When did Boris become the messiah

Duke,

You think I'm talking rubbish, I think you're talking rubbish, so lets agree on that huh?

Fact 1: We're heading for an equal or worse position than Spain, Italy, Iran, Japan, South Korea and China, all of which had less notice than us
Fact 2: All of the above would have done better with more notice
Fact 3: We had more notice
Fact 4: We have not done better with more notice
Fact 5: We started of from an easier position
Fact 6: Our lockdown was slower and weaker
Fact 7: We were being criticised for not locking down sooner and being blase
Fact 8 : The Herd immunity plan was either a crap plan to try and get everyone infected early or a long term plan but just not explained that way
Fact 9: We've not been testing enough
Fact 10: We've not even tested those arriving from Madrid, Italy and China by plane

So their plan was updated in 2011 now, so it was updated under the Tories, great. So instead of an old plan that they didn't update, it's now a newer plan they did update. Either way the crap plan is their fault, that's if they used the plan.

Pick one of these instead of fannying around:
They used the advice and the advice was crap
They didn't use the advice and the advice was crap
They didn't use the the advice and the advice was good
They used the the advice and the advice was good - I'll give you a hint, no graph or statistics say this was the choice

Everyone was saying "test, test, test" and we are still saying "no test is better than a bad test"!
There's a very simple way of crudely testing loads of people quickly, with enough accuracy to make a massive difference. Just take someone's thermometer with a temperature gun if you have to. It's what China and other Asian countries were doing (I know this as my mate lives there and physically showed me), even if that's only 90% of people with a fever and 90% accuracy, it still gets 81% of the cases. This method cannot do any harm. Jesus, people could even carry around their own thermometer if they wanted to.

Our experts are our experts, as that's what we have, but do they know more than what the experts in Asia were saying or those ahead of us? No way, that's my point. So that just makes them less qualified, it's not their fault that they don't have the experience, so they should go off the experience of those 5,15 or 40 days ahead.I don't take the advice of my dog about how to make an iPhone, as he's the only one sat next to me. I would get on the phone to Apple or ring someone up in China that has been making them for the last 10 years.
We don't know for certain that we even listened to our experts, or that our experts aren't peddling the company line.

China isn't North Korea, and it's not difficult to see what measures they have implemented (similar to Japan and S Korea), and that they all now have a better grip on it, and did that quicker than we did.

We wouldn't have had as steep a curve, for as long if we had locked down earlier, or with stronger measures, that's my point.
Our peak would have been lower and we would have been on our way down by now.
Spain's curve was going through the roof, worse than anywhere and yet they've turned a corner quite quickly.
 
Last edited:
His dithering to go into lock down may put the economy on the back foot when we come out. We keep hearing we are 3 to 4 weeks behind Italy, Spain, France and Germany seem in a better state than us. So you would assume they will all be out of lock down a month before us assuming these scientists are making accurate guesses on the flattening of the curve and the drop in death rates.
 
Wev1 said:
3 days earlier would have halved the total infection number (no matter what it was, even if it wasn't fully known), and would have halved the total deaths for that outbreak.
Why would that have been too soon? Too soon for what? What is the problem doing it earlier, seeing as you come out of the other side earlier.



It didn't come out of nowhere for us, we had 6 weeks notice from China, 3 weeks more notice than Japan and South Korea. It came out of nowhere for China, and also Japan and South Korea to an extent etc, and they have all handled it quicker and much better. They advised us what to do, and we ignored it. Japan and Korea have had only 200 and 100 deaths, in total and we've had twice as many deaths as China.
Italy had two weeks less notice, less money and an older population and we're going to do worse than them (and they handled it badly, as they admit). It's a clusterfcuk.



Are they?
To me those that are complaining about those ignoring it, are the sensible people. They are saying we're not being harsh enough on those ignoring it. That's certainly what I'm saying.
The ones that are flouting the lockdown are the idiots and the selfish. They're the ones claiming we're being too harsh, smashing up ambulances, spitting and coughing on people etc.
Click to expand...

Was just my take on it. Theres no right answer. All ifs and buts. Personally I don't think 3 days would have made much difference, not with Cheltenham, football and people going to work prior to that, aswell as schools still being open.

And if you think we've had twice as many deaths as china did then your off your nut. If you believe that then I'm confident I could sell you a slice of moon cheese.
 
People are comparing death rates but not other contributing factors. Were a very small more densely populated island than Italy and Spain. We probably have more air traffic in and out aswell. There could also be differences with climate and temperature aswell as the virus getting stronger.
Lots and lots of unknowns.
 
Facefuzz said:
People are comparing death rates but not other contributing factors. Were a very small more densely populated island than Italy and Spain. We probably have more air traffic in and out aswell. There could also be differences with climate and temperature aswell as the virus getting stronger.
Lots and lots of unknowns.
Click to expand...
Taiwan has 23 million people and with 70% volcanic mountains is very densely populated. There were 500 direct flights a week to China by china airlines alone, not including Eva and indirect fights via Hong Kong.

First case on 26 January. 326 cases and 6 deaths. They responded, we "fiddled whilst Rome burned".
 
Facefuzz said:
Personally I don't think 3 days would have made much difference
Click to expand...
A single day would make a difference. three would have made a considerable difference. But we had more notice that that, the previous week it was widely expected that we would go into lockdown but Johnson either dithered for another week (or more scarily calculated the deaths v cost equation in favour of deaths)

We knew about the threat before the Cheltenham Festival, we knew of the problems in Madrid before we allowed thousands of Atletico supporters to travel to Liverpool. I note Kenny Dalglish has tested positive for COVID-19 (though is thankfully asymptomatic) was he at the game?

Johnson has failed us the people. He should resign.
 
Facefuzz said:
Was just my take on it. Theres no right answer. All ifs and buts. Personally I don't think 3 days would have made much difference, not with Cheltenham, football and people going to work prior to that, aswell as schools still being open.

And if you think we've had twice as many deaths as china did then your off your nut. If you believe that then I'm confident I could sell you a slice of moon cheese.
Click to expand...

The cases doubling every three days if you do nothing isn't a guess, it's pretty much known with relative accuracy. So if you lock down three days earlier then you can change it from doubling, to adding maybe 30%. That's a massive difference, as a 6 day example that's 10 x 2 x 2 = 40 or 10 x 1.3 x 1.3 = 16.9. More than double the infections/ deaths.

Crap like Cheltenham could have led to areas increasing the R number for that area, so the three days after that are more important than any other.

I've got a few mates in China, they said they locked down quick and very securely, also checked temperatures. They locked down in a faster time-frame and the R number can only go so high, so there's no real reason why it would be much higher.

China's graph isn't unbelievable, it's very believable as they locked down fast, more restrictive than us and temperature checked people before going into buildings.
 
Facefuzz said:
People are comparing death rates but not other contributing factors. Were a very small more densely populated island than Italy and Spain. We probably have more air traffic in and out aswell. There could also be differences with climate and temperature aswell as the virus getting stronger.
Lots and lots of unknowns.
Click to expand...

Nations that aren't population dense does not mean that every man has his own farm. They're still mostly lumped in towns and cities, but they're 20 minutes apart rather than 10 minutes. There's not a great deal of difference between Italy and the UK.
Wuhan is more population dense than London and the whole of Hubei only had like 3000 deaths, which London has probably eclipsed on it's own, if it hasn't it will in the next few days.
Heathrow might have large air traffic with the rest of the world, but how many flights from wuhan, hubei, northern italy etc? Not many with china, seeing as it's on the other side of the world.
Asian nations have a hell of a lot more air travel with Wuhan, and the whole of asia other than china is very dense population wise, they all seemed to do alright.
 
bear66 said:
Taiwan has 23 million people and with 70% volcanic mountains is very densely populated. There were 500 direct flights a week to China by china airlines alone, not including Eva and indirect fights via Hong Kong.

First case on 26 January. 326 cases and 6 deaths. They responded, we "fiddled whilst Rome burned".
Click to expand...
This is what a lot of people seem to be ignoring. How Taiwan reacted. Considering the tiny, densely populated nature and considering it's proximity to China, it should have been hit early and hit hard. It did remarkably well, as a similar small island nation we should have looked at their response. Clearly we didn't.
 
Addendum. Apparently a lot was based round masks. Despite the fact we are told they have little or no effect and we are failing to supply them to our NHS staff. Maybe the latter necessitated the former from the Tory press machine?
 
Last edited:
Fair point there with Taiwan. They've obviously done really well.
I still don't believe the figures from china though.
Based on the 3 day logic, which I don't disagree with, should the football have gone ahead the weekend before cheltenham?
 
I'd decided not to go to the Swansea match a week before it was called off. To some extent, the people took things into their own hands.
 
Facefuzz said:
Was just my take on it. Theres no right answer. All ifs and buts. Personally I don't think 3 days would have made much difference, not with Cheltenham, football and people going to work prior to that, aswell as schools still being open.

And if you think we've had twice as many deaths as china did then your off your nut. If you believe that then I'm confident I could sell you a slice of moon cheese.
Click to expand...
Facefuzz your single comment that 3 days would not have made much difference demonstrates a huge lack of understanding. It may well have halved the final death toll. on those three days in March, no maybe a couple of hunderd difference, but its the final exit figure that you add up, not the numbers at the time of lockdown. Surely you understand this?

Let me illustrate. If I start saving for 24 days, and double what I save each day, starting from 1 pound. it goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1000(rounding to make the maths easier), 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000 (16 days in)64000, 128000, 256000, 1,000,000(rounding again), 2,000,000, 4,000,000, 8,000,000,16,000,000 - 24 days in.

Now had I started 1 day later I would only have8 million. Had I started 3 days later I would have had 2 million. Translated to lives saved. You don't count the deaths over the three days when you should lock down, your use the multiplying factor, and the peak numbers to calculate how many lives you would have saved.

Right now, today, locking down 3 days earlier would have meant 3,000 people who are dead would still be alive.
 
On the subject of Cheltenham and football fixtures should be have cancelled new year's celebrations too? Aswell as valentine's and half term?
 
RandySavage said:
On the subject of Cheltenham and football fixtures should be have cancelled new year's celebrations too? Aswell as valentine's and half term?
Click to expand...
Randy that is the daftest comment on this thread mate. You know why we didn't lock down at the begining of January. And how does that excuse the governments slow reaction? As a point of debate, and indeed any point it is worthless, but you knew that already.
 
Laughing said:
Facefuzz your single comment that 3 days would not have made much difference demonstrates a huge lack of understanding. It may well have halved the final death toll. on those three days in March, no maybe a couple of hunderd difference, but its the final exit figure that you add up, not the numbers at the time of lockdown. Surely you understand this?

Let me illustrate. If I start saving for 24 days, and double what I save each day, starting from 1 pound. it goes like this:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1000(rounding to make the maths easier), 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000 (16 days in)64000, 128000, 256000, 1,000,000(rounding again), 2,000,000, 4,000,000, 8,000,000,16,000,000 - 24 days in.

Now had I started 1 day later I would only have8 million. Had I started 3 days later I would have had 2 million. Translated to lives saved. You don't count the deaths over the three days when you should lock down, your use the multiplying factor, and the peak numbers to calculate how many lives you would have saved.

Right now, today, locking down 3 days earlier would have meant 3,000 people who are dead would still be alive.
Click to expand...

I do understand that laughing.
My initial point was that I think the timing was about right (given all of the other factors such as economy, closing schools, potential length of lockdown etc)
You say Randy's comment is stupid yet on your logic (I know theres science behind it) and reasoning he would have saved even more lives.
 
Laughing said:
Randy that is the daftest comment on this thread mate. You know why we didn't lock down at the begining of January. And how does that excuse the governments slow reaction? As a point of debate, and indeed any point it is worthless, but you knew that already.
Click to expand...
I'm not excusing the government's reaction. But can you see what will happen though? The example I have there is what people will come up with the further they dig back in time.

Quick question, why do you think nobody closed any borders when China first announced this highly infectious virus?
 
RandySavage said:
I'm not excusing the government's reaction. But can you see what will happen though? The example I have there is what people will come up with the further they dig back in time.

Quick question, why do you think nobody closed any borders when China first announced this highly infectious virus?
Click to expand...
From Taiwan WIKI
On 31 December 2019, Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (CDC) implemented inspection measures for inbound flights from Wuhan, China in response to reports of an unidentified outbreak. The passengers of all such flights were inspected by health officials before disembarking. A six-year-old passenger who transferred in Wuhan and developed a fever was closely monitored by CDC. At this time, there were alleged to be 27 cases of the new pneumonia in Wuhan.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top