own semi flaccid fantasies regarding politics and world affairs rather than play with the grown ups



These were all isolated incidents, to placate protest or riots in small geographical points of conflict where police were non existent or unable to control the situation. They were not used as a blanket tool for conforming the whole populace under duress. There is a massive difference.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> These were all isolated incidents, to placate protest or riots in small geographical points of conflict where police were non existent or unable to control the situation. They were not used as a blanket tool for conforming the whole populace under duress. There is a massive difference.
> 
> I suggest you get your head out of your a.rse




Shooting and killing innocent people in the street is a means to "placate protest"? Is that what you really think? What's a "small geographical point of conflict"?
So Bloody Sunday was an isolated case, no it wasn't.


----------



## Awac

Noel said:


> Shooting and killing innocent people in the street is a means to "placate protest"? Is that what you really think? What's a "small geographical point of conflict"?
> So Bloody Sunday was an isolated case, no it wasn't.



Well done Noel, it had to be said.

The "Troubles" were the best Urban unrest training ground any military force could hope for, so a few people died in the process, obviously seen as acceptable by some. The knowledge obtained could be exploited in many ways, for much profit. Don't believe a government could be so callous, let alone the one we have now?

_"Three judges said that a decision made in secret in 2016 had led them to decide that Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt and Liam Fox and other key ministers had illegally signed off on arms exports without properly assessing the risk to civilians". 
"Despite a UK court in June 2019 ordering an end to arms exports to Saudi Arabia that could be used in Yemen, the government has twice admitted to "accidentally" (sorry inadvertent breaches) licensing weapons to the kingdom". _

"Accidentally"? perhaps they should have been more honest, helping to "Placate protest" perhaps? Politicians who place civilians and service personnel in situations where atrocity's are committed should be the ones who receive the largest prison sentences.


----------



## Selwyn

Noel said:


> Shooting and killing innocent people in the street is a means to "placate protest"? Is that what you really think? What's a "small geographical point of conflict"?
> So Bloody Sunday was an isolated case, no it wasn't.



Oh right so those events were martial law were they to keep the whole of the populace under control? Get a grip.

I'm not the one advocating the army in order to "control" the population from Covid. As I said before we don't do it in the UK and its not going to happen beyond a few army fantasists


----------



## Chris152

*'Operation Banner* was the operational name for the British Armed Forces' operation in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007, as part of the Troubles. It was the longest continuous deployment in British military history.[10][11] [...] More than 300,000 soldiers served in Operation Banner.[12] At the peak of the operation in the 1970s, about 21,000 British troops were deployed, most of them from Great Britain.'








Operation Banner - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Awac

Selwyn said:


> As I said before we don't do it in the UK and its not going to happen beyond a few army fantasists



Northern Ireland is technically the UK......


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> Oh right so those events were martial law were they to keep the whole of the populace under control? Get a grip.
> 
> I'm not the one advocating the army in order to "control" the population from Covid. As I said before we don't do it in the UK and its not going to happen beyond a few army fantasists



Maybe just address the points I made about your post? How is shooting placating a protest?
What's a "small geographical point of conflict"?
So Bloody Sunday was an isolated case, no it wasn't.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> They were not used as a blanket tool for conforming the whole populace under duress



80% of people approve of the govt restrictions.

Your claim of "under duress" is untrue.

Most people understand there is a need for collective action.....just a minority that can't handle being told what to do.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> How do you feel about the 30k excess non covid deaths?



Without lockdown, infection rates would've been higher, NHS would've been more overloaded and even more non Covid departments would've been out of action.....resulting in higher non Covid deaths.

So you are making a false argument.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> We are still in a position where we have to live with this virus and let it spread



You can keep repeating, but it's still wrong.


----------



## Selwyn

Chris152 said:


> *'Operation Banner* was the operational name for the British Armed Forces' operation in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007, as part of the Troubles. It was the longest continuous deployment in British military history.[10][11] [...] More than 300,000 soldiers served in Operation Banner.[12] At the peak of the operation in the 1970s, about 21,000 British troops were deployed, most of them from Great Britain.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Banner - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



That was not martial law


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Without lockdown, infection rates would've been higher, NHS would've been more overloaded and even more non Covid departments would've been out of action.....resulting in higher non Covid deaths.
> 
> So you are making a false argument.



Yet the peaks occurred before lockdown in each case. Funny that....


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> split the number over two winters and it comes more into line with having a couple of bad flu years



Why do you keep repeating something that is not true?

Please point out which year 700+ health workers died from flu


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You can keep repeating, but it's still wrong.



Its not. You think it will magically stop spreading?



RobinBHM said:


> 80% of people approve of the govt restrictions.
> 
> Your claim of "under duress" is untrue.
> 
> Most people understand there is a need for collective action.....just a minority that can't handle being told what to do.



No read carefully. I said we do not need the Army to enforce rules under duress - it is not what we do in the UK for the whole populace. Most people are happy with social distancing and the need to give space, wash hands etc. A huge number of people are not happy to see their kids lives pineappled away, their business' wrecked and debts ramped up massively. People who are genuinely vulnerable and want a lockdown need to stop being so selfish and shield themselves away for 6 months and stop wanting others who are not to bail them out. If masks worked we would not see the increase in spread, the fact is they are useless.



RobinBHM said:


> Why do you keep repeating something that is not true?
> 
> Please point out which year 700+ health workers died from flu



Outside the very serious and very obvious and neglected "peak" of covid last year where it was spreading - how many health workers have died of covid since? And how many have died of other causes?


----------



## Chris152

> Droogs said:
> Ever heard of Peterloo or the battle of Suchiehall street or Bloody Sunday or any of the other dozen occassions the army was used to fire on kill and suppress the civillian population. I suggest you go read the meaning of the word ignorance and learn english syntax in order that you can recognise when someone is pointing out where you are incorrect about something and is not actually trying to insult you and hopefully preventing your own kneejerk attempt at an insult as you have done here.
> 
> I would suggest you wallow in your own semi flaccid fantasies regarding politics and world affairs rather than play with the grown ups


*Selwyn said (well, actually he wrote):* These were all isolated incidents, to placate protest or riots in small geographical points of conflict where police were non existent or unable to control the situation. They were not used as a blanket tool for conforming the whole populace under duress. There is a massive difference.



Selwyn said:


> That was not martial law


It was 'used as a blanket tool for conforming the whole populace [or at least a significant part of it] under duress', contrary to what you wrote.

Struggling to get my head round the new quoting system.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Yet the peaks occurred before lockdown in each case. Funny that....


I've already proven they did not in a previous post.

Would you like me to explain it again for you?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I've already proven they did not in a previous post.
> 
> Would you like me to explain it again for you?



No because you were wrong.

At some point you lockdown fanatics will have to start facing up to the idea that we will need to get back to normal life.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its not. You think it will magically stop spreading



Yes it is.

Healthcare workers and essential,workers don't die from flu.
Hospitals aren't overwhelmed by flu


----------



## Awac

Selwyn said:


> That was not martial law


Not technically, but it has happened in the past and had a negative effect. Depends if you consider that the UK was/is a foreign country with an occupying force in the ROI?
_"The United Kingdom declares martial law in Ireland for one month on April 25, 1916, the day after the commencement of the Easter rising. A curfew is imposed from 8:30 PM until 5:00 AM. Anyone spotted on the streets during the hours of darkness are to be shot on sight". _


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Healthcare workers and essential,workers don't die from flu.
> Hospitals aren't overwhelmed by flu



Of course hosptials get overwhelmed by flu. It happens every so often.

Healthcare workers tend to have prior immunity to flu like all of us.

How many healthcare workers have died since say, October?

I can tell you the number of deaths for health workers from non covid deaths is much much higher than from covid


----------



## Rorschach

Selwyn said:


> Of course hosptials get overwhelmed by flu. It happens every so often.
> 
> Healthcare workers tend to have prior immunity to flu like all of us.
> 
> How many healthcare workers have died since say, October?



You are wasting your time, Robin doesn't believe anyone should die of anything, you are in a losing position, nothing you can say will ever change his mind, 1 death is too many for him.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No because you were wrong.


 

No, I am correct, but you are unable to accept the evidence because it breaks the foundation of your argument.

I note you've provided zero evidence to back up your claim....perhaps you could let me know when you might do that




average time of infection to start of symptoms = 4 days
Average time symptoms to death = 13 days

time from 23rd march to 8th April = 16 days

And once you add in the fact that significant restrictions started before lockdown and for tolerance in the data accuracy, your argument is incorrect

sources:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...CIN_-_Time_from_symptom_onset_until_death.pdf






*If you've been exposed to the coronavirus - Harvard Health*
As COVID-19 continues to spread, the chances that you will be exposed and get sick continue to increase. If you've been exposed to someone with COVID-19 or begin to experience symptoms of the disease, you may be asked to self-quarantine or self-isola...



www.health.harvard.edu
.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Of course hosptials get overwhelmed by flu. It happens every so often



When have hospitals been overwhelmed by flu to the same extent?
Please tell me which year

Please note, that's despite the vulnerable shielding etc etc


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You are wasting your time, Robin doesn't believe anyone should die of anything, you are in a losing position, nothing you can say will ever change his mind, 1 death is too many for him.


Oh dear oh dear

apagogical argument



This government and many others around the world have a huge pool of scientists to analyse Covid data.
Virtually every government agree: The best way is restrictions to lower infection spread.

Rorschach and Selwyn say: "we can analyse the data better than governments"

But what it boils down to is: neither of you can handle being told what to do for collective benefit, so you continue to make dishonest arguments.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> When have hospitals been overwhelmed by flu to the same extent?
> Please tell me which year
> 
> Please note, that's despite the vulnerable shielding etc etc




The rate of infection slowed well before lockdown. You can see it on all the data curves. It speeds up fast and then slows. 

Hospitals are frequently overloaded. Election year we had "people lying in the corridor without beds" didn't we? What makes it worse at the moment is a lot of health workers are not at work (positive test but not ill) and beds spaced out. So we have a staff shortage as well. 

Tell me how many health workers have died of covid since say, July?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I can tell you the number of deaths for health workers from non covid deaths is much much higher than from covid



Excess non Covid deaths as a result of loss of hospital services due to Covid would be higher if there were no or little Covid restrictions.

Why are you still dishonestly claiming that somehow the 30k extra deaths could have somehow been saved if there was no lockdown?

What is it you don't understand?


----------



## Awac

Rorschach said:


> You are wasting your time, Robin doesn't believe anyone should die of anything, you are in a losing position, nothing you can say will ever change his mind, 1 death is too many for him.


Interesting. How many deaths is too many?


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> Oh dear oh dear
> 
> apagogical argument



Googled that ........ I am a bit more knowledgable.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The rate of infection slowed well before lockdown. You can see it on all the data curves


No it didn't.

The graphs have been posted here numerous times.

Why do you persist in posting opinions presented as fact already proven incorrect?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Oh dear oh dear
> 
> apagogical argument
> 
> 
> 
> This government and many others around the world have a huge pool of scientists to analyse Covid data.
> Virtually every government agree: The best way is restrictions to lower infection spread.
> 
> Rorschach and Selwyn say: "we can analyse the data better than governments"
> 
> But what it boils down to is: neither of you can handle being told what to do for collective benefit, so you continue to make dishonest arguments.



To be honest I'm doing what needs to be done. Keeping my distance and my contacts reasonably low. 

I have no objection to that. I do object to the shutting of shops apart from multinationals food shops, I do object to the shutting of schools and the ruination of childrens education when the evidence of transmission in school is not there and I do object to the trashing of business' and livelihoods.


----------



## Noel

This is what happens when the C19 deniers/conspiracists/it's only flu/bit of a cold people have an audience. Not directed at anybody here but I couldn't believe how thick and stupid this guy and his 2 fellow nutters are. Anti-botics? If that was his only mistake.....



The patient was apparently sedated and put into an induced coma some time after this encounter. The main bloke is apparently well known for saying such things as: "........... there is no evidence that Covid-1984 exists or indeed any proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes it. Now call me a liar "


----------



## Rorschach

Awac said:


> Interesting. How many deaths is too many?



How long is a piece of string?
How many is too many for you?


----------



## Rorschach

@Noel that is a bit worrying as he wants to go home. Have they sectioned him? It's his right to go home (and die possibly) if he wants to.


----------



## Noel

Rorschach said:


> @Noel that is a bit worrying as he wants to go home. Have they sectioned him? It's his right to go home (and die possibly) if he wants to.



There's a bigger picture Rorschach. Unauthorised entry into an acute ward, unauthorised filming, filling the poor guy's head with complete tosh. It is against C19 regulations for a hospital to discharge a patient if their clinical status is not suitable.
I sincerely hope the patient survives. 
Meanwhile our helpful friend is needed for a wee chat with the local police:








Article







www.kentonline.co.uk


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Excess non Covid deaths as a result of loss of hospital services due to Covid would be higher if there were no or little Covid restrictions.
> 
> Why are you still dishonestly claiming that somehow the 30k extra deaths could have somehow been saved if there was no lockdown?
> 
> What is it you don't understand?



Because the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. They definitely could have saved a lot of those lives with some interventions. I'm shocked you can't see that. We had a few summer months of a shut nhs.


----------



## Selwyn

Noel said:


> This is what happens when the C19 deniers/conspiracists/it's only flu/bit of a cold people have an audience. Not directed at anybody here but I couldn't believe how thick and stupid this guy and his 2 fellow nutters are. Anti-botics? If that was his only mistake.....
> 
> 
> 
> The patient was apparently sedated and put into an induced coma some time after this encounter. The main bloke is apparently well known for saying such things as: "........... there is no evidence that Covid-1984 exists or indeed any proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes it. Now call me a liar "




Who is saying that Covid doesn't exist? Not me

However it statistically still the case that about 99.5%+ of cases will not result in death.


----------



## Awac

Rorschach said:


> How long is a piece of string?
> How many is too many for you?


Well brother, since you have thrown the question back to me without giving a figure, one death that can be avoided is one death too many...I am sure you would feel the same if you were the one.


----------



## Awac

Noel said:


> This is what happens when the C19 deniers/conspiracists/it's only flu/bit of a cold people have an audience. Not directed at anybody here but I couldn't believe how thick and stupid this guy and his 2 fellow nutters are. Anti-botics? If that was his only mistake.....
> 
> 
> 
> The patient was apparently sedated and put into an induced coma some time after this encounter. The main bloke is apparently well known for saying such things as: "........... there is no evidence that Covid-1984 exists or indeed any proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes it. Now call me a liar "




I am stunned that his ancestors made the leap to breathing air.


----------



## doctor Bob

Awac said:


> Well brother, since you have thrown the question back to me without giving a figure, one death that can be avoided is one death too many...I am sure you would feel the same if you were the one.



Why don't we throw say an arbitary £50 million at every cancer patient then or increase tax to a flat rate of 70% to fund an unbelievable life saving NHS.
I appreciate £50m per head still wouldn't save all cancer patients but it would be a start, we could up it to £100 million / head if it saves one life.
Surely it's all a balancing act, and the ideology of saving every life is just not possible and could be detrimental to other things which may be more important. For example, should £1million be spent on 97 year old doris, or a prosthetic leg for 3 year old jimmy, where is the best spend. Difficult choices but these are made very day by clinitians and the NHS (sooner them than me)


----------



## Rorschach

Awac said:


> Well brother, since you have thrown the question back to me without giving a figure, one death that can be avoided is one death too many...I am sure you would feel the same if you were the one.



There in lies the problem, almost every death is avoidable if we spend enough money and take enough care. That isn't a viable option though.

EDIT: Bob said it better than me.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> Who is saying that Covid doesn't exist? Not me
> 
> However it statistically still the case that about 99.5%+ of cases will not result in death.



See the the “not dir......,.” bit in my post.


----------



## Rorschach

Noel said:


> There's a bigger picture Rorschach. Unauthorised entry into an acute ward, unauthorised filming, filling the poor guy's head with complete tosh. It is against C19 regulations for a hospital to discharge a patient if their clinical status is not suitable.
> I sincerely hope the patient survives.
> Meanwhile our helpful friend is needed for a wee chat with the local police:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kentonline.co.uk



Oh yeah I am not defending the nutter making the video, but I am worried about the old chap. However wrong he might be, he has a right to deny treatment.


----------



## doctor Bob

Noel said:


> This is what happens when the C19 deniers/conspiracists/it's only flu/bit of a cold people have an audience. Not directed at anybody here but I couldn't believe how thick and stupid this guy and his 2 fellow nutters are.



Frightening, all comes from social media.
I know you're not finger pointing here. Like you I don't think we have nutters on here.
I like arguements to date on here, I think also probably unlike the "political" threads there is wiggle room.
I started of treating the illness very lightly, probably on the side of less lockdown. As time has progressed I've moved to accepting lockdown is important, but still maintain the economy has to keep going.
My real conundrum is education, I feel so sorry for kids missing out. My son is an only child and we always had his friends round, I find this unimaginable that he might have grown up for a year possibly 2 with no or very little physical friendships.


----------



## Noel

Rorschach said:


> Oh yeah I am not defending the nutter making the video, but I am worried about the old chap. However wrong he might be, he has a right to deny treatment.



It’s up to the clinician staff to decide that, he has an infectious disease, not to mention his overall health. Look up your government’s C19 laws.
I suspect his “friend” has filled his head with so much nonsense that he believes he does not have C19 and it’s all a silly old hoax and the staff are just having a larf and are getting backhanders from Bill Gates.


----------



## Awac

doctor Bob said:


> Why don't we throw say an arbitary £50 million at every cancer patient then or increase tax to a flat rate of 70% to fund an unbelievable life saving NHS.
> I appreciate £50m per head still wouldn't save all cancer patients but it would be a start, we could up it to £100 million / head if it saves one life.
> Surely it's all a balancing act, and the ideology of saving every life is just not possible and could be detrimental to other things which may be more important. For example, should £1million be spent on 97 year old doris, or a prosthetic leg for 3 year old jimmy, where is the best spend. Difficult choices but these are made very day by clinitians and the NHS.


Read carefully. "Avoided" is the operative word. Yes the world is full of compromises and tough decisions. Does not stop you trying to save lives if you are _able_. The ideology of trying to save every life is a good one, if not always possible. 
If 50m per head is too much, why are some people dying in third world countries for the want of a couple of pounds treatment? Is that too much? Doesn't balance does it? The argument you are putting forth does not hold any substance.


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> Why don't we throw say an arbitary £50 million at every cancer patient then or increase tax to a flat rate of 70% to fund an unbelievable life saving NHS.
> I appreciate £50m per head still wouldn't save all cancer patients but it would be a start, we could up it to £100 million / head if it saves one life.
> Surely it's all a balancing act, and the ideology of saving every life is just not possible and could be detrimental to other things which may be more important. For example, should £1million be spent on 97 year old doris, or a prosthetic leg for 3 year old jimmy, where is the best spend. Difficult choices but these are made very day by clinitians and the NHS (sooner them than me)



That isn't a difficult choice for anyone!

Even if 97 year old Doris was my mum and little Jimmy live 10k miles from me. Jimmy always takes priority.


----------



## Noel

doctor Bob said:


> Frightening, all comes from social media.
> I know you're not finger pointing here. Like you I don't think we have nutters on here.
> I like arguements to date on here, I think also probably unlike the "political" threads there is wiggle room.
> I started of treating the illness very lightly, probably on the side of less lockdown. As time has progressed I've moved to accepting lockdown is important, but still maintain the economy has to keep going.
> My real conundrum is education, I feel so sorry for kids missing out. My son is an only child and we always had his friends round, I find this unimaginable that he might have grown up for a year possibly 2 with no or very little physical friendships.



Indeed, here’s the guy’s YT feed:



https://youtube.com/channel/UCsKuyPMQzEXlhEm9HIk3ANQ


----------



## doctor Bob

Awac said:


> Read carefully. "Avoided" is the operative word. Yes the world is full of compromises and tough decisions. Does not stop you trying to save lives if you are _able_. The ideology of trying to save every life is a good one, if not always possible.
> If 50m per head is too much, why are some people dying in third world countries for the want of a couple of pounds treatment? Is that too much? Doesn't balance does it? The argument you are putting forth does not hold any substance.



Sorry, I really haven't got a clue what your point is now. Don't worry it's Probably me.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> That isn't a difficult choice for anyone!
> 
> Even if 97 year old Doris was my mum and little Jimmy live 10k miles from me. Jimmy always takes priority.



So would you advocate we pare back on geriatric care via the NHS and funding new children’s hospitals in Bangladesh?


----------



## Rorschach

Awac said:


> The ideology of trying to save every life is a good one, if not always possible.



Oh that's alright then. So you like the idea of saving every life, but not worried about the tricky bits like the details. Lovely, glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Droogs

doctor Bob said:


> Why don't we throw say an arbitary £50 million at every cancer patient then or increase tax to a flat rate of 70% to fund an unbelievable life saving NHS.
> I appreciate £50m per head still wouldn't save all cancer patients but it would be a start, we could up it to £100 million / head if it saves one life.
> Surely it's all a balancing act, and the ideology of saving every life is just not possible and could be detrimental to other things which may be more important. For example, should £1million be spent on 97 year old doris, or a prosthetic leg for 3 year old jimmy, where is the best spend. Difficult choices but these are made very day by clinitians and the NHS (sooner them than me)


Well @DrBob if you were a pen pushing bean counter it would be on Doris as she would probably get a far longer use out of the leg as little Jimmy is gonna grow in size ovr the next few months and she might live longer than that.


----------



## Droogs

Rorschach said:


> Oh yeah I am not defending the nutter making the video, but I am worried about the old chap. However wrong he might be, he has a right to deny treatment.


@Rorschach, yes he has every right to refuse treatment but no right to be released to go home in a contagious conditon from hospital, that would lead to charges of criminal negligence against the hospital and Drs and the Guv'ment has forbidden them from doing so


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> but not worried about the tricky bits like the details


The irony 

You seem to think there is an alternative way....but you can't provide the details.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> The irony
> 
> You seem to think there is an alternative way....but you can't provide the details.



You need to join Jacob at Radio Rentals


----------



## RobinBHM

Hey Rorschach and Selwin, what's your response to this:

"the CMO, CSA, their colleagues in the regions, Ministers, officials – are unaware of the data flaws identified...and despite their decades of cumulative experience, they are making major public health decisions totally oblivious to the catastrophic misreading of the data the amateur lock-down sceptic sleuths have uncovered...or they are aware of them. And – for reasons no one has yet rationally explained - are carrying on regardless, perpetuating one of the greatest public health hoaxes in history."


----------



## selly

Blackswanwood said:


> So would you advocate we pare back on geriatric care via the NHS and funding new children’s hospitals in Bangladesh?



I think that is a different question.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Hey Rorschach and Selwin, what's your response to this:
> 
> "the CMO, CSA, their colleagues in the regions, Ministers, officials – are unaware of the data flaws identified...and despite their decades of cumulative experience, they are making major public health decisions totally oblivious to the catastrophic misreading of the data the amateur lock-down sceptic sleuths have uncovered...or they are aware of them. And – for reasons no one has yet rationally explained - are carrying on regardless, perpetuating one of the greatest public health hoaxes in history."



Who said it was a hoax? We are discussing whether lockdown is the best way of controlling a virus and whether it screws too many lives up.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You need to join Jacob at Radio Rentals


Ad hominem......a sure sign of no counter argument. 



Please can you provide the data and details that back up your argument that lockdowns are unnecessary........oh, you can't can you?

You claim Covid is no worse than flu, but you can't explain why so many healthcare professionals have died from Covid, but not from any bad flu season.....you can't provide any details

You claim Covid is no worse than flu.....but you can't explain why hospitals are far more overwhelmed than any flu season.....you can't provide any details

You claim that infections started falling before lockdown started.....but you can't provide the details to back it up.


Details eh


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Ad hominem......a sure sign of no counter argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Please can you provide the data and details that back up your argument that lockdowns are unnecessary........oh, you can't can you?
> 
> You claim Covid is no worse than flu, but you can't explain why so many healthcare professionals have died from Covid, but not from any bad flu season.....you can't provide any details
> 
> You claim Covid is no worse than flu.....but you can't explain why hospitals are far more overwhelmed than any flu season.....you can't provide any details
> 
> You claim that infections started falling before lockdown started.....but you can't provide the details to back it up.
> 
> 
> Details eh



Not sure if it's the tone arm or the motor belt.


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> I think that is a different question.


Is it Selly? I read Selwyn’s reference to Jimmy being 10k miles away as being beyond the reach of the NHS. Are the two of you related by any chance?


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Who said it was a hoax? We are discussing whether lockdown is the best way of controlling a virus and whether it screws too many lives up.



So.

The exact same argument applies.

the government are making lockdown decisions based on the massive cumulative experience of scientists

They say non pharmaceutical interventions lower the infection rate.

Why do you think Rorschach, Selwyn and you know better?

Serious question, why?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Not sure if it's the tone arm or the motor belt.


Please can you tell me why 700 healthcare professionals have died from Covid, but there have been no reports of hundreds of such deaths in bad flu seasons......yet you argue Covid is no worse than flu.

There is only two possible scenarios:

1. You can provide evidence of similar deaths of healthcare professionals from flu

2. You can't and admit that your claim "Covid is no worse than flu" is simply unfounded.

Which is it?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> How long is a piece of string?
> How many is too many for you?



How many more deaths would no lockdown cause?

How much more would NHS be overwhelmed and how many more non Covid health deaths would there be?


----------



## Awac

Rorschach said:


> Oh that's alright then. So you like the idea of saving every life, but not worried about the tricky bits like the details. Lovely, glad we cleared that up.


I'm talking about intent (no that's not camping). Thought I would throw a joke in here because you are obviously having a laugh.
Seriously, change my mind, show me that I am wrong to think that every death that can be avoided should be? I like a challenge to my own world views, maybe I am wrong?


----------



## selly

Blackswanwood said:


> Is it Selly? I read Selwyn’s reference to Jimmy being 10k miles away as being beyond the reach of the NHS. Are the two of you related by any chance?



One is my phone login, and one is my computer no big conspiracy


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> So.
> 
> The exact same argument applies.
> 
> the government are making lockdown decisions based on the massive cumulative experience of scientists
> 
> They say non pharmaceutical interventions lower the infection rate.
> 
> Why do you think Rorschach, Selwyn and you know better?
> 
> Serious question, why?



Because I'm aware of the damage it is doing to our society. And the fact the virus is so obviously seasonal. Along with evidence from other countries and indeed past viral infections (look at swine flu for example) that lockdowns will only serve to make things worse. 

As you don't appear to leave your bedroom you won't be aware of it.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Please can you tell me why 700 healthcare professionals have died from Covid, but there have been no reports of hundreds of such deaths in bad flu seasons......yet you argue Covid is no worse than flu.
> 
> There is only two possible scenarios:
> 
> 1. You can provide evidence of similar deaths of healthcare professionals from flu
> 
> 2. You can't and admit that your claim "Covid is no worse than flu" is simply unfounded.
> 
> Which is it?



Tell me how many healthcare workers have died of covid since July of covid and of other causes please Strawman.

It's not as bad as flu for a lot of people. It is for some.


----------



## selly

Awac said:


> I'm talking about intent (no that's not camping). Thought I would throw a joke in here because you are obviously having a laugh.
> Seriously, change my mind, show me that I am wrong to think that every death that can be avoided should be? I like a challenge to my own world views, maybe I am wrong?



I think when you get to care home stage it's more important to have a good death or as good and dignified death as possible rather than seeking to prolong life particularly. 

Is this a controversial view nowadays?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> How many more deaths would no lockdown cause?
> 
> How much more would NHS be overwhelmed and how many more non Covid health deaths would there be?



Lots of data suggests the virus would burn itself out pretty quickly like they all do.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Please can you tell me why 700 healthcare professionals have died from Covid, but there have been no reports of hundreds of such deaths in bad flu seasons......yet you argue Covid is no worse than flu.
> 
> There is only two possible scenarios:
> 
> 1. You can provide evidence of similar deaths of healthcare professionals from flu
> 
> 2. You can't and admit that your claim "Covid is no worse than flu" is simply unfounded.
> 
> Which is it?



Maybe it's the pickup?


----------



## Rorschach

Awac said:


> I'm talking about intent (no that's not camping). Thought I would throw a joke in here because you are obviously having a laugh.
> Seriously, change my mind, show me that I am wrong to think that every death that can be avoided should be? I like a challenge to my own world views, maybe I am wrong?



Do you drive? driving involves risk of death. By not driving you avoid the risk of dying. Do you ban driving?


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> And the fact the virus is so obviously seasonal



Why do you keep repeating something that is wrong?

Covid is not yet seasonal.

Please stop repeating something that is untrue.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Tell me how many healthcare workers have died of covid since July of covid and of other causes please Strawman.
> 
> It's not as bad as flu for a lot of people. It is for some.



ha ha ha

The people arguing "Covid is no worse than flu" .....can't answer why so many healthcare workers have died from Covid.


"It's not as bad as flu for a lot of people. It is for some"

Seriously?..... what a totally meaningless comment.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Do you drive? driving involves risk of death. By not driving you avoid the risk of dying. Do you ban driving?



False premise

You are making the utterly false argument that lockdown is simply wrecking the economy for the sake of a few old people.

But no lockdown would result in more non Covid deaths and just as much economic damage.



You won't respond because you have no counter argument.......you just want to continue your dishonest argument unchallenged.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> As you don't appear to leave your bedroom you won't be aware of it.



Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks in your comments.


----------



## Blackswanwood

selly said:


> One is my phone login, and one is my computer no big conspiracy


Thanks for clarifying - it's the fact that there is a forum rule saying we are supposed to only have one log in each that confused me

Have a good day and do (both?) stay safe.

 I am now wondering if @Rorschach and @RobinBHM are the same person using their phone and pc as their views are soooo similar. (Just joking guys!)


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> So would you advocate we pare back on geriatric care via the NHS and funding new children’s hospitals in Bangladesh?



No. Because it isn't our concern to fund Bangladesh really.

You may believe in unicorns etc but people do not live for ever. Death is always rubbish in the end. Even the people in care homes who died of covid didn't die because they coughed to death etc. The immune system becomes so weak people can expire from a lack of water even.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks in your comments.



I haven't attacked you so thats a strawman


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Why do you keep repeating something that is wrong?
> 
> Covid is not yet seasonal.
> 
> Please stop repeating something that is untrue.



It is defintely seasonal. It could not be more obvious that it is.

Look at the infection rates in places where they didn't lockdown. Even here its obvious looking at the ebb and flow of it


----------



## Misterdog

doctor Bob said:


> Googled that ........ I am a bit more knowledgable.



Apo Google ical ?


----------



## Misterdog

RobinBHM said:


> When have hospitals been overwhelmed by flu to the same extent?
> Please tell me which year
> 
> Please note, that's despite the vulnerable shielding etc etc



1999.

Though of course most were too busy planning their new millenium celebrations to bother coming on forums to vent their spleens that year.

There were 40,000 over winter deaths (one winter) and 20,000 attributed to flu. Though of course without mass testing the death from flu figure could have been far higher.

All under a Labour government, maybe that was why there were so few calls for a lockdown ?

That with a vaccine available since the 1940's.


----------



## Noel

selly said:


> One is my phone login, and one is my computer no big conspiracy



Mod hat on, firmly:

You have broken a very important rule which usually results in severe sanctions (all accounts banned).
Please choose which account you are going to use as only one account is allowed. The other account will be deactivated. It is vital to the members and staff that you make it known that you have one username and one account.


----------



## Chris152

RobinBHM said:


> What is the psychology that drives people to think their research is better than the governments?


I think this is the most interesting question in this thread - not so much why punters (rather than specialists in the field) should doubt governments, but why they would doubt the consensus of expert opinion on a global scale and feel confident enough to repeatedly assert their 'findings' as truth. A few days scratching around the net and lo and behold, you're in a position to contradict that expert opinion, and attempt to convince people to not believe it. And we're not talking about whether the earth is round or flat, which all in all, makes very little difference to most of us; we're talking about life and death.
My guess is it's something to do with a 'my opinion's as good as anyone's' culture, a disregard for learning and proper understanding, fuelled by the availability of all kinds of nonsense on the internet. Oh, and the 'sheeple' thing - wanting to imagine you see through what others aren't smart enough to see through, but in fact having not put in the years of hard work to know what you're on about.


----------



## Cowboy _Builder

It’s easy in hindsight to criticise the government’s handling of this problem but how would you have have done it ? , opinions are like bum holes we all have one .
When we first heard about this strain of Corona virus and saw on the news people dying in the streets in China It gave good reason for concern but this hasn’t happened anywhere else in the world since so it made me very sceptical about the severity of the problem initially.
The government could have put the troops on the streets and closed the country to overseas travelers for a month and in theory it would have stopped the virus spreading but that would mean quarantining every one entering the Uk until the virus was eradicated worldwide ,that’s something that would never have been accepted or achievable.
Mr Johnson could have gone with herd immunity which would have probably overwhelmed the NHS and initially cost more lives hitting mainly the old and vulnerable even harder and in theory we would have been over it and possibly saved the economy, but we would still need to quarantine and control who entered the country .

Our situation can’t be compared to countrys like NZ a country bigger than the Uk with a population less than that of London or Australia 32 times bigger than the UK with a population of around 24 million, so taking into consideration that many people have shown utter contempt for the virus and the governments efforts to control it, I personally think the government have done about the best they could given the attitude of many and the unprecedented circumstances the found themselves in.
Also the recording of people dying with it rather than from it is wrong, it gives people the impression that Covid19 alone killed over 100k people which even the experts admit is wrong , Covid alone may have been the cause in a much smaller percentage of the deaths,It’s almost like they are trying to justify the actions they are taking.

Both my wife and daughter are frontline NHS workers at different hospitals ,my wife is a advanced practitioner in cancer treatment and my daughter is a clinical educator and Sister on ICU so they are dealing with this very real virus on a daily basis .
So in my pointless opinion the Government and it’s advisors are doing ok .


----------



## Misterdog

Rorschach said:


> Not sure if it's the tone arm or the motor belt.



A nude Shibata stylus is best to prevent records sticking, though keeping your vinyl clean is better. I recommend a Lipase based enzyme cleaning solution.

Oops wrong forum ?


----------



## Selwyn

Noel said:


> Mod hat on, firmly:
> 
> You have broken a very important rule which usually results in severe sanctions (all accounts banned).
> Please choose which account you are going to use as only one account is allowed. The other account will be deactivated. It is vital to the members and staff that you make it known that you have one username and one account.



But wierdly I use the same email for both and they both alert me for the same messages. So its not that I have two usernames and accounts. I definitely only have one. I think its more a quirk of the software when I changed my name from Selly to Selwyn


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Noel said:


> This is what happens when the C19 deniers/conspiracists/it's only flu/bit of a cold people have an audience. Not directed at anybody here but I couldn't believe how thick and stupid this guy and his 2 fellow nutters are. Anti-botics? If that was his only mistake.....
> 
> 
> 
> The patient was apparently sedated and put into an induced coma some time after this encounter. The main bloke is apparently well known for saying such things as: "........... there is no evidence that Covid-1984 exists or indeed any proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes it. Now call me a liar "



It came as no surprise at all to discover that this nutter lives in Barming...
He has quite a history of being loopy if you do a bit of Googling. His behaviour (and worse, the behaviour of those who have "radicalised"/"groomed" him via online media) is utterly reprehensible.


----------



## Awac

selly said:


> I think when you get to care home stage it's more important to have a good death or as good and dignified death as possible rather than seeking to prolong life particularly.
> 
> Is this a controversial view nowadays?


I always remember some advert which said "A dignified walk to the pavilion" to describe end of life. A dignified life, a dignified death is all we can hope for. 

Controversial?

I support euthanasia "the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering" (although how you safe guard against abuses is another discussion). 
I support population control (this is the big one, no one wants to face) through education & eradicating poverty (look up the web site Population matters, David Attenborough).
I support environmental laws, and animal protection.
I support Amnesty International.

But what I support most is your right to live or die. 
If you set a criteria, then don't be shocked if one day a criteria is set for you that you might not like. Health care should not be a lottery, or a decision for someone else to make, it's your right. It is not as simple as saying it is that persons time to die, everything else has to be brought into context.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> But wierdly I use the same email for both and they both alert me for the same messages. So its not that I have two usernames and accounts. I definitely only have one. I think its more a quirk of the software when I changed my name from Selly to Selwyn



And somehow you managed to not notice two usernames? One will go now. If you find you cannot access the one account you are left with it’ll be a temporary situation, most likely....


----------



## Selwyn

Awac said:


> Health care should not be a lottery, or a decision for someone else to make, it's your right. It is not as simple as saying it is that persons time to die, everything else has to be brought into context.



It already is a lottery.


----------



## Selwyn




----------



## Spectric

The problem in the UK is that we live in a throwaway society and place value on everything, so people forget the contributions that the older folk have made and money that HMRC has taken from them during their working lives so now they are looked upon like excess baggage unlike over in the Asian world where family still means a lot more.

I wonder if Mr Sunick has sat down and done some calculations based on the deaths of people of pensionable age, Ie amount saved in not paying pension versus loss of taxation from care homes! The auto industry went through a similar phase where they worked out is it cheaper to rectify the fault or just pay the cost of a few deaths that may occur, but the law courts decided they were putting a value on life.


----------



## billw

The value of a life in the UK for health purposes is around £20k a year, i.e. if treatment would cost over £20k a year then it's not certain that it would be approved, and even then you have to have full quality of life (i.e. if you'd only have half the standard quality of life then the limit is £10k.

So there - now you know how much you're worth


----------



## Noel

I see China has produced a more accurate test. The current one, as for the other types as well, use samples from the nasal and throat areas. This new test takes samples from, well, somewhere else.....


----------



## RichardG64

Of course China oppressed the news of the beginning of the Outbreak and the finding of the Genome of the Virus.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> View attachment 102026


Hi Selwyn,

I am not sure what your thinking is in sharing this data. Is there a year where you feel the mortality rate should be accepted as being as good as we want it to be?


----------



## Chris152

Noel said:


> Saw similar reports this morning in the German press, hopefully there is no truth in the matter although I did see something about data differences between what the MHRA and what the German health ministry has received. EMA due to decide on approval/CMA on Friday I think.



German authorities recommend not using AZ vaccine for over 65s due to lack of data showing how effective it is for that age:




__





Subscribe to read | Financial Times


News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




www.ft.com




Does seem an odd omission. And what happened to the half first dose method, that proved more effective - are they doing more tests on that?

Hm, link doesn't work, I opened the article via Google News.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Hi Selwyn,
> 
> I am not sure what your thinking is in sharing this data. Is there a year where you feel the mortality rate should be accepted as being as good as we want it to be?



Well firstly it puts 2020 in perspective away from the hysteria. 

It was a bad year for deaths, but it wasn't that bad. 

I would definitely expect the downward curve of deaths to flatten out over time in the UK now as the gains of longer living get more marginal. I wouldn't rule out the odd blip either for flu or even another covid version


----------



## Woodmonkey

Robin, whilst I applaud your perseverance I think there comes a point at which you are flogging a dead horse. 
Some folk are just not interested in changing their opinion, facts or science be damned. 




Chris152 nailed it with his post, I think it makes people feel like they've been smart enough to see through things that the general population aren't smart enough to see.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Hi Selwyn,
> 
> I am not sure what your thinking is in sharing this data. Is there a year where you feel the mortality rate should be accepted as being as good as we want it to be?



Does this help your perspective?


----------



## Pallet Fancier

The entire debacle can be summarised by one key example from the first lockdown: they did not shut down air travel until the very end... the very end... of the first lockdown. Wouldn't that be the very first thing you'd do? Or is that just me?

Never mind that this lockdown wouldn't have happened at all if Macron hadn't come over, greeted Johnson with "Buddha hands" on the steps of Downing Street, and then gone inside the told him to shut the borders or Europe was going to shut them for him. 

Which leads handily on to the other reason the UK has failed. We've failed because Johnson cannot lead. He just wants to make speeches and play with words. He absolutely doesn't want to make decisions. He's a kid who won't do his homework until he's eating his breakfast on the day of the deadline, and then lack of time forces him to just select answer b for all the multiple choice questions and hope that maybe 20% of them are accidentally correct!

There's another reason he does this, however, beyond his own major character flaws. His support base wouldn't stand for any pre-emptive, preventative measures. If Johnson had been possessed by Jacinda Ahern and done exactly as New Zealand did, his own support base would have knifed him because they simply wouldn't accept that such measures were preventing a greater disaster. So to keep them happy, and to justify his actions, he has to wait until the disaster is more or less upon us, then he can point to it and say "See! I have to do this thing, now!" 

On top of that, we've got a Tory party full of sycophants and self-interested tax-avoiding millionaires, after the last of the old guard of Torys was thrown out of the party after the 2019 General Election. There are no old hands with enough cache left to countermand all the new members who came in, the new 80 MPs who were all selected to stand for election based on their craven loyalty to Johnson and to a hard brexit. 

I'm going to stop now. My blood pressure is rising.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Analysis of why the UK did so poorly without resorting to simplistic political point scoring would be more useful. Focus on the issues, not just because you don't like the Tories. 

I regard Jeremy Corbyn, who would otherwise be PM had he not utterly failed at the last election, as a man driven by political ideology, supported by incompetent sycophants (John McDonnell being an exception). But this does not explain what went wrong with covid.

the UK had totally inadequate contingency plans - lack of PPE, testing capacity, ventilators etc. This is the fault of earlier governments - possibly going back several decades.
By around 14th March, the track and trace strategy was stopped on the grounds that infection in the community was too widespread. A contingency planning weakness.
Boris locked down a week too late. Certainly with hindsight he was wrong. 
I'm am unconvinced closing borders would have made any real difference once community infection was widespread. NZ are the end of a branch line, UK is a hub. Comparison is pointless.
Boris should have held the first lockdown a few weeks more to get infection rates right down over the summer.
Boris delayed the second lockdown by 2-3 weeks contrary to scientific advice
The mutated virus was not predictable and made what may have been an otherwise reasonable plan over xmas wrong.
The vaccine rollout can thus far only be judged a great success
Education was and is a shambles
The only major european neighbour to have performed notably better is Germany. They locked down earlier in March, but are now experiencing precisely the same problems as the rest of western europe

Track and trace only works with low levels of infection. We did not get this right. When new cases exceed 10k per day it becomes ineffective.

The UK has a policing by consent culture. It has limited capacity to force compliance, unlike other parts of the world.

The UK believes social irresponsibility is a right. Other cultures place a high value on personal adherence to social norms.

The UK is very fertile ground to encourage the spread of a virus. It is passed on by social interaction. We allow misinformation to flourish. We are more concerned to protect peoples rights than lives. We have neither the culture or capability to ensure compliance.

We were sitting ducks waiting for a pandemic to occur. Government repsonse may have been different with a different administration, but I suspect the outcome may have been very similar.


----------



## doctor Bob

good post


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Does this help your perspective?
> 
> View attachment 102048



Thanks Selwyn.

I‘m very much aware that we have an ageing population. In part this is down to how the population grew in the past but of course as your first graph shows medical science has also extended life expectancy. This is on balance I believe a good thing but that’s not to gloss over the challenges it brings with an older population dependent on the tax revenues generated by a smaller working population.

I don’t think however this data supports a case to let the virus rip (which is my shorthand for what I think you have put forward in earlier posts). I also don’t agree with your interpretation of the data that lockdowns are ineffective at controlling the spread of the virus. I do feel that we cannot lockdown or preserve life at any cost and a balance has to be struck. 

This may be different to your view and I respect your right to see the world differently to me. It’s worth noting however that just because I have a different view to you doesn’t mean I believe in unicorns or never come out of my bedroom!

Stay safe.


----------



## Selwyn

Terry - Somerset said:


> Analysis of why the UK did so poorly without resorting to simplistic political point scoring would be more useful. Focus on the issues, not just because you don't like the Tories.
> 
> I regard Jeremy Corbyn, who would otherwise be PM had he not utterly failed at the last election, as a man driven by political ideology, supported by incompetent sycophants (John McDonnell being an exception). But this does not explain what went wrong with covid.
> 
> the UK had totally inadequate contingency plans - lack of PPE, testing capacity, ventilators etc. This is the fault of earlier governments - possibly going back several decades.
> By around 14th March, the track and trace strategy was stopped on the grounds that infection in the community was too widespread. A contingency planning weakness.
> Boris locked down a week too late. Certainly with hindsight he was wrong.
> I'm am unconvinced closing borders would have made any real difference once community infection was widespread. NZ are the end of a branch line, UK is a hub. Comparison is pointless.
> Boris should have held the first lockdown a few weeks more to get infection rates right down over the summer.
> Boris delayed the second lockdown by 2-3 weeks contrary to scientific advice
> The mutated virus was not predictable and made what may have been an otherwise reasonable plan over xmas wrong.
> The vaccine rollout can thus far only be judged a great success
> Education was and is a shambles
> The only major european neighbour to have performed notably better is Germany. They locked down earlier in March, but are now experiencing precisely the same problems as the rest of western europe
> 
> Track and trace only works with low levels of infection. We did not get this right. When new cases exceed 10k per day it becomes ineffective.
> 
> The UK has a policing by consent culture. It has limited capacity to force compliance, unlike other parts of the world.
> 
> The UK believes social irresponsibility is a right. Other cultures place a high value on personal adherence to social norms.
> 
> The UK is very fertile ground to encourage the spread of a virus. It is passed on by social interaction. We allow misinformation to flourish. We are more concerned to protect peoples rights than lives. We have neither the culture or capability to ensure compliance.
> 
> We were sitting ducks waiting for a pandemic to occur. Government repsonse may have been different with a different administration, but I suspect the outcome may have been very similar.



Ironically we didn't need those ventilators we were short of. 
They did have a ppe problem but also there was a lot of ppe hoarding. They were equipped for ppe for flu not covid.
I doubt a week really made a difference in lockdown. 
Infection rates came down precisely because it was summer, not because it was lockdown. Spain did a super duper lockdown with masks outdoors and indoors etc and infections still rose in October. Don't kid yourself we would have rid of it. It will be interesting to see what happens in OZ/ NZ this winter..

We are just having a rise in all virus this time of year in Western Europe. It will be a different story later on.


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> Thanks Selwyn.
> 
> I‘m very much aware that we have an ageing population. In part this is down to how the population grew in the past but of course as your first graph shows medical science has also extended life expectancy. This is on balance I believe a good thing but that’s not to gloss over the challenges it brings with an older population dependent on the tax revenues generated by a smaller working population.
> 
> I don’t think however this data supports a case to let the virus rip (which is my shorthand for what I think you have put forward in earlier posts). I also don’t agree with your interpretation of the data that lockdowns are ineffective at controlling the spread of the virus. I do feel that we cannot lockdown or preserve life at any cost and a balance has to be struck.
> 
> This may be different to your view and I respect your right to see the world differently to me. It’s worth noting however that just because I have a different view to you doesn’t mean I believe in unicorns or never come out of my bedroom!
> 
> Stay safe.



Ah "let rip", another lockdown fanatic favourite! Yes asking those who are particularly vulnerable to the virus to shield is really letting rip isn't it? 

I think lockdowns are totally pointless and massively damaging once a virus has spread which it has


----------



## Awac

Noel said:


> I see China has produced a more accurate test. The current one, as for the other types as well, use samples from the nasal and throat areas. This new test takes samples from, well, somewhere else.....


Can we please ask all members of the current government to allay the nations fears of such a test and publicly take the test live on TV.......maybe we could employ some people who came over with the _Windrush_ in a show of solidarity to apply the tests, after all they received the same treatment from the government, so who better?


----------



## Awac

Selwyn said:


> It already is a lottery.


Shouldn't be.


----------



## Misterdog

Terry - Somerset said:


> Government repsonse may have been different with a different administration, but I suspect the outcome may have been very similar.



May have been.

A member of Sage said on Newsnight that he thought there might be another 40 to 50 thousand deaths yet to come. Though he did not mention over what time frame.
If this vaccine is only as effective as the flu vaccine I suspect we will see multiple thousand deaths each year. 

Are we going to go into lockdown every year ?

Rishi Sunak told a House Of Commons select committee at the start of the pandemic that he though unemployment would hit - double digits.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

> I doubt a week really made a difference in lockdown.



You may doubt it - I don't. Deaths are a function of the number of infections before lockdown (and the effectiveness of lockdown) . Cases were doubling every three days in March 2020 - a week late in lockdown means approx four times the number of cases and subsequent deaths.



> If this vaccine is only as effective as the flu vaccine I suspect we will see multiple thousand deaths each year.



Based on vaccine approval an effective rate of ~90% is expected. Flu vaccine is approx 50% effective.

Each year 5-20k early deaths are flu related. As a society we implicitly accept this level of risk. The extent to which the virus naturally mutates and those vaccinated are able to transmit the virus is not yet fully understood, but like flu it may simply become an "acceptable risk".


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> Analysis of why the UK did so poorly without resorting to simplistic political point scoring would be more useful. Focus on the issues, not just because you don't like the Tories.
> 
> I regard Jeremy Corbyn, who would otherwise be PM had he not utterly failed at the last election, as a man driven by political ideology, supported by incompetent sycophants (John McDonnell being an exception). But this does not explain what went wrong with covid.
> 
> the UK had totally inadequate contingency plans - lack of PPE, testing capacity, ventilators etc. This is the fault of earlier governments - possibly going back several decades.
> By around 14th March, the track and trace strategy was stopped on the grounds that infection in the community was too widespread. A contingency planning weakness.
> Boris locked down a week too late. Certainly with hindsight he was wrong.
> I'm am unconvinced closing borders would have made any real difference once community infection was widespread. NZ are the end of a branch line, UK is a hub. Comparison is pointless.
> Boris should have held the first lockdown a few weeks more to get infection rates right down over the summer.
> Boris delayed the second lockdown by 2-3 weeks contrary to scientific advice
> The mutated virus was not predictable and made what may have been an otherwise reasonable plan over xmas wrong.
> The vaccine rollout can thus far only be judged a great success
> Education was and is a shambles
> The only major european neighbour to have performed notably better is Germany. They locked down earlier in March, but are now experiencing precisely the same problems as the rest of western europe
> 
> Track and trace only works with low levels of infection. We did not get this right. When new cases exceed 10k per day it becomes ineffective.
> 
> The UK has a policing by consent culture. It has limited capacity to force compliance, unlike other parts of the world.
> 
> The UK believes social irresponsibility is a right. Other cultures place a high value on personal adherence to social norms.
> 
> The UK is very fertile ground to encourage the spread of a virus. It is passed on by social interaction. We allow misinformation to flourish. We are more concerned to protect peoples rights than lives. We have neither the culture or capability to ensure compliance.
> 
> We were sitting ducks waiting for a pandemic to occur. Government repsonse may have been different with a different administration, but I suspect the outcome may have been very similar.



Even I can find a lot to agree with in there. Nicely put.


----------



## Rorschach

Continuing deaths each winter is pretty much inevitable, like flu at the moment. Since C19 is absolutely more transmissible in its current form than flu, and slightly more deadly for those in the oldest groups I suspect that C19 or a variants of it will replace flu as the primary winter killer. The vaccines looks to be much more effective than the flu vaccines but this is countered by easier infection so whether the numbers of deaths will be similar it is hard to say, especially since flu deaths historically are only really a best guess. Hopefully given time the general public will come to realise that anything up to 50k deaths each winter (assume NHS gets it's act together finally) is normal and nothing to worry about, otherwise we will be locked down every winter and deaths will be even higher.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It is defintely seasonal. It could not be more obvious that it is



Selwyn, for goodness sake go and google this, because you are WRONG.

How many times do I have to repeat it?

Why are you unable to learn?

Why do you dogmatically repeat the same thing which is untrue?



Links that confirm Covid is NOT seasonal.

1. WHO. "From the evidence so far, the COVID-19 virus can be transmitted in ALL AREAS, including areas with hot and humid weather. Regardless of climate, adopt protective measures if you live in, or travel to an area reporting COVID-19"

2 healthcare in Europe: "Researchers predict that COVID-19 will likely become seasonal, waning in the summer and prevalent in the winter. But, only once herd immunity is achieved through natural infection or vaccinations"

3. Nature.com: "Researchers say it’s too early in the COVID-19 pandemic to say whether SARS-CoV-2 will become a seasonal virus"


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Continuing deaths each winter is pretty much inevitable, like flu at the moment. Since C19 is absolutely more transmissible in its current form than flu, and slightly more deadly for those in the oldest groups I suspect that C19 or a variants of it will replace flu as the primary winter killer. The vaccines looks to be much more effective than the flu vaccines but this is countered by easier infection so whether the numbers of deaths will be similar it is hard to say, especially since flu deaths historically are only really a best guess. Hopefully given time the general public will come to realise that anything up to 50k deaths each winter (assume NHS gets it's act together finally) is normal and nothing to worry about, otherwise we will be locked down every winter and deaths will be even higher.



Nobody is suggesting lockdowns will keep happening.

The reason for current lockdowns is to damp down infection until enough people have been vaccinated.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Look at the infection rates in places where they didn't lockdown


There is nowhere that has not taken significant non pharmaceutical interventions.

Sweden may not have had mandatory restrictions, but there were still restrictions.


----------



## RobinBHM

Yes but Covid can kill or seriously damage people who are vulnerable.

And there are millions of such people living with chronic conditions.

Do you think a 50 year old with diabetes should die?
Do you think somebody with a kidney transplant should die?
Do you think somebody with a chronic lung condition like COPD should die?

There are so any of such people they can't be identified or protected......which is why no herd immunity advocate can give any answer to how they think these people can be protected.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Lots of data suggests the virus would burn itself out pretty quickly like they all do.


No there isn't.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Selwyn said:


> Ah "let rip", another lockdown fanatic favourite! Yes asking those who are particularly vulnerable to the virus to shield is really letting rip isn't it?
> 
> I think lockdowns are totally pointless and massively damaging once a virus has spread which it has


Apologies Selwyn if my attempt to summarise your view in one word did not capture it as you would have preferred.

I am unfamiliar with the precise definition of a lockdown fanatic but if believing that following the advice of the vast majority of the medical and scientific community rather than the ramblings of keyboard warriors captures it I am happy to wear the t shirt.

Do stay safe as I spoke with my sister last night who is usually a midwife but is currently nursing Covid patients. That chat reinforced my view that this isn’t just a flu virus that only the elderly should be concerned about. Nonetheless I respect you may have a different opinion.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> There is nowhere that has not taken significant non pharmaceutical interventions.
> 
> Sweden may not have had mandatory restrictions, but there were still restrictions.



And that is fine to have some degree of restriction and advice. It is not fine to destroy business', jobs and schools. It really isn't.

So much of this current "wave" is getting mixed in with other normal respiratory problems.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn, for goodness sake go and google this, because you are WRONG.
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat it?
> 
> Why are you unable to learn?
> 
> Why do you dogmatically repeat the same thing which is untrue?
> 
> 
> 
> Links that confirm Covid is NOT seasonal.
> 
> 1. WHO. "From the evidence so far, the COVID-19 virus can be transmitted in ALL AREAS, including areas with hot and humid weather. Regardless of climate, adopt protective measures if you live in, or travel to an area reporting COVID-19"
> 
> 2 healthcare in Europe: "Researchers predict that COVID-19 will likely become seasonal, waning in the summer and prevalent in the winter. But, only once herd immunity is achieved through natural infection or vaccinations"
> 
> 3. Nature.com: "Researchers say it’s too early in the COVID-19 pandemic to say whether SARS-CoV-2 will become a seasonal virus"



You will see eventually that is is seasonal now, its so blindingly obvious. We are seeing a classic gompertz curve now.

Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that. And those who are not immune are overwhelmingly likely not to become too ill.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes but Covid can kill or seriously damage people who are vulnerable.
> 
> And there are millions of such people living with chronic conditions.
> 
> Do you think a 50 year old with diabetes should die?
> Do you think somebody with a kidney transplant should die?
> Do you think somebody with a chronic lung condition like COPD should die?
> 
> There are so any of such people they can't be identified or protected......which is why no herd immunity advocate can give any answer to how they think these people can be protected.



No I think they should shield themselves as much as possible. I don't think we should stop children going to school or destroy business' to get there. Why? Because we need money to be able to help those vulnerable people

You are wilfully ignoring the harms of lockdown.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> So much of this current "wave" is getting mixed in with other normal respiratory problems


No it isn't.

You continuously make unfounded claims not backed up with facts or evidence.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No I think they should shield themselves as much as possible



You can't shield the millions of vulnerable people.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> And that is fine to have some degree of restriction and advice. It is not fine to destroy business', jobs and schools. It really isn't



So you think the best route would be to have minimum lockdown.....with schools etc open.

that would mean infection rates would keep going up....resulting in lockdown lasting longer with more hospital admissions.


By the way....school closures work
"recent evidence has been in favour of the importance of this NPI28,29; school closures in the United States have been found to reduce COVID-19 incidence and mortality by about 60%"








Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour


Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.




www.nature.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You will see eventually that is is seasonal now, its so blindingly obvious. We are seeing a classic gompertz curve now.
> 
> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that. And those who are not immune are overwhelmingly likely not to become too ill.



Selwyn please please please can you stop posting opinions presented as facts.


Why do you insist on claiming Covid is now seasonal when I've posted evidence from scientists that says it is not.

Here is yet another quote for you:

"We hypothesized that COVID-19 will continue to circulate year-round until herd immunity is achieved.

*In your research you stated that COVID-19 could become a seasonal virus but only when herd immunity is reached. Why is this?*
As population immunity builds up, the transmission rate of the virus will drop making it more susceptible to environmental factors that govern seasonality."


----------



## John Brown

On a more positive, if somewhat flippant note, I see the new Johnson and Johnson vaccine has been approved. Much as a dislike Boris, at least we can be reasonably confident that he won't be trying to take credit for this development. Imagine if Trump and Trump had come up with a cure...


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that. And those who are not immune are overwhelmingly likely not to become too ill.



Most people are not immune.....10 to 12 million have had Covid. That's not "most"



Sage says 

Covid-19 cases in the UK remain "dangerously high" with the latest reproduction number, or R value, estimated to be between 0.7 to 1.1, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said
ITV 29th Jan 2021 Covid remains 'dangerously high' with latest R value in UK between 0.7 and 1.1 | ITV News


----------



## RobinBHM

John Brown said:


> Trump and Trump had come up with a cure


Yes it's available under the Domestos brand


----------



## Jameshow

Selwyn said:


> You will see eventually that is is seasonal now, its so blindingly obvious. We are seeing a classic gompertz curve now.
> 
> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that. And those who are not immune are overwhelmingly likely not to become too ill.



The second wave isn't a gompertz curve at all. 

A gompertz curve is a matamatical description of a death rate within a population from 0 -100. 

It does not describe a wave of a pandemic. 

Cheers James


----------



## Mark Hancock

Selwyn said:


> You will see eventually that is is seasonal now, its so blindingly obvious. We are seeing a classic gompertz curve now.
> 
> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that. And those who are not immune are overwhelmingly likely not to become too ill.


Selwyn, just out of interest what planet do you live on?....ignore the above quote as it was just one of many I could have used and like the others is irrelevant.


----------



## Noel

A friend of mine was telling me the other day that we can expect C21 Arriving in the population in March....I’m sure it’s a hot topic on various FB pages that I used to think were quite funny.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> You may doubt it - I don't. Deaths are a function of the number of infections before lockdown (and the effectiveness of lockdown) . Cases were doubling every three days in March 2020 - a week late in lockdown means approx four times the number of cases and subsequent deaths



Yes indeed, the exponential nature of infection spread means the earlier and faster the lockdown the less community spread there is.


That is something the anti lockdown believers don't appreciate......the later interventions are made, the harder the lockdown has to be and the greater the economic damage.

That is why there binary argument of lockdown versus economy doesn't work.

Less lockdown at the beginning to protect the economy.....ends up doing the opposite.


----------



## RobinBHM

RobinBHM said:


> You can't shield the millions of vulnerable people.


I see Rorschach laughs when I say you can't shield the millions of vulnerable people.

But he can't provide any evidence whatsoever that it's at all possible.



That's the problem with GBD and other herd immunity advocates........they all sound plausible but they all gloss over hard facts.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You can't shield the millions of vulnerable people.



You can


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> So you think the best route would be to have minimum lockdown.....with schools etc open.
> 
> that would mean infection rates would keep going up....resulting in lockdown lasting longer with more hospital admissions.
> 
> 
> By the way....school closures work
> "recent evidence has been in favour of the importance of this NPI28,29; school closures in the United States have been found to reduce COVID-19 incidence and mortality by about 60%"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions - Nature Human Behaviour
> 
> 
> Analysing over 50,000â€‰government interventions in more than 200â€‰countries, Haug et al. find that combinations of softer measures, such as risk communication or those increasing healthcare capacity, can be almost as effective as disruptive lockdowns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com



Minimum lockdown yes. Stop posting that more lockdown = less admissions. This is not factually correct.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn please please please can you stop posting opinions presented as facts.
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on claiming Covid is now seasonal when I've posted evidence from scientists that says it is not.
> 
> Here is yet another quote for you:
> 
> "We hypothesized that COVID-19 will continue to circulate year-round until herd immunity is achieved.
> 
> *In your research you stated that COVID-19 could become a seasonal virus but only when herd immunity is reached. Why is this?*
> As population immunity builds up, the transmission rate of the virus will drop making it more susceptible to environmental factors that govern seasonality."



In Europe covid cases declined in the whole of Europe in the summer season


RobinBHM said:


> Selwyn please please please can you stop posting opinions presented as facts.
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on claiming Covid is now seasonal when I've posted evidence from scientists that says it is not.
> 
> Here is yet another quote for you:
> 
> "We hypothesized that COVID-19 will continue to circulate year-round until herd immunity is achieved.
> 
> *In your research you stated that COVID-19 could become a seasonal virus but only when herd immunity is reached. Why is this?*
> As population immunity builds up, the transmission rate of the virus will drop making it more susceptible to environmental factors that govern seasonality."



In Europe the Covid death rates declined massively in the summer season, regardless of lockdown strategy. It couldn't be more obvious that transmission is seasonal. All these types of virus become seasonal. This is the clear evidence.

You have quoted that a scientist "hypothesized". So what? Lots of scientists have hypothesised lots of things about Covid and lots of it have turned out to be wrong. It will continue to be driven by seasonality and mass pcr testing


----------



## Jameshow

Selwyn said:


> Minimum lockdown yes. Stop posting that more lockdown = less admissions. This is not factually correct.


Explain why it's not factually correct??? 

Cheers James


----------



## Selwyn

Mark Hancock said:


> Selwyn, just out of interest what planet do you live on?....ignore the above quote as it was just one of many I could have used and like the others is irrelevant.



Happily ignored. Stay in your bedroom


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You can


The comments you post are based on what you need to believe to fit in with your argument.

This is a typical example.

You claim vulnerable people can be protected.......but you provide no evidence, nothing.


----------



## Selwyn

Jameshow said:


> Explain why it's not factually correct???
> 
> Cheers James



Because its unproven. It defies scientific reasoning because and because it is not provable or disprovable, it is not a logical reason. 

Virus ebbs and flows. Do you see the waves peaking before lockdown in my chart on Wales? Them's the facts


----------



## Jameshow

Of course it is seasonal - no one is denying that, hence the large outbreaks at cold factories. 

It's not driven by PCR testing how can testing drive an pandemic???? 

It can monitor it! But nothing else! 

Cheers James


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Minimum lockdown yes. Stop posting that more lockdown = less admissions. This is not factually correct.


Earlier, harder, faster lockdowns do mean less admissions.

And yes it is factually correct.

By the way, I didn't say "more lockdown"


You could argue some non pharmaceutical interventions have more effect than others.....that is certainly true, but that is emerging data and it's very hard to isolate the effect of one NPI from others as they are all overlapped.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The comments you post are based on what you need to believe to fit in with your argument.
> 
> This is a typical example.
> 
> You claim vulnerable people can be protected.......but you provide no evidence, nothing.



You don't provide any evidence for lockdown. Just unattributed quotes from Sage or a scientist. I've shown you lots of evidence that curves fall before lockdowns but it doesn't fit your dream of exponential viral growth (which by the way hasn't happened anywhere in the world - it has ebbed and flowed accordingly)

As I say once you leave you bedroom, you will find that people are out and about working and doing their thing because they have no choice and have to keep working. Not just "key workers" but independent people who need to keep business and the show on the road. 

You will see one day that what you have invested in emotionally and the time you have spent to scared to open the door has largely been pointless.


----------



## Selwyn

Jameshow said:


> Of course it is seasonal - no one is denying that, hence the large outbreaks at cold factories.
> 
> It's not driven by PCR testing how can testing drive an pandemic????
> 
> It can monitor it! But nothing else!
> 
> Cheers James



Mass testing of students before Xmas? Come on. That is not monitoring a virus. Testing everyone - whether they are ill or not before Xmas is not monitoring a virus. Do the same test on a town and you will get the same data. 

Robin is convinced it is not seasonal yet cannot explain the lack of transmission in the summer (for all countries).


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Earlier, harder, faster lockdowns do mean less admissions.
> 
> And yes it is factually correct.
> 
> By the way, I didn't say "more lockdown"
> 
> 
> You could argue some non pharmaceutical interventions have more effect than others.....that is certainly true, but that is emerging data and it's very hard to isolate the effect of one NPI from others as they are all overlapped.



You can claim it is emerging data. but then you would also be guilty of ignoring all the history of immunology . Covid is a nasty virus - but it is not that special or innovative over and above any other. 

If you want to correlate lockdown and lower admissions then you need to also correlate masks and more admissions. The more mask wearing we have done the more deaths we have had. Maybe you only want science to your interpretation?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes indeed, the exponential nature of infection spread means the earlier and faster the lockdown the less community spread there is.
> 
> 
> That is something the anti lockdown believers don't appreciate......the later interventions are made, the harder the lockdown has to be and the greater the economic damage.
> 
> That is why there binary argument of lockdown versus economy doesn't work.
> 
> Less lockdown at the beginning to protect the economy.....ends up doing the opposite.



Look at my chart above from Wales for just one local example. It doesn't grow exponentially. It never did in places where they didn't lockdown. You don't even understand what exponential means

There is loads of evidence that it doesn't grow exponentially. It ebbs and flows.


----------



## julianf

Someone posted this to another forum.


----------



## julianf

Selwyn said:


> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that.



Could you possibly link me to the data your are referring to?


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> Could you possibly link me to the data your are referring to?



Isn't it obvious to you already? There are reams and reams of data. Just look at the statistics.

Outside the obvious peak in April how many people are dying? About .1-.2%, maybe even less. Of which the vast majority are old. Sad of course but for some it will have been a release as well given the level of comorbidities. And that peak was exacerbated because we chucked people out of hospitals into care homes - disaster but its done now.

There are millions of people who have tested "positive" but have no illness or symptoms. 
There will be millions of others who have not had a test, had no illness or symptoms but could potentially have tested "positive"
There will be millions of others who are totally unaffected and to all intents and purposes immune even if in a room full of Covid sufferers. Children are a great example, bursting with antibodies and good health they are immune, but this can still be the case in a care home too. 

There is a tiny section of people who will be desparately unlucky who would be healthy and young but succumb. A lot of these may have unknown comorbidities. 

In places where the weather is less conducive to respiratory diseases there will be more immunity. 

If there wasn't a strong element of immunity more people would have had Covid. Its a nasty virus.


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> Someone posted this to another forum.
> 
> View attachment 102187



This the same Japan that didn't lockdown. Funny that...


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It couldn't be more obvious that transmission is seasonal. All these types of virus become seasonal. This is the clear evidence.


Evidence proves you are wrong.

They become seasonal once  But, only once herd immunity is achieved through natural infection or vaccinations.


Warm weather does not kill off the coronavirus or hamper its ability to spread, two separate studies have found.

"US and Canadian researchers said the transmission risk was only reduced by about 1.5 per cent for every degree Fahrenheit above 77F (25C).

They analysed more than 370,000 cases in thousands of different cities in North America to come to the conclusion 'summer is not going to make this go away.'"









Warmer weather does NOT kill off coronavirus, study finds


US and Canadian researchers said the transmission risk was only reduced by about 1.5 per cent for every degree Fahrenheit above 77F (25C). They analysed 370,000 cases of the virus.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## RobinBHM

More evidence Covid is not seasonal

*Hot or cold, weather alone has no significant effect on COVID-19 spread*



Research led by The University of Texas at Austin is adding some clarity on weather's role in COVID-19 infection, with a new study finding that temperature and humidity do not play a significant role in coronavirus spread.

That means whether it's hot or cold outside, the transmission of COVID-19 from one person to the next depends almost entirely on human behavior.









Hot or cold, weather alone has no significant effect on COVID-19 spread


New research is adding some clarity on weather's role in COVID-19 infection, with a new study finding that temperature and humidity do not play a significant role in coronavirus spread.



www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## julianf

Selwyn said:


> Isn't it obvious to you already? There are reams and reams of data. Just look at the statistics.
> 
> Outside the obvious peak in April how many people are dying? About .1-.2%, maybe even less. Of which the vast majority are old. Sad of course but for some it will have been a release as well given the level of comorbidities. And that peak was exacerbated because we chucked people out of hospitals into care homes - disaster but its done now.
> 
> There are millions of people who have tested "positive" but have no illness or symptoms.
> There will be millions of others who have not had a test, had no illness or symptoms but could potentially have tested "positive"
> There will be millions of others who are totally unaffected and to all intents and purposes immune even if in a room full of Covid sufferers. Children are a great example, bursting with antibodies and good health they are immune, but this can still be the case in a care home too.
> 
> There is a tiny section of people who will be desparately unlucky who would be healthy and young but succumb. A lot of these may have unknown comorbidities.
> 
> In places where the weather is less conducive to respiratory diseases there will be more immunity.
> 
> If there wasn't a strong element of immunity more people would have had Covid. Its a nasty virus.



I'm sorry, I thought you meant immunity, rather than symptomatic.

It is entirely incorrect of you to claim immunity from the data you suggest.

Able to be infected without becoming symptomatic is not the same as immunity, and, outside of any and all other arguments, you were incorrect to claim they were the same.


----------



## RobinBHM

Further explanation of why Covid is not seasonal:

"This leads us to the last point: Even seasonal infections can happen “out of season” when they are new.
New viruses have a temporary but important advantage – few or no individuals in the population are immune to them. Old viruses, which have been in the population for longer, operate on a thinner margin — most individuals are immune, and they have to make do with transmitting among the few who aren’t. In simple terms, viruses that have been around for a long time can make a living — spread through the population — only when the conditions are the most favorable, in this case in winter."









Seasonality of SARS-CoV-2: Will COVID-19 go away on its own in warmer weather?


Marc Lipsitch, DPhil Professor of Epidemiology and Director, Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (tl;dr) Probably not. Several people, including the …




ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> If there wasn't a strong element of immunity more people would have had Covid



The reason more people haven't had it is because thankfully governments around the world make decisions based on experts and data.....not from people like you.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> This the same Japan that didn't lockdown. Funny that...




They actually did a national lockdown, Abe did not make it mandatory (the legal system presents some difficulties in this situation) but it seems that most of the population heeded his advice. I remember seeing the streets of Japanese cities deserted where normally you couldn't see the ground for the mass of people. His successor Suga issued another state of emergency earlier this month for Tokyo and other cities, it seems most are doing as there are advised. All foreign flights banned, work at home etc.
Culture and individual societies make a lot of difference. Testing is a big issue as well, too few.
As for the Olympics, it would hard to see them going ahead. despite government reassurances.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I see Rorschach laughs when I say you can't shield the millions of vulnerable people.
> 
> But he can't provide any evidence whatsoever that it's at all possible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with GBD and other herd immunity advocates........they all sound plausible but they all gloss over hard facts.



Yeah you can't shield a couple of million but you can lockdown 70 million, makes perfect sense


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Outside the obvious peak in April how many people are dying? About .1-.2%, maybe even less. Of which the vast majority are old. Sad of course but for some it will have been a release as well given the level of comorbidities



Ah, the good old: "Covid only kills a few old people, so there is no need for lockdown"


Here is the reality:

“COVID-19 is not just hazardous for elderly people, it is extremely dangerous for people in their mid-fifties, sixties and seventies"








The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks


A slew of detailed studies has now quantified the increased risk the virus poses to older people, men, and other groups.




www.nature.com





Is it just old people at risk?

There are specific high-risk preexisting comorbidities for COVID-19 hospitalization and related deaths in community-based older men and women. These results do not support simple age-based targeting of the older population to prevent severe COVID-19 infections









Preexisting Comorbidities Predicting COVID-19 and Mortality in the UK Biobank Community Cohort


AbstractBackground. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients tend to be older and frequently have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary heart disease, but whether these com




academic.oup.com


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Of which the vast majority are old. Sad of course but for some it will have been a release



"Rupert Pearse, an intensive care consultant at the Royal London Hospital, said: “The situation in London is now much worse than the first wave and still deteriorating. Sad to see long queues of ambulances outside the hospital where I work. Almost all my patients are less than 60 years old and previously fit. If you think this disease can’t touch you, then think again"

Selwyn says: " it's a release for all those younger people under 60"


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you meant immunity, rather than symptomatic.
> 
> It is entirely incorrect of you to claim immunity from the data you suggest.
> 
> Able to be infected without becoming symptomatic is not the same as immunity, and, outside of any and all other arguments, you were incorrect to claim they were the same.



No I mean both. I am not claiming they are the same. 

There are some people that will be who will be infected and not symptomatic (although this data is in a mess because a lot of people without symptoms were having tests). We pretend these people are "ill" but it goes against all our historical experience of previous immunology.

There will also be a lot of people with immunity. Fullstop. There has to be. Think about how virus' have evolved. They are us. The statistics indicate this - the most vulnerable to Covid are the most vulnerable for a range of other reasons as well overwhelmingly.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Evidence proves you are wrong.
> 
> They become seasonal once  But, only once herd immunity is achieved through natural infection or vaccinations.
> 
> 
> Warm weather does not kill off the coronavirus or hamper its ability to spread, two separate studies have found.
> 
> "US and Canadian researchers said the transmission risk was only reduced by about 1.5 per cent for every degree Fahrenheit above 77F (25C).
> 
> They analysed more than 370,000 cases in thousands of different cities in North America to come to the conclusion 'summer is not going to make this go away.'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warmer weather does NOT kill off coronavirus, study finds
> 
> 
> US and Canadian researchers said the transmission risk was only reduced by about 1.5 per cent for every degree Fahrenheit above 77F (25C). They analysed 370,000 cases of the virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk



It totally depends on the country and the way their viral seasons have evolved. Its not about hot or cold weather per se, and I didn't claim it was. Viral seasons are different for each country - we know when our European viral season is


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> "Rupert Pearse, an intensive care consultant at the Royal London Hospital, said: “The situation in London is now much worse than the first wave and still deteriorating. Sad to see long queues of ambulances outside the hospital where I work. Almost all my patients are less than 60 years old and previously fit. If you think this disease can’t touch you, then think again"
> 
> Selwyn says: " it's a release for all those younger people under 60"



This isn't what I said. Argue the data not chit chat of "long queues" etc.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Yeah you can't shield a couple of million but you can lockdown 70 million, makes perfect sense


Nice deflection to avoid admitting it's impossible to identify vulnerable people....of which there are many millions.

70 million people locked down eh?

Is that true?

Majority of people can continue working.
Schools are at 30% to 50% capacity

Where are these people that are locked down?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> but you can lockdown 70 million



Yes that is a real concern.....locking down 4 million more people than actually live in the UK.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> This isn't what I said. Argue the data not chit chat of "long queues" etc.



You deliberately avoid the salient point "Almost all my patients are less than 60 years old and previously fit."

Nice strawman by the way. ("Not chit chat of long queues").


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Nice deflection to avoid admitting it's impossible to identify vulnerable people....of which there are many millions.
> 
> 70 million people locked down eh?
> 
> Is that true?
> 
> Majority of people can continue working.
> Schools are at 30% to 50% capacity
> 
> Where are these people that are locked down?



Of course you can identify vulnerable people you daft man.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You deliberately avoid the salient point "Almost all my patients are less than 60 years old and previously fit."
> 
> Nice strawman by the way. ("Not chit chat of long queues").



Twitter quotes are not the bigger picture. He is not giving us numbers of people, the situation in all the hospitals, the level of healthy staff who are off work but not ill etc. 

Its not the big picture. If you want to argue that we need the sledgehammer of lockdown everywhere then you need more than one doctors tweet from his perspective.

You need to open your eyes a little more


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> It totally depends on the country and the way their viral seasons have evolved. Its not about hot or cold weather per se, and I didn't claim it was. Viral seasons are different for each country - we know when our European viral season is



You claim Covid is seasonal.

It is not, as the extensive evidence I've shown proves.


Your opinion is that Covid waves are determined by seasonality and lockdowns have no effect......you are rigidly sticking to your belief and are dogmatically picking and choosing data to try and support your argument.



Choice supportive bias is preventing you from doing unbiased research and critical thinking.........you are denying yourself the truth which limits your understanding of the disease.


----------



## Selwyn

Noel said:


> They actually did a national lockdown, Abe did not make it mandatory (the legal system presents some difficulties in this situation) but it seems that most of the population heeded his advice. I remember seeing the streets of Japanese cities deserted where normally you couldn't see the ground for the mass of people. His successor Suga issued another state of emergency earlier this month for Tokyo and other cities, it seems most are doing as there are advised. All foreign flights banned, work at home etc.
> Culture and individual societies make a lot of difference. Testing is a big issue as well, too few.
> As for the Olympics, it would hard to see them going ahead. despite government reassurances.



Maybe we should have had a more lenient lockdown like Japan then? Fanatics won't like it


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You claim Covid is seasonal.
> 
> It is not, as the extensive evidence I've shown proves.
> 
> 
> Your opinion is that Covid waves are determined by seasonality and lockdowns have no effect......you are rigidly sticking to your belief and are dogmatically picking and choosing data to try and support your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Choice supportive bias is preventing you from doing unbiased research and critical thinking.........you are denying yourself the truth which limits your understanding of the disease.



Not at all. You invoked hot and cold weather as "proof". I did not. There is more to seasons than that. You need to understand a bit more that it is not about absolute temperatures.

I've mentioned some great examples of where no lockdown appears to have had no significant difference (sweden, japan, s dakota, florida). Some countries weren't even badly affected until their first wave came in October.

You will get it eventually, probably in about 18 months or more. A virus will do what a virus will do - what they have all done - ebb and flow. A government won't stop a virus. Lockdown won't either. Small changes in human behaviour can help.


----------



## Noel

Selwyn said:


> Maybe we should have had a more lenient lockdown like Japan then? Fanatics won't like it



Japanese public generally take heed for the public good. Elsewhere, especially UK, not so much.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Of course you can identify vulnerable people you daft man.



Here you go again....stating opinion as fact.

Yet with zero back up of evidence.


You can't just dismiss things you don't like because it doesn't fit your narrative......science doesn't work like that.

If you notice, I back up my posts with quotes which are linked and from reliable sources.





“Logistically, how on earth are we to both identify those at risk and effectively separate them from the rest of society? Basing risk primarily upon risk of death completely ignores the profound morbidity associated with the pandemic, including what we now term as “long COVID”, plus the criteria by which one or more risk factors might predispose towards severe disease remain both uncertain and incredibly diverse – we have only lived with this virus for ten months, we simply do not understand it well enough to attempt this with any surety





__





expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ | Science Media Centre






www.sciencemediacentre.org


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You invoked hot and cold weather as "proof". I did not


Classic strawman.

I included various quotes, which included temperature, its not the only factor.


----------



## Selwyn

Has no one found it remarkable how few deaths there have been in prison with covid? Its a reasonable petri dish.

I mean if carers are considered to spread covid coming into care homes,or I could spread it going into a newsagent is it not the same for prison workers?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> A virus will do what a virus will do - what they have all done - ebb and flow



Not in the pandemic stage of a virus.
Not when variants are happening

Seasonality doesn't happen until herd immunity is reached......widely understood by virologists......not so much by you.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Here you go again....stating opinion as fact.
> 
> Yet with zero back up of evidence.
> 
> 
> You can't just dismiss things you don't like because it doesn't fit your narrative......science doesn't work like that.
> 
> If you notice, I back up my posts with quotes which are linked and from reliable sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Logistically, how on earth are we to both identify those at risk and effectively separate them from the rest of society? Basing risk primarily upon risk of death completely ignores the profound morbidity associated with the pandemic, including what we now term as “long COVID”, plus the criteria by which one or more risk factors might predispose towards severe disease remain both uncertain and incredibly diverse – we have only lived with this virus for ten months, we simply do not understand it well enough to attempt this with any surety
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ | Science Media Centre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemediacentre.org



So now instead of trying to get those who are vulnerable to look after themselves, we have to pretend that everyone is vulnerable (even though they are not). Its classic levelling down. Its inane


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Has no one found it remarkable how few deaths there have been in prison with covid? Its a reasonable petri dish.
> 
> I mean if carers are considered to spread covid coming into care homes,or I could spread it going into a newsagent is it not the same for prison workers?



No because prisoners and prison officers can maintain social,distancing.

There's no equivalence to care homes.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> So now instead of trying to get those who are vulnerable to look after themselves, we have to pretend that everyone is vulnerable (even though they are not). Its classic levelling down. Its inane



Appeal to extremes logical fallacy.


And a deflection.....because you can't provide any evidence to back up your claim it's possible to protect the vulnerable.

Why have there been healthcare workers, bus drivers etc dying from Covid......because some are vulnerable. 
Could government identify all those and shield them all........NO.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You will get it eventually, probably in about 18 months or more



What will I get....that your dishonest debating proves you are right....not so much, I'm afraid.

That I, and the bulk of scientists and the bulk of governments are wrong.....and that Selwyn is right.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No because prisoners and prison officers can maintain social,distancing.
> 
> There's no equivalence to care homes.



Oh well if its just social distancing we need to do then what are we worrying about?

We can all do that. Lucky these prisoners are all singing happy birthday when washing their hands eh. 



RobinBHM said:


> Appeal to extremes logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> And a deflection.....because you can't provide any evidence to back up your claim it's possible to protect the vulnerable.
> 
> Why have there been healthcare workers, bus drivers etc dying from Covid......because some are vulnerable.
> Could government identify all those and shield them all........NO.



Well if we can protect prisoners from covid why is it we can't protect the more vulnerable? Prisoners are as likely to have underlying health conditions too.

Yes bus drivers etc have died particularly in the beginning when no one was so careful. As I've asked you before how many health workers and bus drivers have died since June?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> What will I get....that your dishonest debating proves you are right....not so much, I'm afraid.
> 
> That I, and the bulk of scientists and the bulk of governments are wrong.....and that Selwyn is right.



Well I look forward to hearing you wanting a lockdown next times influenza rises too. Lockdown makes no sense.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown makes no sense.


What you mean is: lockdowns make no sense to Selwyns opinions.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Yes bus drivers etc have died particularly in the beginning when no one was so careful



oh really?

how have people become more careful?

are you now saying bus drivers are no longer vulnerable to covid?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Oh well if its just social distancing we need to do then what are we worrying about?


lockdown interventions are mostly used for social distancing

can you tell me what lockdown interventions have been put in place for something other than social distancing?






Theres a difference between prisoners and the general public.

its not difficult to lockdown prisoners, its kind of the whole idea


----------



## julianf

Selwyn said:


> There will also be a lot of people with immunity. Fullstop.







Selwyn said:


> Most people are immune anyway. The data shows that.




I asked you for data. You made a statement on what is presented to you and made a conclusion on it that displays a lack of understanding.

It's akin to me saying that the moon is made of cheese, because I've seen it, and it looks just like Edam.

It does not make it valid. Just because I say it.

I should have asked you for data to support your hypothesis that "most people are immune anyway" and back up of your hypothesis from a significant body of respected (as in previous work in the field) people. They term normally used is "peer reviewed"


I can't argue with your belief that "most people are immune anyway" but, without giving the above, it is nothing more than your own, fairly worthless, opinion.

I would try and help your understanding by suggesting the case of clamyidia. Most males show no symptoms when they become infected. This is in no way the same as most males being immune from clamydia.

Your own individual interpretation of the data is neither here nor there without being able to show people with a track record in the area confirming your suggestion.

It's harder to systematically tie down errors in opinion in political discussion, but, when someone like yourself starts to make basic scientific statements without supplying the requested information, when asked, you start to look like a bit of a loose cannon.

To regain credibility, I would suggest that you supply some firm data to support your "most people are immune anyway" along with some writings by (a significant number) of others in the field who have gained more respect in the scientific community than yourself.

If you can't or can't be bothered, for anyone of an analytical mindset, your credibility will be significantly reduced.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> As I've asked you before how many health workers and bus drivers have died since June?


if you know the answer, please provide it.

if you dont, then I can presume its just conjecture


----------



## julianf

julianf said:


> If you can't or can't be bothered, for anyone of an analytical mindset, your credibility will be significantly reduced.




I have realised now, that the reality is that I will get a reply with a load of words and no clear answer.

So to preempt that.

A properly presented data set.
Support for the hypothesis by more than a couple of respected people working in the field. Ie people who have published papers. 

I really don't mean a link to a daily mail news article and a load of irrelevant chat.

Again, properly presented data (not just "can't you see?" etc, as evidently I can not)
Names and links to text of people supporting your hypothesis. Not daily mail comments section. Actual people with letters after their names who work in the field.

Thank you.


----------



## Misterdog

RobinBHM said:


> The reason more people haven't had it is because thankfully governments around the world make decisions based on experts and data.....not from people like you.



These worldwide scientific experts ?









Covid-19: did the UK government prepare for the wrong kind of pandemic?


Britain’s highly rated disease preparation failed on coronavirus – possibly because ministers followed a plan for flu




www.theguardian.com





Follow the science !!

It's just like saying follow the politics.


----------



## billw

Noel said:


> Japanese public generally take heed for the public good. Elsewhere, especially UK, not so much.



Correct, huge cultural difference. You won't see any Japanese flapping their arms around screaming 'but what about MY RIGHTS'.


----------



## RobinBHM

Misterdog said:


> These worldwide scientific experts ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covid-19: did the UK government prepare for the wrong kind of pandemic?
> 
> 
> Britain’s highly rated disease preparation failed on coronavirus – possibly because ministers followed a plan for flu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the science !!
> 
> It's just like saying follow the politics.


Thats a very interesting article although I'm not sure it proves the scientists were wrong.

here is an extract from Reuters article:

(Note: SPI-M is flu pandemic modelling committee)


"Edmunds recalled that “from about mid January onwards, it was absolutely obvious that this was serious, very serious.” Graham Medley, a professor of infectious diseases modelling at the London School and chairman of SPI-M, agreed. He said that the committee was “clear that this was going to be big from the first meeting.” At the end of January, his committee moved into “wartime” mode, he said, reporting directly into SAGE.

Dr Jon Read, a senior lecturer in biostatistics at the University of Lancaster, also a member of SPI-M, said by the end of January it was apparent the virus had “pandemic potential” and that death rates for the elderly were brutal. “From my perspective within the sort of modelling community, everybody’s aware of this, and we’re saying that this is probably going to be pretty bad,” he said.

But the scientists did not articulate their fears forcefully to the government, minutes of committee meetings reveal."

_the initial failure doesn't seem to stem from following the wrong science but:_

As they watched China impose its lockdown, the British scientists assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK. Among those modelling the outbreak, such stringent counter-measures were not, at first, examined.

“We had milder interventions in place,” said Edmunds, because no one thought it would be acceptable politically “to shut the country down.”









Special Report: Johnson listened to his scientists about coronavirus - but they were slow to sound the alarm


It was early spring when British scientists laid out the bald truth to their government. It was "highly likely," they said, that there was now "sustained transmission" of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Jameshow

I wonder too if Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers etc. 

Some scientists seem to think so according to several newspaper articles. 

Cheers James


----------



## RobinBHM

Jameshow said:


> I wonder too if Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers etc.
> 
> Some scientists seem to think so according to several newspaper articles.
> 
> Cheers James


that could well be the case.

one thing is certain; these countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan all had experience of dealing with similar viruses and the public are used to wearing masks and social distancing.

back in Jan 2020, I used to watch the images of people walking along the street wearing masks thinking how weird it was.

Now if Im watching TV of some old footage of people in the street -Im thinking, why is that person shaking hands, why are they standing so close together.....


----------



## Rorschach

Jameshow said:


> I wonder too if Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers etc.
> 
> Some scientists seem to think so according to several newspaper articles.
> 
> Cheers James



Certainly possible and plausible. Same goes for Aus and NZ too and might explain why they found it easier to keep their outbreaks under control.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> if you know the answer, please provide it.
> 
> if you dont, then I can presume its just conjecture




No I'm asking you. You are making the claim


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> that could well be the case.
> 
> one thing is certain; these countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan all had experience of dealing with similar viruses and the public are used to wearing masks and social distancing.
> 
> back in Jan 2020, I used to watch the images of people walking along the street wearing masks thinking how weird it was.
> 
> Now if Im watching TV of some old footage of people in the street -Im thinking, why is that person shaking hands, why are they standing so close together.....



"could well be the case" - you need to man up a bit and come up with better statements than that

The last sentence shows how brainwashed you have now become


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> I asked you for data. You made a statement on what is presented to you and made a conclusion on it that displays a lack of understanding.
> 
> It's akin to me saying that the moon is made of cheese, because I've seen it, and it looks just like Edam.
> 
> It does not make it valid. Just because I say it.
> 
> I should have asked you for data to support your hypothesis that "most people are immune anyway" and back up of your hypothesis from a significant body of respected (as in previous work in the field) people. They term normally used is "peer reviewed"
> 
> 
> I can't argue with your belief that "most people are immune anyway" but, without giving the above, it is nothing more than your own, fairly worthless, opinion.
> 
> I would try and help your understanding by suggesting the case of clamyidia. Most males show no symptoms when they become infected. This is in no way the same as most males being immune from clamydia.
> 
> Your own individual interpretation of the data is neither here nor there without being able to show people with a track record in the area confirming your suggestion.
> 
> It's harder to systematically tie down errors in opinion in political discussion, but, when someone like yourself starts to make basic scientific statements without supplying the requested information, when asked, you start to look like a bit of a loose cannon.
> 
> To regain credibility, I would suggest that you supply some firm data to support your "most people are immune anyway" along with some writings by (a significant number) of others in the field who have gained more respect in the scientific community than yourself.
> 
> If you can't or can't be bothered, for anyone of an analytical mindset, your credibility will be significantly reduced.



Ok lets leave it there. Lets see what comes out in a bit and we shall see if there is no evidence for pre existing immunity for Covid 19. I'll bet you there is, why? Because all past immunological research shows a fair proportion of pre existing immunity for all other covids. Covid -19 is novel but it is not that novel, it has so many genetic similarities that it appears to be the highly unlikely to be a brand new virus.

Remember Swine flu?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No I'm asking you. You are making the claim


it is not a claim, it is fact

700 healthcare professsionals have died from covid

you are the one banging on about when they died, not me.

you are asking how many died after June...well go on then, lets here the answer


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Ok lets leave it there. Lets see what comes out in a bit and we shall see if there is no evidence for pre existing immunity for Covid 19. I'll bet you there is, why? Because all past immunological research shows a fair proportion of pre existing immunity for all other covids. Covid -19 is novel but it is not that novel



Of course you want to "leave it there"

its because you've stated an opinion as fact, but when asked you have nothing to back it up.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> it is not a claim, it is fact
> 
> 700 healthcare professsionals have died from covid
> 
> you are the one banging on about when they died, not me.
> 
> you are asking how many died after June...well go on then, lets here the answer



I don't know. I'm asking you. 

The reason is it puts an entirely different inflection on the claim. We know there was a shortage of ppe early on and a different approach up until end of March.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Because all past immunological research shows a fair proportion of pre existing immunity for all other covids


once again

opinion stated as fact.

why do you do it? ..........is it because in you mind, you've already turned it in to fact, without the evidence.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Of course you want to "leave it there"
> 
> its because you've stated an opinion as fact, but when asked you have nothing to back it up.



Not at all. 

Heres one








People may have a pre-existing immune response to COVID-19 thanks to common colds


Now, a new study shows that some people have immune responses against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, thanks to how the body reacted the last time it caught a cold. This means that even if a person has not been exposed to the...




www.news-medical.net





Heres another




__





Coronavirus & immunology Q&A: what you need to know about our new report | British Society for Immunology


A summary of what we do and don't know about the immunology of infection with the new Coronavirus.




www.immunology.org


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> once again
> 
> opinion stated as fact.
> 
> why do you do it? ..........is it because in you mind, you've already turned it in to fact, without the evidence.




I gave you factual evidence from Wales that the viral cases peaked before the lockdown. It was there in plain sight. You didn't like it so ignored it.

What can I do?

You are not going to answer me the question about how many health workers have died since June of Covid are you?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Certainly possible and plausible. Same goes for Aus and NZ too and might explain why they found it easier to keep their outbreaks under control.


No, its because Australia and NZ used the strategy elimination of community transmission.


----------



## Droogs

Robin, Jullian you guys aren't going to get him to change about anything. Why not go do something a lot easier, like teach a mushroom calculus


----------



## julianf

[


Selwyn said:


> Ok lets leave it there. Lets see what comes out in a bit and we shall see if there is no evidence for pre existing immunity for Covid 19. I'll bet you there is, why? Because all past immunological research shows a fair proportion of pre existing immunity for all other covids. Covid -19 is novel but it is not that novel, it has so many genetic similarities that it appears to be the highly unlikely to be a brand new virus.
> 
> Remember Swine flu?



No, let's not leave it there.

I asked you to submit some peer reviewed evidence to support your claim that most of the population is immune to covid.

I pointed out that you would loose credibility if you were not able to do so.

You're response?

"Let's leave it there"


That's an appalling response. Shame on you.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Heres one



it has the word "may" in the headline, hardly conclusive.

article published 14th Dec:

"Currently, several scientists have suggested that a significant proportion of the population have* pre-existing immunity* because of T cells primed against SARS-CoV-2 antigens before exposure. This is thought to be the result of prior infection by the cross-reactive endemic human coronaviruses. However, a new study published in the preprint server _bioRxiv*_ *in 2020 concludes that this may not be the case*."








Prior T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unlikely to be the result of seasonal coronavirus infection


Scientists have suggested that a proportion of the population have pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 because of T cells primed against SARS-CoV-2 antigens.




www.news-medical.net


----------



## RobinBHM

Droogs said:


> Why not go do something a lot easier, like teach a mushroom calculus



I'm sure theres a "fun-gi" joke in there somewhere


----------



## Selwyn

julianf said:


> [
> 
> 
> No, let's not leave it there.
> 
> I asked you to submit some peer reviewed evidence to support your claim that most of the population is immune to covid.
> 
> I pointed out that you would loose credibility if you were not able to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RobinBHM said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has the word "may" in the headline, hardly conclusive.
> 
> article published 14th Dec:
> 
> "Currently, several scientists have suggested that a significant proportion of the population have* pre-existing immunity* because of T cells primed against SARS-CoV-2 antigens before exposure. This is thought to be the result of prior infection by the cross-reactive endemic human coronaviruses. However, a new study published in the preprint server _bioRxiv*_ *in 2020 concludes that this may not be the case*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unlikely to be the result of seasonal coronavirus infection
> 
> 
> Scientists have suggested that a proportion of the population have pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 because of T cells primed against SARS-CoV-2 antigens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news-medical.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immunlogical history shows that there is an awful lot of prior immunity to virus'. So it is there. Either of us can churn out data from a google search to pro or con that at our choosing. To me its pretty obvious there is prior immunity based on other covids.
> 
> Are you going tell me these health worker deaths or are you going to skate over it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Selwyn

Jameshow said:


> I wonder too if Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers etc.
> 
> Some scientists seem to think so according to several newspaper articles.
> 
> Cheers James





RobinBHM said:


> that could well be the case.



So can people be immune or not?

You can't have it both ways!

Most of you guys are denying that this novel virus from an ancient family of seasonal virus' is behaving in a way that anyone who observed its closest relatives might have been able to predict.


----------



## doctor Bob

Droogs said:


> Robin, Jullian you guys aren't going to get him to change about anything. Why not go do something a lot easier, like teach a mushroom calculus



You can try and teach him calculus but I don't think Maths is Jacobs thing.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Most of you guys are denying that this novel virus from an ancient family of seasonal virus'



Why dont you understand, viruses arent seasonal when they first spread.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> So can people be immune or not?
> 
> You can't have it both ways!



Please read more carefully: "Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers"


----------



## RobinBHM

RobinBHM said:


> No, its because Australia and NZ used the strategy elimination of community transmission.


Rorschach laughs at this......because he has no counter argument, because its true.

Maybe Rorschach should look at how early NZ and Aust shut their borders to China and then to the RoW.
And how strict internal interventions were.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I gave you factual evidence from Wales that the viral cases peaked before the lockdown. It was there in plain sight. You didn't like it so ignored it.



it doesnt prove what you think it does, you need to look at the detail.

look at test positivity:


"We continue to be cautious because while the number of people being tested has fallen, the testing positivity rate remains very high at 25% across Wales."

And this testing positivity is key.

This is the percentage of people who are tested that end up testing positive for the virus. This is a good indicator of the amount of the virus circulating in the community.








Back in July this was regularly well below 1%.

Now it has been over 15% since the start of December. *This figure did not fall over Christmas as you can see from this graph:*









What's going on with the coronavirus statistics in Wales?


Wales is no longer the hardest-hit part of the UK




www.walesonline.co.uk


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please read more carefully: "Japan / China might also have some immunity due to previous exposure to SARS / mers"



I did. What's to look at? Sars/ Mers are other covids.
Either immunity is a possibilty or it is not. It is either possible or it is not possible. Its quite simple.

My suggestion that people have prior immunity seems to have been criticised and yet you concede it may be a possibility but only in a country of your choosing. You have a few splinters in your bottom from that fence now!


----------



## Selwyn

[


RobinBHM said:


> Why dont you understand, viruses arent seasonal when they first spread.



Why don't you understand that it hasn't "first spread". It first spread last winter. Then it died out. This is what it is going to do, like the other covids. It will soften over time as well as we get - you guessed it, HERD IMMUNITY! There is no other choice although vaccines are of course very welcome assistance


----------



## Lons

RobinBHM said:


> The reason more people haven't had it is because thankfully governments around the world make decisions based on experts and data.....not from people like you.


You're wasting your time Robin, a friend recently made a succinct observation, _there are people who make excellent candidates for retrograde abortion_. I'll leave it to you to decide who they are.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Lons said:


> You're wasting your time Robin, a friend recently made a succinct observation, _there are people who make excellent candidates for retrograde abortion_. I'll leave it to you to decide who they are.


Sorry but that post should be taken down. It’s offensive.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> You're wasting your time Robin, a friend recently made a succinct observation, _there are people who make excellent candidates for retrograde abortion_. I'll leave it to you to decide who they are.



You! You useless t.urd


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach laughs at this......because he has no counter argument, because its true.
> 
> Maybe Rorschach should look at how early NZ and Aust shut their borders to China and then to the RoW.
> And how strict internal interventions were.


And how much better their economies have fared as a result.


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> Has no one found it remarkable how few deaths there have been in prison with covid? Its a reasonable petri dish.
> 
> I mean if carers are considered to spread covid coming into care homes,or I could spread it going into a newsagent is it not the same for prison workers?


It's pretty obvious had you bothered to check. 
Only 5,058 of a total England & Wales population of 82,620 ( in 2019 ) were over the age of 60, that's just over 6% of the prison population, in fact only 13,


620 are over the age of 50 which is 16%.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> It's pretty obvious had you bothered to check.
> Only 5,058 of a total England & Wales population of 82,620 ( in 2019 ) were over the age of 60, that's just over 6% of the prison population, in fact only 13,View attachment 102255
> 620 are over the age of 50 which is 16%.



But I though these is a disease which affects everyone according to the narrative? Impossible to differentiate who may be vulnerable? That's why tanked our kids education (though the tide is at last turning on that now)

And what of the cases themselves?

Or maybe it is overwhelmingly age stratified after all, and cases don't correlate well....


----------



## Lons

Blackswanwood said:


> Sorry but that post should be taken down. It’s offensive.


So are you saying the one following by Selwyn isn't? I didn't name anyone remember.


----------



## Droogs

Also in most UK prisons the inmates don't get to mingle as they are locked in for at least 20 hours a day on average I believe. due to staff shortages mainly


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> But I though these is a disease which affects everyone according to the narrative? Impossible to differentiate who may be vulnerable?
> 
> And what of the cases themselves?


Yes it does affect everyone and some of those will have long term issues because of it on top of their drug problems, but you stated that the younger generation aren't at risk and your post stated deaths, not infections.
I actually know how many were affected in the local prikson as we have a number of friends who work there, I very much doubt you have any idea at all.


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> Also in most UK prisons the inmates don't get to mingle as they are locked in for at least 20 hours a day on average I believe. due to staff shortages mainly





Lons said:


> So are you saying the one following by Selwyn isn't? I didn't name anyone remember.



But you were being personal and unpleasant just because I happen to disagree with you. I've no problem withdrawing my comment. I'm arguing the issue not the person


----------



## Droogs

Eh! I wasn't being personal. i was merely pointing out the prison population don't mix as much as some think and therefore have a lot less opportunity to infect each other. What have I to do with you and Lons arguing?


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> Yes it does affect everyone and some of those will have long term issues because of it on top of their drug problems, but you stated that the younger generation aren't at risk and your post stated deaths, not infections.
> I actually know how many were affected in the local prikson as we have a number of friends who work there, I very much doubt you have any idea at all.



Yes my own view is that the younger generation are at massively reduced risk. One of the reasons I'm pro shielding and against broad brus lockdown. Possibly the prison population could be a more risk than average because general health issues won't be as good. 

How many were affected in the local prison then? And how many now?


----------



## Blackswanwood

Lons said:


> So are you saying the one following by Selwyn isn't? I didn't name anyone remember.





Lons said:


> So are you saying the one following by Selwyn isn't? I didn't name anyone remember.


Fill your boots - saying or implying anyone should have been aborted - named or not - is offensive.


----------



## Selwyn

Droogs said:


> Eh! I wasn't being personal. i was merely pointing out the prison population don't mix as much as some think and therefore have a lot less opportunity to infect each other. What have I to do with you and Lons arguing?



Nothing, double quote. 

They may not mingle so much but then again I don't mingle walking past someone in a shop but we've shut them.


----------



## MikeK

Okay...this thread has now degenerated to the point where the complaints are rolling in and personal attacks seem to be more important than discussing the issues. For the time being, this thread is closed.


----------

