Billy, I'll reply to your post after this, though it may be later as I have a little work to do after replying to Laughing. Though just to say I'll check again his wording, your interpretation could be correct I will re-check. I would also add here that my comments were not a criticism of the choice of timing of lockdown, this is all retrospective analysis and Whitty was not in that position.
Firstly, yes, nasty virus, no disagreement there, though the extent to which various countries have been hit I won't get into here.
I'm not sure sure locking down a week earlier would have made any difference, and others share this view (Michael Yeadon for one - I will include a link to a very good twitter thread from him later in the post). The virus was likely already in hospitals and care homes by then and circulating. "Lockdown" of the general population would have made little difference as those most likely to sadly die were in hospital and care home settings. It is important not to look at case numbers for the timings as we know that the cases we were recording were a fraction of the true number (not a criticism) so while it may have looked like cases were rising and then began to fall after interventions were put in place (this is what I thought and used to explain to people), in reality the number of new daily infections was falling already...... and you may like to think why? We'll come onto that after a couple of graphs.
Look at the graph below for the deaths of France, UK, Spain, Italy. The curves are almost identical, it the mathematical result of a natural phenomenon like a virus passing through a population. I will also include this in another thread were hysteria is developing. Look at the daily deaths back in March and compare them with now. Also look at the rate of increase, why is it much less shallow? Because it has already run through most of the susceptible population.
Look at Spain and France. They are plateauing and the UK will plateau in the not too distant future. And we know if daily deaths have plateaued then infections will have too. We'll come onto why they won't increase substantially shortly. Also, look the daily deaths and tell me you honestly think we are anywhere near the situation we were in back in March? We're not, despite what a fear mongering press (all political persuasions) and now government scientists (yes, the people who are meant to be looking out for you aren't).
I'll say more on this later because the government are now actively lying to and misleading the public, aided and abetted by government scientists. Luckily there are plenty of people far smarter than I calling them out on this. The public needs to know and needs to stand up to this, it really is a matter of your freedoms and has nothing to do with public health. The opposition is seemingly putting up no resistance and so it will be for the public to do so.
View attachment 7443
Now lets look at the UK and Sweden. I have chosen to compare deaths per million as obviously the UK is much larger and has more deaths so this representation allows a clearer comparison. While Sweden had many of the same restrictions/guidelines as us (work from home if possible, maintain distancing) there were also very clear differences. Bars and restaurants stayed open, hairdressers and gyms stayed open. Sweden also has low levels of mask wearing (though mask use didn't come in the UK till the middle of summer - when it was completely pointless). I could also make other comparisons between Sweden and other countries with harsh lockdown. The lockdown makes no difference. The data is clear. The idea that "lockdown" a week earlier would cut deaths is based on a model which does seem to have some logic - I believed it at first but comparisons between Sweden and countries with harsh restrictions shows the ultimate result to be the same, just as the likes of Tegnell suggested.
View attachment 7449
I'll finish by addressing a couple of other of your points:
I think you are misunderstanding the implications of "seasonal". You said "Yes infection rates would have dropped as the infection is seasonal." - Incorrect. Infections dropped because the virus had passed through the most susceptible, some of which sadly died, and so had fewer susceptible people to infect.
Before the final point, let me ask a question. I've already explained that lockdown had no influence on UK deaths and that Sweden had the same deaths per million as the UK with much looser restrictions, so what do you think caused infections to drop?
Immunity - It was the fact that the virus had spread through the susceptible and had fewer susceptible people to infect. It really is that simple. We have a level of immunity (besides antibodies which seem to reach ~20% at peak infections) which protects us. It is how the human race has fought of virus's for many many years.
So yes, a lockdown going into winter will achieve nothing, nothing at all. Why would we need to anyway? We have little susceptible population left. I've already explained (and have shown the data from this epidemic) why this is the case. There will be small outbreaks and people will die. This is not unusual. You are assuming that cases and deaths will continue to rise without evidence/data (daily cases are now plateuing as expected, following France and Spain). If the NHS cannot cope with this rise (which is currently in line with what happens every year at this time of year with respiratory viruses) the the government has failed again.
~50 people per day (reported date, not specimen date, we'll come to that, very important) will die with/of Covid for a while. If we do not have the Ask yourself how many people die of cancers, heart attacks, strokes, dementia etc each day. It is dwarfing covid deaths - please please please consider this and put this virus into context. And look back at those graphs!
Please consider the impacts on families, elderly people in care homes who cannot see family (who supporters of these ludicrous lockdowns claim to help!), businesses, livelihoods.
Finally, (phew this is long, but important)..... please do have a look at this twitter thread from Michael Yeadon (former CSO of Pfizer). It covers Blair's bonkers testing idea, Spain flu second wave myths, immunity, testing.
