JM14
Well-known member
Do you have anything to back this up as you seem to be mentioning it a fair bit on this thread? Have struggled to find any factual content to back this up anywhere
Lockdown Deaths
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
Do you have anything to back this up as you seem to be mentioning it a fair bit on this thread? Have struggled to find any factual content to back this up anywhere
1finny
Well-known member
There is an interesting angle on this (not sure where it takes us by the way)
Analysis of Covid cases in USA shows more in states that have lockdown v those that have no lockdown.
JP Morgan did the study. They offered no reasons stressing they were merely analysing reported data.
Counterintuitive, thought provoking and adds to uncertainty about how the virus behaves
1finny
Well-known member
That was my initial thought - and there are many reasons JP Morgan and their ilk want an end.
In fairness though - that data is either accurate or not. If it is accurate it is reasonable to ask the question. If it's not someone ought to be telling us. To date no one has argued with it.
Billy Horner
Well-known member
As mentioned before, lockdown is a policy response to a situation spiralling out of control. In the US, the prime example is New York, but there have also been others such as Newark and Seattle.
As such, at this stage you would expect there to be higher deaths in the places which have implemented lockdown. If there hadn’t been a problem, they wouldn’t have needed to lock down.
This is my problem with the whole debate. It seems to assume that lockdown is the only response to the virus, so if you think lockdown is damaging you have to try and underplay the seriousness of the pandemic.
In reality, lockdown is what you do as a relatively short-term measure to try and bring things back under control, so you can put a more effective response (test, track and isolate) in place.
As such, at this stage you would expect there to be higher deaths in the places which have implemented lockdown. If there hadn’t been a problem, they wouldn’t have needed to lock down.
This is my problem with the whole debate. It seems to assume that lockdown is the only response to the virus, so if you think lockdown is damaging you have to try and underplay the seriousness of the pandemic.
In reality, lockdown is what you do as a relatively short-term measure to try and bring things back under control, so you can put a more effective response (test, track and isolate) in place.
I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe to others. Excess deaths of 60,000 is mental and peoples understanding is either way off reality or they are just trolling for bites. This is not Brexit....who knows what will happen...I might be right or you might be. This has and is happening right now.
So many posts commenting on the figures, and even the Spectator article for a pathologist discussing how badly the numbers are being recorded- the deaths are being recorded- whether COVID or excess deaths.
The data is available, clear and the numbers don't lie. Whether it is a covid death, or an excess death the trends are fairly simple.
Excess deaths pre March were lower than the 5 year average week on week.
Week 11 (13th March end) were the first COVID registered deaths- Excess deaths were still below 5 year average- they were however trending upwards.
As COVID deaths increased, excess deaths (not covid linked) increased, peaking around week 16/17 (between 10th and 24th April).
As COVID deaths are decreasing, excess deaths are currently decreasing.
The numbers are available for all to see, 2 weeks behind often.
Now how you interpret the UK numbers and with what agenda is in your hands- the hard stats dont lie though.
COVID deaths or any deaths increased significantly
Lockdown happened
COVID deaths or any deaths have started to decrease.
If excess deaths were as a consequence of the lockdown I would suspect they would not be decreasing currently- I would expect them to remain stable, or indeed increase as more people wait longer for care- and this is likely to happen to some degree over the next 2 years.
Lockdown has reduced the virus spread- whether that would have happened anyway- I am not convinced. But as we come out of lockdown I expect we can start making predictions on whether something wonderful is happening and the virus has decided to give up, or whether it does increase somewhat.
Here is hoping that the lockdown was a waste of time, the virus has run its course, it has been around for years and nobody ever realised before March and when we reduce our lockdown the excess/covid numbers return to zero. This seems to be suggested by some. If it is the case we will be open for business everywhere by July.
Personally, I worry we haven't got control over a virus that is very deadly for some, and it will continue to simmer over the summer months as we start to open up, and come September on school returns and the change towards flu season we will be in for a rough ride. Here's hoping i'm wrong.
So many posts commenting on the figures, and even the Spectator article for a pathologist discussing how badly the numbers are being recorded- the deaths are being recorded- whether COVID or excess deaths.
The data is available, clear and the numbers don't lie. Whether it is a covid death, or an excess death the trends are fairly simple.
Excess deaths pre March were lower than the 5 year average week on week.
Week 11 (13th March end) were the first COVID registered deaths- Excess deaths were still below 5 year average- they were however trending upwards.
As COVID deaths increased, excess deaths (not covid linked) increased, peaking around week 16/17 (between 10th and 24th April).
As COVID deaths are decreasing, excess deaths are currently decreasing.
The numbers are available for all to see, 2 weeks behind often.
Now how you interpret the UK numbers and with what agenda is in your hands- the hard stats dont lie though.
COVID deaths or any deaths increased significantly
Lockdown happened
COVID deaths or any deaths have started to decrease.
If excess deaths were as a consequence of the lockdown I would suspect they would not be decreasing currently- I would expect them to remain stable, or indeed increase as more people wait longer for care- and this is likely to happen to some degree over the next 2 years.
Lockdown has reduced the virus spread- whether that would have happened anyway- I am not convinced. But as we come out of lockdown I expect we can start making predictions on whether something wonderful is happening and the virus has decided to give up, or whether it does increase somewhat.
Here is hoping that the lockdown was a waste of time, the virus has run its course, it has been around for years and nobody ever realised before March and when we reduce our lockdown the excess/covid numbers return to zero. This seems to be suggested by some. If it is the case we will be open for business everywhere by July.
Personally, I worry we haven't got control over a virus that is very deadly for some, and it will continue to simmer over the summer months as we start to open up, and come September on school returns and the change towards flu season we will be in for a rough ride. Here's hoping i'm wrong.
Alvez_48
Well-known member
Excess deaths sadly went up again this week.
It's not been here for years clearly and I'm not arguing that there's a Pandemic like Billy would have you believe.
I'm arguing that the lockdown isn't effective. It could have been if we'd gone new Zealand but if we're being honest it's not really an option for the UK due to many factors.
Plus the jury is out on how new Zealand interact with the world going forward. If they're lucky a readily available vaccine takes care of the situation for them if not then the virus will hit them later when they open up.
I think it is fair to say the lockdown could have been much more effective. I feel we chose a loose lockdown, which has left us in a similar position to when we locked down- and still not prepared to open back up again.
I guess New Zealand will be in a great position to start from zero, test, track and trace and plan their way out of this without > 60000 people already dead. (I don't know what their excess death figures are, if anyone does it would be interesting to compare to ours).
I imagine at some point testing may become a mandatory travel requirement whether that is antibody related or preboarding a flight. Logistics would be interesting and it might be worth mapping the best way to test/ isolate then permit/ decline travel internationally.
Alvez_48
Well-known member
Quite possibly... They have the relative luxury of not being an international travel hub with incredibly low population density and yet good standards of living across the board so they will have a far easier job of controlling outbreaks than here.
On second thoughts ... I'm moving
spanishman
Well-known member
If you want to do lock down comparisons I would suggest that Italy and Spain would be the best two in Europe to compare the UK to. As all 3 appear to have had a similar start to the situation with coronavirus.
However the UK had a looser lock down than Spain and Italy. Now it looks like the UK has a bigger tail on the excess death figures. Can you link these two things together. Not for certain. However it is certainly something worth thinking about.
If you get on to discussions about population density and transport hubs etc. Here is an interesting article from a couple of years ago I have just found:
https://thediplomatinspain.com/en/2...th-the-largest-population-per-inhabited-area/
Last edited:
Randy
Well-known member
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...nds-of-patients/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Why were scheduled life lenghthing operations suspended? Why did mental health support in hospitals and the community stop instead of adjusting?
Why are garden centers open before every department in a hospital?
Why were scheduled life lenghthing operations suspended? Why did mental health support in hospitals and the community stop instead of adjusting?
Why are garden centers open before every department in a hospital?
Randy
Well-known member
The other reason why having accurate statistics is vitally important is in planning for the future. We have to accurately know what happened this time, in order to plan for the next pandemic, which seems almost inevitable as the world grows more crowded. What are the benefits of lockdown, what are the harms? What should we do next time a deadly virus strikes?
If Covid-19 killed 30,000, and lockdown killed the other 30,000, then the lockdown was a complete and utter waste of time. and should never happen again. The great fear is that this would be a message this government does not want to hear – so they will do everything possible not to hear it.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/490006-dea...9-do-not-trust/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
As I previously mentioned I'll come back to this thread this time next year and we'll compare the figures.
Billy Horner
Well-known member
Now those are all perfectly legitimate questions.
I suspect that, at the beginning, they expected ICUs to be overwhelmed with a knock-on effect for the rest of hospitals. In reality, the vast majority of deaths have taken place on general wards and care homes, with ICU capacity remaining intact.
Given this has been the case, the government’s priorities for reopening things does seem a little odd. That said, I think they’re driven more by economics than health care.
A bigger tail, and certainly in spots in the UK the hospital admissions numbers seems to be stabilising at approx R= 1 which is not nearly as low as I would hope the lockdown was aiming for.
Whatever you use to compare countries someone will suggest it is not comparable. Unfortunately our numbers are being internationally recognised as high, and to quote someone on twitter deflecting to another country being worse/ better is the equivalent of saying Nagasaki shouldn't complain as Hiroshima was worse. (I think the quote was more succinct than my rewrite
)
Alvez_48
Well-known member
See we aren't apart on the important things I don't think for one second Randy is suggesting the government has done well.
We're both arguing that it's not effective to carry on the lockdowns as they currently are and question wether they changed anything.
We don't deny covid exists, I think we would all actually agree on alot more than we disagree just this topic has become very entrenched.. on both sides admittedly.
Randy
Well-known member
Oh the government have cocked up big time.
For example at the beginning and even now I can spend as much time as I want in a supermarket for example but even after the measures of loosening the lockdown the floppy haired **** has just announced I still can't go and spend time in another house? It does not make sense.
A teacher can be expected to go back to work on Monday and spend 5-6 hours with other children from lots of different homes but cannot for example go and spend time in the home of a friend or relative for say half an hour for a cuppa and a chat.
I can have cleaners round but not my next door neighbour.
The whole thing doesn't make any sense other than power hungry tossers playing make believe with the population.
spanishman
Well-known member
The thing I think it is important to understand is that we all need to learn what policies are best for similar circumstances in the future.
I feel it is a mistake to classify the deaths as coronavirus deaths and lock down deaths.
I suggest that it would be best to consider all excess deaths that are above the historical norms.
Then assume that they are due in one way or another to the response to coronavirus made in that country.
The people may not have died of coronavirus. However without coronavirus a large number of them would have lived longer.
I feel it is a mistake to classify the deaths as coronavirus deaths and lock down deaths.
I suggest that it would be best to consider all excess deaths that are above the historical norms.
Then assume that they are due in one way or another to the response to coronavirus made in that country.
The people may not have died of coronavirus. However without coronavirus a large number of them would have lived longer.
Billy Horner
Well-known member
I agree. In fact, I've said before that we all (nearly all) agree that we have to find a way out of lockdown. It should only ever be a short-term measure to try and bring things back under control before implementing a different/better policy response to the virus.
I think what we disagree about is the extent to which the virus has already infected the population. I tend to believe that the evidence shows that we have had a relatively small infection thus far (Vallance has just said 6.78%), whilst others are of the view that it has been much more extensive than that.
Depending on who is correct, the virus either still presents a very real threat to a high proportion of the population, or else it's something that we can be a lot more relaxed about. I would argue that we should err on the side of caution (particularly given the emerging data).
Alvez_48
Well-known member
But that right there is a huge problem... Let's for sake of argument say that the lockdown deaths are lockdown deaths and the covid deaths are covid deaths and there's no overlap..
That would then immediately put the policy decisions in an extremely negative light and new ways of tackling future outbreaks would need to be found.
If we lump them all as covid by association it just gives the green light for sledgehammer approaches going forward and all the costs that come with it, civil liberties, economic disaster etc.