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

[RobinBHM]

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.g...CIN_-_Time_from_symptom_onset_until_death.pdf
https://www.health.harvard.edu/dise...ow soon after I'm,or five days after exposure.

 

[Blackswanwood]

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]

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]

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]

The rich have got very rich and the poor will become poorer.

Agreed, covid unemployment seems to be really hitting low paid jobs.

 

[Selwyn]

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]

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]

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. "
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81442-x


** 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]

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
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w
It proved lockdowns work

 

[Selwyn]

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
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w
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]

Because I do know I haven't and feel no overwhelming need to explain how and why to you.

 

[NormanB]

@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]

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 *** 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]

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 *** 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]

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]

..... 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]

Lockdown doesn't slow transmission

Yes it does.

The evidence proves it

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0
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]

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]

What is keeping the lockdown going is the furlough

Covid is the reason the lockdown continues.