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

[Woody2Shoes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ***.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.