The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

For those discussing the "let it rip" / "don't let it rip"......

It pretty ripped through in March! It didn't just stop at this bonkers 8% infected figure because it felt like it. Look at the data, look at the graphs. The northern European curves have very similar shapes regardless of interventions.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Laughing you wrote alot of words to basically come back round to virus is so bad we must lockdown.

I must ask though why do you find the above abhorrent?
Click to expand...
I never said we should lock down Alvez, I said reducing infection vectors was all that was left to us, I also added that a national lockdown probably won't work and gave some reasons why I believe that.

The reason I find the let it rip and protect the vulnerable abhorrent is because I find it selfish in the extreme, I also think, and evidence suggests I am right, that it simply doesn't work. There are so many infection vectors if you do that, the infection gets to the elderly and vulnerable and they die. No country has succeeded with this strategy, and even where countries have locked down, the disease still got into care homes. Finally, if I saw a well thought out strategy for this, I may agree, but we all know that this government doesn't care about anyone who isn't a tory benefactor, and probably not even about them. This means you are advocating for a strategy that doesn't exist and you are allowing the government to take a course of action that will be as badly implemented as the last time, and they have admitted this much. Anyone advocating for this is happy for the elderly to die because, well, they were going to die anyway.

I know I said finally, but finally, finally, hospitals will be so overrun that there will be thousands of needless deaths from other causes.
 
T_A_D said:
For those discussing the "let it rip" / "don't let it rip"......

It pretty ripped through in March! It didn't just stop at this bonkers 8% infected figure because it felt like it. Look at the data, look at the graphs. The northern European curves have very similar shapes regardless of interventions.
Click to expand...
Go on TAD, I'll bite, give me a couple of links to read, and I will get back later on whether that changed my opinion.
 
Laughing said:
I never said we should lock down Alvez, I said reducing infection vectors was all that was left to us, I also added that a national lockdown probably won't work and gave some reasons why I believe that.

The reason I find the let it rip and protect the vulnerable abhorrent is because I find it selfish in the extreme, I also think, and evidence suggests I am right, that it simply doesn't work. There are so many infection vectors if you do that, the infection gets to the elderly and vulnerable and they die. No country has succeeded with this strategy, and even where countries have locked down, the disease still got into care homes. Finally, if I saw a well thought out strategy for this, I may agree, but we all know that this government doesn't care about anyone who isn't a tory benefactor, and probably not even about them. This means you are advocating for a strategy that doesn't exist and you are allowing the government to take a course of action that will be as badly implemented as the last time, and they have admitted this much. Anyone advocating for this is happy for the elderly to die because, well, they were going to die anyway.

I know I said finally, but finally, finally, hospitals will be so overrun that there will be thousands of needless deaths from other causes.
Click to expand...

You think it's selfish to protect those that need it and let the rest of us save the economy?
You keep using 'let it rip'...
I'm not saying that at all I'm saying protect the vulnerable and keep sensible measures in place, like let maybe 15% capacity into stadiums, keep social distancing and hell even keep the masks if you want.
You're making huge assumptions about hospitals that didn't get over run first time round, I posted a graph the other day about the reality of hospital use (will insert bellow for your pleasure) and you have to remember this happens EVERY year around flu season because the NHS has been underfunded for a decade.

IMG_20201007_223439.jpg
 
Also here's a funny video of a kid who decided to test the pavement, his dog and his keyboard the results may just suprise you (given its not fake which hey it might be I guess):-

 
Protect the vulnerable, how exactly?

Hospitals were not overrun - OK we had lockdown and reduced infections, would they have been overrun had we not locked down society?

Alvez you're not really addressing my points.

Let people back into stadiums, open gyms, let me do what I want whilst using some hermetic, imagined shield to protect the vulnerable.

It is really easy to have a one line strategy, a working strategy is a bit harder to come by.
 
Laughing said:
Protect the vulnerable, how exactly?

Hospitals were not overrun - OK we had lockdown and reduced infections, would they have been overrun had we not locked down society?

Alvez you're not really addressing my points.

Let people back into stadiums, open gyms, let me do what I want whilst using some hermetic, imagined shield to protect the vulnerable.

It is really easy to have a one line strategy, a working strategy is a bit harder to come by.
Click to expand...

You ignore that infections peaked before lockdown, hospitalisation peaked before lockdown.
My gym hasn't had an infection, and it's cleaner than it's ever been, it's also keeping me in superb shape, what's not to love? It's crazy to think that your solution to keeping people healthy is to shut something that keeps people healthy. 🤣

You said it was abhorrent before, now you're saying it's not possible, which is it?

Are you selfish because you don't want to shield if others don't have to?

P.s. you also ignored my graph which directly contradicts your point.
 
Alvez_48 said:
You ignore that infections peaked before lockdown, hospitalisation peaked before lockdown.
My gym hasn't had an infection, and it's cleaner than it's ever been, it's also keeping me in superb shape, what's not to love? It's crazy to think that your solution to keeping people healthy is to shut something that keeps people healthy. 🤣

You said it was abhorrent before, now you're saying it's not possible, which is it?

Are you selfish because you don't want to shield if others don't have to?

P.s. you also ignored my graph which directly contradicts your point.
Click to expand...
You are quite frustrating Alvez,

I ignore that infections peaked before lockdown.. Really, according to whom? The peak date for deaths was the 9th of April, the peak day for infections, well it ran at a peak through April, so not sure what you data you are referring to.

It is abhorrent because the strategy you suggest is not possible and you don't care very much.

You are selfish because you are putting your wants before the basic right to live.

I didn't ignore your hospitalization graph, I suggested we would have been at capacity very quickly had we not locked down, and beds is not the only measure of capacity - does that graph include nightingale hospitals, if so its a crock, and you now why.

I am not suggesting we close something that keeps people healthy to... keep people healthy, I am suggesting we shut gyms to keep people alive, there are many ways to stay healthy, gyms are a tiny part of that.

I have made it quite clear I don't want a lockdown, I think, due to poor management, it's all we have left to us, unless, of course, you have a strategy for shielding the vulnerable beyond the statement "shield the vulnerable".

I didn't ignore anything you posted, you read my post in a particular way, and I would suggest you read evidence with the same blinkers.
 
The strategy for shielding the vulnerable is out there .. surely it shouldn't be for me to tell you it, I'm just an amateur idiot posting following my trip out for lunch but something isn't abhorrent because it can't be done. Something is abhorrent if it is evil to do it.

I am anything but selfish I just come to a different conclusion then you with the data we both have access to.

It's widely investigated and reported that the peak came before lockdown (I'm not claiming that the lockdown didn't do anything just that the peak was before lockdown was enacted).
 
Alvez, we are going round in circles, you have a set of conclusions, I don't agree and I vehemently don't agree, lets just leave it there.
 
Laughing said:
Go on TAD, I'll bite, give me a couple of links to read, and I will get back later on whether that changed my opinion.
Click to expand...

Laughing, I could give loads but I will just give you this link first. It is very important.....

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-william-farrs-way-out-of-the-pandemic/

You mention in a later post that "I ignore that infections peaked before lockdown.. Really, according to whom? The peak date for deaths was the 9th of April, the peak day for infections, well it ran at a peak through April, so not sure what you data you are referring to."

You must remember the cases shown on data websites are not a true reflection as we could only undertake limited testing at that time. The date of peak infections (as explained by the above link) may have been ~16th March, perhaps slightly earlier.

That R0 was falling below one prior to 'lockdown' has been acknowledged by Chris Whitty in evidence to a parliamentary committee (see below, 1:14:00 to 1:15:30)

 
bear66 said:
As of 9am on 11 October, 603,716 people have tested positive for COVID-19 in the UK.

Positive cases were 12,872.

65 deaths were reported today.
Click to expand...

How many were covid-19 and how many were seasonal flu? Or have they separated the stats yet?
 
T_A_D said:
Laughing, I could give loads but I will just give you this link first. It is very important.....

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-william-farrs-way-out-of-the-pandemic/

You mention in a later post that "I ignore that infections peaked before lockdown.. Really, according to whom? The peak date for deaths was the 9th of April, the peak day for infections, well it ran at a peak through April, so not sure what you data you are referring to."

You must remember the cases shown on data websites are not a true reflection as we could only undertake limited testing at that time. The date of peak infections (as explained by the above link) may have been ~16th March, perhaps slightly earlier.

That R0 was falling below one prior to 'lockdown' has been acknowledged by Chris Whitty in evidence to a parliamentary committee (see below, 1:14:00 to 1:15:30)

Click to expand...
I'll have a look TAD. Infections are impossible to select a peak if went on through April at a peak suggesting no peak before lockdown. Let's ignore the r we weren't doing enough testing to r the r number and the testing was targeted. I'll read the link then gives you my thoughts
 
OK read it TAD and I get where you arrive at your conclusions from. You are saying that because the peak of deaths was the 8th of April and there is some time between infection and death, and also a lag in collecting figures, that the peak of infection had passed and so lockdown had limited or no effect, I guess that is your point?

Now ignoring some of the wording in that article, what goes up must come down analogy being the worst, it says that deaths are the only measure you can use. I would agree that it is the most accurate as it is less disputable.

If you had argued we shut down too late to have maximum effect, or you argued that infections would have reduced anyway as the infection is seasonal you would also be right and I don't think most people would argue with that. But let me ask you this, what would the death toll have been with no lockdown? Is your argument that it would have been roughly the same as transpired with lockdown? If that is the case do you have any evidence of this?

I said months ago, along with many others on this board, locking down just a week earlier would have saved 10's of thousands of lives. Yes infection rates would have dropped as the infection is seasonal. All that says is that we locked down too late, not that lockdown was pointless and that it did not save lives.

If you are using that evidence to suggest that a lockdown as we go into winter will be pointless, then I really don't get that and there is no evidence in that article to support that viewpoint. Furthermore, if that is what you are suggesting, it's a valid scientific viewpoint, but if it's wrong we will have so many people on ventilation that we will run out of facilities and doctors to treat patients and more will die than would be necessary. Let me ask you this, would you order no lockdown and sit and watch people die in the hope, after winter you would be proven right?

The assertion that this is just a seasonal disease is probably right, but it is a particularly deadly one.

From that article I don't agree with you. I didn't watch the chris witty interview as I find him difficult to stomach, we never knew what the R number was that early on in the pandemic, there was a lot of guesswork going on and all the testing was targeted so was pretty useless in figuring out the R number.
 
Today's headline analysis:

• 12,872 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 15,165
• 7-day average for new cases decreases by 9.1% to 14,391 per day, following 2.1% increase yesterday
• 7-day average for new cases is 48.1% higher than one week ago (from 118.4% higher yesterday) and 147.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 184.8% higher yesterday and 164.1% higher 7 days ago)
• 65 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 81 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 7.2% to 68 per day, following 7.8% increase yesterday (and 24th increase in the past 26 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 31.2% higher than one week ago (from 28.0% higher yesterday) and 125.1% higher than two weeks ago (from 109.0% higher yesterday and 143.0% higher 7 days ago)
 
T_A_D said:
That R0 was falling below one prior to 'lockdown' has been acknowledged by Chris Whitty in evidence to a parliamentary committee (see below, 1:14:00 to 1:15:30)

Click to expand...

Now, firstly, kudos for including the link to Whitty's appearance at the committee. Most people just state that so-and-so said this, without any referencing, so the fact that you didn't do that demonstrates to me that you're open to intellectual rigour and challenge.

With that in mind, it's important to be clear what Chris Whitty actually said in his evidence and the context in which he said it. He was asked whether the government had ignored scientific advice and locked down one week too late in March. His answer was:

"There was a package of things that were strongly recommended on the 16th and those happened there. There was subsequently clear advice to close schools, which previously had not been advised, and that happened subsequently and then, after that, it was clear there was further acceleration, or at least less clarity that we were going to be able to get R below one...so advice was to go further than that...

"...and to be clear, multiple steps were taken along the way and if you look at the R...quite a lot of the change that led to the R going below one occurred well before, or to some extent before, the 23rd when the full lockdown started...

"...and I'm very much in favour of the fact that the lockdown happened but, actually, some people argue that R crossed one even before that point in time".

So, firstly, it's important to note that he was providing answers as to why the government (of which he is a senior official) had not locked down too late. He was not providing evidence as to whether they had locked down too soon or whether lockdown wasn't necessary at all, as he wasn't asked those questions.

Looking at his specific answer, he firstly outlines that a range of measures were introduced before full lockdown on 23rd March. He then states that the evidence suggested that, despite those measures, infection rates were still accelerating (or at least not reducing), so further measures were then required.

He does acknowledge, however, that some of those original measures will have assisted with the R eventually falling below one. Crucially, though, he doesn't state that they were sufficient by themselves, nor does he state that R had fallen below one before 23rd March (in fact, it's clear that he believes that is not the case).

Finally, he reiterates his belief (several months after the fact) that lockdown was necessary. He acknowledges that "some people" argue that R had fallen below one before 23rd March, but the totality of his answer, and the context within which it was given, make it clear that Chris Whitty is not one of those people.
 
Today's headline analysis:

• 13,972 new cases reported in 24-hour period, up from yesterday's 12,872
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 1.4% to 14,588 per day, following 9.1% decrease yesterday (and 41st increase in the past 44 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 33.4% higher than one week ago (from 48.1% higher yesterday) and 152.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 147.4% higher yesterday and 178.4% higher 7 days ago)
• 50 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 65 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 6.5% to 72 per day, following 7.2% increase yesterday (and 25th increase in the past 27 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 37.5% higher than one week ago (from 31.2% higher yesterday) and 137.6% higher than two weeks ago (from 125.1% higher yesterday and 143.7% higher 7 days ago)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top