Scientists confirm 1/3 of Covid deaths incorrect

[Billy Horner]

Basically is a totalitarian state we currently reside in though by everything but the government actually admitting it. Nothing voted on in parliament at the minute, draconian measures brought in to places where the data contradicts it. Restrictions on social life but none on working life. My eldest can spend all day with 10 of her new friends at school but can't have them round after school for a play date. I spend 12 hours a day in the kitchen at work with my work colleagues but because we don't all live in the same house we aren't supposed to have a beer after work in an outdoor beer garden.

Hundreds of people die from smoking related illnesses every week yet smoking isn't banned and 10 people were reported dead with a positive covid-19 test in the last 24 hours and everybody is banned from doing many things.

Bonkers.

I think we need to separate out the, admittedly, contradictory nature of some of the restrictions from the democratic authority for imposing such restrictions in the first place. I would agree that some of the more recent restrictions seem a little arbitrary and somewhat confusing.

For example, I'm unclear of the scientific rationale behind the rule of six (why not five or seven?) and neither do I understand why six individuals from six different households are viewed exactly the same as a family of five plus one grandparent. It's also unsatisfactory that each nation within the United Kingdom appears to adopt different exemptions to the rule of six.

Your examples of mingling with more than six households at both school and work are also pertinent. I think we all know that, ultimately, the government has currently chosen to introduce those restrictions that will have the least impact on the economy.

However, I would have to disagree about Parliamentary oversight. Firstly, ministers are required to answer questions on a regular basis in Parliament and can also be called to answer Urgent Questions if a specific issue requires it. All of this takes place in public and is televised for both the public and wider media to witness.

Also, whilst the regulations themselves are introduced under ministerial powers, the authority to introduce them flows from the Coronavirus Act. The government wanted those powers to last for up to two years.

However, in the end they had to agree for a confirmatory vote by the House of Commons every six months. Bearing in mind that the government has an 80 seat majority, it was an impressive act of Parliamentary pressure which led to that concession.

I think that (most) people would agree that the government needs to be able to react quickly in terms of imposing/lifting restrictions in response to this virus. However, it is untrue to suggest that they do so without any democratic authority or oversight.

 

[Expat Smoggie]

anyone think that some of our western governments thought that the Covid situation was a good thing? Makes you wonder?

 

[Randy]

Stinks even more when you look at recent footage of life carrying on as normal in China.

 

[Laughing]

I am with Billy on this one, the covid bill does allow the government to enact legislation pertinent to the pandemic without parliamentary oversight, but that was voted through parliament and for good reasons. At the same time a government with an 80 seat majority has still had to u-turn multiple times to avoid humiliating defeats in the HoC. The IM bill has had to be amended to have any chance of getting by it's second reading today and I still think it will fail. If it doesn't it will fail at the HoL as they have to reject it.

This doesn't sound like a totalitarian state, though I do get and share everyone's frustration when it comes to a government that we cannot trust and are in politics to lord it over us or worse still to siphon cash from the electorate.

 

[ticker_tape]

We need leadership badly at the moment, I cant see what this hour off closing time will do, shut them down for a fortnight or so, and fund the pub, restaurant, companies to get through it until the outbreak abates.

 

[BoroMart]

Basically is a totalitarian state we currently reside in though by everything but the government actually admitting it. Nothing voted on in parliament at the minute, draconian measures brought in to places where the data contradicts it.

This started with the brexit vote

 

[Statto1]

60k excess deaths is 60k, whether they want to call that 41k or something else, they aren't fooling anyone that understands statistics, or consequential loss.

Yes, some people will have died that didn't have covid, or had covid, got better, then died from something else, it happens with everything.
But I would bet everything I have, that number is eclipsed by those not reported as covid deaths, yet would likely still be alive if covid wasn't here. Whether that's through dying before being tested or diagnosed, dying outside of hospitals, or whether that's dying as medical resources were taken up tackling covid.

The people claiming these covid numbers (41k or 60k) are inflated (yet offer no alternative, that's backed up) are the ones saying there shouldn't be a lockdown or measures taken, they just do not get it. You need to minimise the initial risk/ spread, then the problem is much easier to manage and mitigate.

Say the numbers were correct and only 41k are covid (and assume we did over-report initially, but there was zero under-reporting (b***ks)), then there's still an extra 19k from somewhere. Additional people dying at this time, from things that do not go down as covid, are still likely a result of covid, it's too much of a consequence. Take covid away and these don't happen or are reduced. It's like blaming titanic deaths on the water being cold, the lack of lifeboats or people not being able to swim. None of that matters if the ship doesn't hit the iceberg in the first place, or the impact is small enough that it can be fixed without catastrophic loss.

The people have to be treated, and overwhelming the NHS is not an option, so the choice is:
1) The measures we have now, then short sharp local lockdowns when it gets out of hand, relatively simple to recover from
2) Do nothing, it gets really bad, really quick and then we're in a massive hole again, and 2-3 month lockdown before numbers become manageable

1. At the peak, excess deaths exceeded expected deaths! That's over the double expected deaths, so 1 in 2 deaths caused by covid directly or indirectly.
2. Deaths were down by about 5k from Jan to Mar, so maybe a proceeding mild flu season, but this isn't 60k (and doesn't mean those that escaped flu 19-20 deserved to die)
3. During lockdown, movements were down by 70%, less people dying in other travel, activity or work related accidents, heart attacks, weakness etc.
4. We can't just do nothing as the NHS would get overwhelmed, this then puts up the death rate, as not enough nurses, space or resources to treat
5. Preventing the graph going up, is easier than getting it to come down. Nip the problem in the bud so to speak, this is what we didn't do, but seem to be getting better at