The 9am figures not disclosed yet?

Alvez, in match we probably locked down at about the peak so it had very little effect, that I would agree with, but your interpretation of the graphs you post are questionable as are TAD's interpretations.

I gave up on this argument a while ago but take issue with you stating as fact, your opinion.

So explain the data it's not just the UK it's all the data...

Or have you given up because you can't explain it so you're just going on what you feel? Perfectly fine to do that, we're of course not making decisions in government...
 
The place where my wife works, whilst it is an assisted living care home, has recently put in plans should even just 1 covid positive test amongst the residents arises.
The complex will be locked down within the day. Nobody allowed in and nobody allowed out. Staff have volunteered to live in for 2 week shifts on full pay, by full pay I mean they are been paid for 14 hours work and only 'working' 10 hours. Living quarters have been arranged as some of the self contained flats are still empty so staff will access to all the usual at home facilities.
Any deliveries to the home will be left at the main entrance or the rear delivery entrance. Literally the only people allowed to enter the home me will be a doctor or the fire brigade.

You would hope every care home and assisted living complex in the country would have similar plans in place.

Those sound like some very good measures, but it wouldn't be enough I don't think, and not their fault either of course, I just think it would be impossible:
If going down that road, then this is accepting that there is going to be much wider transmission in society (all pubs and restaurants open I expect?).
But what if one case has spread to five cases?
What if there's a few cases coming in from different directions, every week?
Will they test everyone every day or every week?
How fast will they get results back?
What happens to new admissions, which care home do they go into?
What happens if some have to go to hospital and then come back?
Last time they were sending covid patients to care homes, what would they do this time?
What happens on changeover day when a load of new staff come in that have been off for two weeks shopping, and going to the pub, out to restaurants etc?
Obviously care home staff would be living with partners and kids, who would likely be riddled?

It may have to be a lot lot worse than that, if there was mass infection of the public (as in much more than March/ April) it would probably take months to get to that level, at a pace that the NHS could handle. During that time the only way to protect the care homes would be if all the staff lived in, had no close/ indoor contact with partners or kids and nobody else was allowed in. There's just no way on earth that anyone could ask them to do that, it would be worse than jail for them and the carers like your wife etc, and it would be $hit for you too. It would need fast herd immunity too, if this is even possible, but that would take how long, 6 months? We will probably have a vaccine for all the vulnerable by then, if they want it.

In that scenario we may even be forced to have set "covid care homes" and transit care homes, it sounds horrendous.
 
Statto, nobody is allowed in or out of her building for 2 weeks. Nobody except emergency services allowed in the building. For 2 weeks. Those who would be living in for 2 weeks will also self isolate for 2 weeks at home afterwards on half pay.
 
So explain the data it's not just the UK it's all the data...

Or have you given up because you can't explain it so you're just going on what you feel? Perfectly fine to do that, we're of course not making decisions in government...

The below explains how we got to 40k deaths (same as Spain, Italy, France etc), the fate of 40k was pretty much sealed, basically before we even locked down. The lock down stopped that curve peaking multiple times higher, and killing multiple times more.

The reason those that locked down had high death is because they locked down too late, they were already done for, before they put the lock downs in, which then massively reduced cases and deaths.

1605360754521.png
 
Last edited:
Alvez, you are interpreting the graphs incorrectly. Let's look at a really simple example and try and generalize it.

If a population of 2 never come into contact the virus dies out possibly killing its host.

If you have a population of 2 million and patient zero is isolated before infecting anyone else, the virus dies out again possibly killing its host.

Reducing contract reduces infections. If that were not the case social distancing would also be pointless.

So if we accept that putting distance between an infected person and everyone else reduces infections then lockdown work. It is just another form of extreme social distancing. Because you don't like that approach doesn't make it less effective.
 
@Laughing:-


The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not, nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.

AIER has long highlighted studies that show no gain in virus management from lockdowns. Even as early as April, a major data scientist said that this virus becomes endemic in 70 days after the first round of infection, regardless of policies. The largest global study of lockdowns compared with deaths as published in The Lancet found no association between coercive stringencies and deaths per million.

To test further might seem superfluous but, for whatever reason, governments all over the world, including in the US, still are under the impression that they can affect viral transmissions through a range of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) like mandatory masks, forced human separation, stay-at-home orders, bans of gatherings, business and school closures, and extreme travel restrictions. Nothing like this has been tried on this scale in the whole of human history, so one might suppose that policy makers have some basis for their confidence that these measures accomplish something.

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center sought to test the whole idea of lockdowns. In May, 3,143 new recruits to the Marines were given the option to participate in a study of extreme quarantine (along with extreme antivirus measures) or not. The study was called CHARM, which stands for COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. Of the recruits asked, a total of 1,848 young people agreed to be guinea pigs in this experiment. The remaining ones went about their normal basic training in regular ways.

What did the CHARM recruits have to do? The study explains, and, as you will see, they faced an even more strict regime that has existed in civilian life in most places.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with preplated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel. After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before reoccupancy.

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take it to another level. All respect for those who volunteered for this! Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a typical college campus.

What were the results? Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

And how does this compare to the control group that was not subjected to the strict regime?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

IMG_20201114_135542.jpg
New England Journal of Medicine
Which is to say that the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. Conversely, extreme enforcement of NPIs was associated with a greater degree of infection.

I’m grateful to Don Wolt for drawing my attention to this study, which, so far as I know, has received very little attention from any media source at all, despite having been published in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11.
 
Alvez, you are interpreting the graphs incorrectly. Let's look at a really simple example and try and generalize it.

If a population of 2 never come into contact the virus dies out possibly killing its host.

If you have a population of 2 million and patient zero is isolated before infecting anyone else, the virus dies out again possibly killing its host.

Reducing contract reduces infections. If that were not the case social distancing would also be pointless.

So if we accept that putting distance between an infected person and everyone else reduces infections then lockdown work. It is just another form of extreme social distancing. Because you don't like that approach doesn't make it less effective.

Read the article it disproves your point
 
@Laughing:-


The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not, nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.

AIER has long highlighted studies that show no gain in virus management from lockdowns. Even as early as April, a major data scientist said that this virus becomes endemic in 70 days after the first round of infection, regardless of policies. The largest global study of lockdowns compared with deaths as published in The Lancet found no association between coercive stringencies and deaths per million.

To test further might seem superfluous but, for whatever reason, governments all over the world, including in the US, still are under the impression that they can affect viral transmissions through a range of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) like mandatory masks, forced human separation, stay-at-home orders, bans of gatherings, business and school closures, and extreme travel restrictions. Nothing like this has been tried on this scale in the whole of human history, so one might suppose that policy makers have some basis for their confidence that these measures accomplish something.

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center sought to test the whole idea of lockdowns. In May, 3,143 new recruits to the Marines were given the option to participate in a study of extreme quarantine (along with extreme antivirus measures) or not. The study was called CHARM, which stands for COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. Of the recruits asked, a total of 1,848 young people agreed to be guinea pigs in this experiment. The remaining ones went about their normal basic training in regular ways.

What did the CHARM recruits have to do? The study explains, and, as you will see, they faced an even more strict regime that has existed in civilian life in most places.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with preplated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel. After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before reoccupancy.

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take it to another level. All respect for those who volunteered for this! Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a typical college campus.

What were the results? Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

And how does this compare to the control group that was not subjected to the strict regime?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

View attachment 8902
New England Journal of Medicine
Which is to say that the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. Conversely, extreme enforcement of NPIs was associated with a greater degree of infection.

I’m grateful to Don Wolt for drawing my attention to this study, which, so far as I know, has received very little attention from any media source at all, despite having been published in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11.
Ok Alvez let me try once more. If the rest of the world is infected and I lock myself away until either everyone dies or are no longer infectious I live. This isn't rocket science! It doesn't require graphs open to interpretation it just requires the one piece of information, if you don't come into contact with the virus you don't get it.
 
Statto, nobody is allowed in or out of her building for 2 weeks. Nobody except emergency services allowed in the building. For 2 weeks. Those who would be living in for 2 weeks will also self isolate for 2 weeks at home afterwards on half pay.

Yeah, I totally get that, it's certainly a good move. But what happens after that, the case goes to hospital I presume? Or a covid care home? Or is isolated on the premises?
If that's happened, the virus has either transmitted internally, and then gets locked in, or they self isolate for two weeks to try and stay free of any additional virus? So if we assume the latter has happened, then that's only 2 weeks, who then comes in to replace the staff?
The other shift that's been off for two weeks (not self isolating?), or people that haven't been working in care homes?
The self isolating staff then have to go back to work for two weeks, so that's 6 weeks of living in a care home, or self isolating, for one case.

If cases are rife in public and with the staffs partners and kids, then I just don't see a way of protecting the staff and the care home from infection, unless they were locked down as one big bubble, but that would be horrendous for the residents, the staff and the families of the residents and staff.
 
As I understand it PHE have already started that covid positive patients will be returned to care homes. So whilst I am sure care homes are doing whatever they can, it is pushing a boulder up a hill when the government are undermining the best efforts.
 
Because it demonstrates only that lockdown are not effective in eradicating the virus. And let's assume for a minute that the test was conducted 50 times or 500 what would the data look like then?

You are interpreting and seeking out information that supports your view and not being critical enough of it.

Before you jump on me! I stopped reading conflicting scientific opinion a while ago, rarely get involved in these discussions anymore because they're are 2 view points going round in circles.

The virus requires proximity or secondary contact to spread. That is a fact, oh hang on FACT.. that's better. Without proximity or secondary contact it cannot spread. If you reduce proximity you reduced the spread.
 
Because it demonstrates only that lockdown are not effective in eradicating the virus. And let's assume for a minute that the test was conducted 50 times or 500 what would the data look like then?

You are interpreting and seeking out information that supports your view and not being critical enough of it.

Before you jump on me! I stopped reading conflicting scientific opinion a while ago, rarely get involved in these discussions anymore because they're are 2 view points going round in circles.

The virus requires proximity or secondary contact to spread. That is a fact, oh hang on FACT.. that's better. Without proximity or secondary contact it cannot spread. If you reduce proximity you reduced the spread.
Might introduce the proximity and contact concept to my wife.
Hands face space - save my marriage 🤣
 
Because it demonstrates only that lockdown are not effective in eradicating the virus. And let's assume for a minute that the test was conducted 50 times or 500 what would the data look like then?

You are interpreting and seeking out information that supports your view and not being critical enough of it.

Before you jump on me! I stopped reading conflicting scientific opinion a while ago, rarely get involved in these discussions anymore because they're are 2 view points going round in circles.

The virus requires proximity or secondary contact to spread. That is a fact, oh hang on FACT.. that's better. Without proximity or secondary contact it cannot spread. If you reduce proximity you reduced the spread.

Lol sure thing sure that's what it shows.

I get it your comfortable locked down and you needn't worry about the impacts of it so why question it. It's cool, I'm comfortable too.. Just fighting the good fight for those that are struggling. 👍🏻
 
Lol sure thing sure that's what it shows.

I get it your comfortable locked down and you needn't worry about the impacts of it so why question it. It's cool, I'm comfortable too.. Just fighting the good fight for those that are struggling. 👍🏻
Fairly insulting post Alvez.
 
Back
Top