One-*** efficacy questions

[Rorschach]

Rorschach main argument is that there was a choice between letting old people die and protecting the economy....which is completely false.

Yawn, again. Don't you ever get tired of coming out with the same old nonsense?

 

[RobinBHM]

I didn't mention covid in that quote.

I know, you omitted it deliberately.

 

[Rorschach]

I know, you omitted it deliberately.

You're just getting silly now.

 

[RobinBHM]

Yawn, again. Don't you ever get tired of coming out with the same old nonsense?

I am terribly sorry, but the data supports what I said, whereas yours contradicts it.

If you can provide solid evidence to back up your repeated opinion (that you state as fact) I am happy to read it.



"In the words of Martin Wolf, the chart shows how “countries have followed two strategies: suppression, or trading off deaths against the economy. By and large, the former group has done better in both respects. Meanwhile, countries that have sacrificed lives have tended to end up with high mortality and economic costs"
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...off-between-economic-damage-and-loss-of-life/

 

[Rorschach]

I can't do anything about the fact that you don't like the data I provide so you're just going to have to live with it. I have tried in good faith but if you refuse to accept it then there is nothing more I can do.

 

[southendwoodworker]

Well if zero is your goal we have nothing to discuss on that matter really.

I didn't want to see 750k, but the fact that the government deemed this a reasonable figure with little to no restriction on day to day activity just puts things into perspective.

As to your other points, there is so much there crammed into each post it's difficult to address properly.

We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.

Stepping back, how do you think that comes across?

When we look up at the sky and see the moon, we only ever see one side, it doesn't rotate. Yet we still know the other side of the moon does still exist. Just because I haven't seen it with my bare eyes, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This same thing is playing out with covid, some communities had very little infection rates, meaning some people haven't first hand seen the tragedy thats happening in other parts.

I didn't want to see 750k, but the fact that the government deemed this a reasonable figure with little to no restriction on day to day activity just puts things into perspective.

The government didn't, you are misunderstanding how modelling works and misinterpreting what "plan" means.

The government had to explore/model options to see what was best from multiple angles. The definition of "best" being defined by a set criteria (primarily deaths, immediate financial cost, long term financial cost, sociological, and opportunity cost), with some obvious weighting applied to the deaths criteria.

They would have modelled ("planned"), like all non-binary-result studies, at LEAST three things:

1. the worse case scenario for life (they do nothing and let virus run wild)
2. the middle ground (they implement some things, try and get a balance between death, sociological and economic costs)
3. the best case scenario for life (tight lockdown, prevent spread, mitigate death)

For option 2, they actually explored many different variations.

It is like the famous triple constraint model, except in this situation there is more than 3 constraints, which makes is far far more complex.

You make it sound that just because they modelled/planned it, that they would have actually actioned it. That is far from the case, what modelling/planning does is it helps you compare all the options. It is about discovering the relative benefits between the options.

What I am saying is that just because a plan existed, it certainly doesn't mean it was on the table, which means using it as a thrust in your argument is not solid logic.

As to your other points, there is so much there crammed into each post it's difficult to address properly.

Fair enough. I responded in kind to your posts, but condensed it down.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

you could very well be right about sun exposure and lower levels of infection. I'd bet the asymptomatic cases are higher and figure that the scare information about more than half of the cases being spready by asymptomatic individuals or presymptomatic are overstated as tracking and tracing PCR positive cases of asymptomatic individuals never really yields that much in terms of future positive cases.

Since in the first year we only had 6,840 reported infections and 60 deaths in a population of 70 million general testing was never used. So even assuming 9 times more asymptotic infections (probably many fewer) it’s still a tiny number compared to the U.K. Also since infections outside quarantine stopped totally until mid January 2021 any testing outside quarantine was superfluous.

relevant to nothing May 12 (Reuters) - Thailand reported on Wednesday a new daily record of 34 coronavirus deaths. This is shocking to us but for the U.K. it would not be news at all

regrettably your ideas about pre-symptomatic individuals not spreading infection much is wrong and it is a significant factor in the fast spread of the current variation.

If asymptotically infected individuals pass on the disease as much is more debatable. They probably have a lower viral load so being less contagious would make sense.

 

[RobinBHM]

I can't do anything about the fact that you don't like the data I provide so you're just going to have to live with it. I have tried in good faith but if you refuse to accept it then there is nothing more I can do.

The majority of your posts are opinion stated as fact.

The links you do include are either not from authoritative sources, or they are only youtube opinions, or they don't back up your argument.

 

[RobinBHM]

I have tried in good faith

You are having a laugh, right?

 

[Rorschach]

The majority of your posts are opinion stated as fact.

The links you do include are either not from authoritative sources, or they are only youtube opinions, or they don't back up your argument.

Wicker man!

 

[RobinBHM]

media hysteria got worse

You love to include the "media hysteria" or "fear mongering"

Emotive terms which can't be proven one way or another.....

 

[Selwyn]

the viral load did not reach its peak before lockdown was enacted.....please stop stating opinions as fact.

official "lockdown" dates are not when Non pharmaceutical interventions commenced.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Selwyn]

it was noted, but they still dishonestly used the official start date of full lockdown for their claim.

That is not dishonest at all.

It shows that other interventions were perfectly possible, enactable and effective once people became aware of the viral increase. Lockdown was just over the top, totally.

The idea that even now you can't hug anyone is totally daft. The virus has gone for this season.

 

[Selwyn]

Rorschach main argument is that there was a choice between letting old people die and protecting the economy....which is completely false.

His argument is much more than that but it will be wasted on you.

 

[Selwyn]

We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.

Stepping back, how do you think that comes across?

When we look up at the sky and see the moon, we only ever see one side, it doesn't rotate. Yet we still know the other side of the moon does still exist. Just because I haven't seen it with my bare eyes, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This same thing is playing out with covid, some communities had very little infection rates, meaning some people haven't first hand seen the tragedy thats happening in other parts.




The government didn't, you are misunderstanding how modelling works and misinterpreting what "plan" means.

The government had to explore/model options to see what was best from multiple angles. The definition of "best" being defined by a set criteria (primarily deaths, immediate financial cost, long term financial cost, sociological, and opportunity cost), with some obvious weighting applied to the deaths criteria.

They would have modelled ("planned"), like all non-binary-result studies, at LEAST three things:

1. the worse case scenario for life (they do nothing and let virus run wild)
2. the middle ground (they implement some things, try and get a balance between death, sociological and economic costs)
3. the best case scenario for life (tight lockdown, prevent spread, mitigate death)

For option 2, they actually explored many different variations.

It is like the famous triple constraint model, except in this situation there is more than 3 constraints, which makes is far far more complex.

You make it sound that just because they modelled/planned it, that they would have actually actioned it. That is far from the case, what modelling/planning does is it helps you compare all the options. It is about discovering the relative benefits between the options.

What I am saying is that just because a plan existed, it certainly doesn't mean it was on the table, which means using it as a thrust in your argument is not solid logic.



Fair enough. I responded in kind to your posts, but condensed it down.

We make calculations every day on what is an acceptable level of death.

By the way the virus doesn't run wild. It ebbs and flows. Remember the virus was ebbing down before the first lockdown according to a lot of the evidence - eg Tim Spector, I doubt he wants to lie. Even then the virus was in hotspots rather than everywhere - in Wales a lot of the deaths were in a few confined hosptials - they almost certainly had nosocomial issues there, combined with people with poor existing health.

 

[Rorschach]

We have nothing to discuss because you are arguing that a certain level of death is acceptable for you, probably because they aren't people you care about.

No I am arguing that a judgement call has to made on the costs of keeping someone alive vs the damage doing so will cause to other people. It would be wonderful if we could spend an infinite amount of money to keep everyone alive as long as possible, I genuinely wish that was the case, but we have to live in the real world and in the real world we let people die because the cost of keeping them alive is too great for society to bear. I am watching someone die a slow and painful death from cancer because of lockdown so don't tell me people I care about aren't dying.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Guys, take a chill pill - it's now an argument about what is being argued about?

 

[hairy]

The likelihood of me dying is slim,

Are you a vampire?

 

[hairy]

One thing that did strike me about an "expert" on YT (quotes because one man's expert is anothers useful idiot) Is how the NHS was always close to collapse.
In the first instance that's why we had a couple of weeks lockdown.
Then the temporary hospitals were put up, but the NHS was still almost collapsing despite the urgent and desperate need for more o2 provision now met.
Still on the brink of collapse even while those facilities were quietly being dismantled. Not, hooray, we've kept on top of things so well that the NHS can now cope, but still about to go Code Black country wide.
Still the case now despie so many fewer "cases".
If the NHS was running at nearly full capacity like it should do from an efficiency point of view no one would be as worried about being as careful. If it had collapsed the same would be true, nothing I could do would bring the NHS back from the void had it gone there..
14 months of almost collapsing becomes a little less believable. New narrative coming your way soon!

 

[Rorschach]

One thing that did strike me about an "expert" on YT (quotes because one man's expert is anothers useful silly person) Is how the NHS was always close to collapse.
In the first instance that's why we had a couple of weeks lockdown.
Then the temporary hospitals were put up, but the NHS was still almost collapsing despite the urgent and desperate need for more o2 provision now met.
Still on the brink of collapse even while those facilities were quietly being dismantled. Not, hooray, we've kept on top of things so well that the NHS can now cope, but still about to go Code Black country wide.
Still the case now despie so many fewer "cases".
If the NHS was running at nearly full capacity like it should do from an efficiency point of view no one would be as worried about being as careful. If it had collapsed the same would be true, nothing I could do would bring the NHS back from the void had it gone there..
14 months of almost collapsing becomes a little less believable. New narrative coming your way soon!

It's a dangerous narrative to be pushing for all sorts of reasons. It was also rather silly to because while I am sure there were occasions where some hospitals were getting very close to being full, that was by no means a long term thing nor was it nationwide. For those who live/work in the bad hospitals they get a very skewed view of the NHS and the situation in the country and the opposite for those who were working in hospitals like ours which were empty for most of the last year. It's another reason why nationwide restrictions were so silly when the situation was clearly not the same across the country, at the very least any lockdown should have been regional.