|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 11:26:58 GMT
I believe that the point is to blame the Tories, even though the measures were universally supported (and indeed, Labour wanted to go even further). The Tories were late to react to early relevant information and late to take action even when the pandemic was upon us. We can't just assume that Labour would have been just as bad.Why? - in the discussion about stopping the Cheltenham Festival the only person advocating that was teh MP Rory Stewart. Labour were following the Government line which was to defer to the opinion of SAGE. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 10, 2022 12:59:18 GMT
The Tories were late to react to early relevant information and late to take action even when the pandemic was upon us. We can't just assume that Labour would have been just as bad.Why? - in the discussion about stopping the Cheltenham Festival the only person advocating that was teh MP Rory Stewart. Labour were following the Government line which was to defer to the opinion of SAGE. SM didn't mention the "Cheltenham Festival" nor did I. My comment was about blaming the Tories, and there was plenty to blame them for. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 10, 2022 13:31:41 GMT
Lockdowns weren't universally supported. Sweden didn't impose lockdowns - they just told people to behave sensibly and avoid large gatherings. And the figures of excess deaths (possibly the best way of measuring the success or otherwise of a nation's covid policy) show Sweden did better than almost all the rest of Europe: Excess death totalsBut agree with the general point that govts all took the action that they believed would be best for the country. Our Sage committee told us to lock down or massive numbers of people would die (thanks Neil Ferguson) but that wasn't true. Of course it still might have been necessary to lockdown to avoid overwhelming the NHS. It's a very complex subject - and I don't think the OP understands this. Which bit about it was never about the deaths isn't getting through to you? It was about saving the NHS (and was stated as such at the time) and in turn saving the country. But the reason that the govt locked down was because the Covid model that the govt decided to believe was WRONG. It was a discredited model that the discredited Neil Ferguson produced for flu. It was bollocks. Like all his models. Boris was in favour of NOT locking down until Ferguson told him up to 500,000 people would die if he didn't. The evidence seems to show that lockdowns caused more deaths. Sage caused a kind of hysteria that caused a lot of damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 17:18:10 GMT
Why? - in the discussion about stopping the Cheltenham Festival the only person advocating that was teh MP Rory Stewart. Labour were following the Government line which was to defer to the opinion of SAGE. SM didn't mention the "Cheltenham Festival" nor did I. My comment was about blaming the Tories, and there was plenty to blame them for. But you said the Tories were late to act and that we couldn't assume Labour would have done the same - I gave you a specific example where the Tories have been roundly condemned for not acting and we know that Labour would have done exactly the same in that instance. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 10, 2022 23:16:52 GMT
SM didn't mention the "Cheltenham Festival" nor did I. My comment was about blaming the Tories, and there was plenty to blame them for. But you said the Tories were late to act and that we couldn't assume Labour would have done the same - I gave you a specific example where the Tories have been roundly condemned for not acting and we know that Labour would have done exactly the same in that instance. My reference about Boris being late to act referred specifically to the early stages, i.e. his "herd immunity" approach. I don't recall Labour MPs calling for the Herd immunity approach. In fact the only other idiot calling for it as I recall, was Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 10, 2022 23:56:52 GMT
Which bit about it was never about the deaths isn't getting through to you? It was about saving the NHS (and was stated as such at the time) and in turn saving the country. But the reason that the govt locked down was because the Covid model that the govt decided to believe was WRONG. It was a discredited model that the discredited Neil Ferguson produced for flu. It was bollocks. Like all his models. Boris was in favour of NOT locking down until Ferguson told him up to 500,000 people would die if he didn't. The evidence seems to show that lockdowns caused more deaths. Sage caused a kind of hysteria that caused a lot of damage. I suggest you look at the actual figures. A year 6 child could see the NHS was going to see the exponentially increasing load on the NHS would leave it wrecked be end of April 2020 and that would mean Covid would have infected all 65 million in the UK and with a 1% fatality rate of the then variants that would be that 500,000+ deaths coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Nov 11, 2022 3:21:19 GMT
But you said the Tories were late to act and that we couldn't assume Labour would have done the same - I gave you a specific example where the Tories have been roundly condemned for not acting and we know that Labour would have done exactly the same in that instance. My reference about Boris being late to act referred specifically to the early stages, i.e. his "herd immunity" approach. I don't recall Labour MPs calling for the Herd immunity approach. In fact the only other idiot calling for it as I recall, was Trump. You are talking like these are all established facts. We are having an enquiry to get the full picture of what actually happened. There is so much rubbish, lies and counterclaims that people are just picking information that matches their narrative. Patrick Valance gave evidence to a hearing that herd immunity was never the government's policy. He said the actual policy was to reduce the peak before it got out of hand, so the NHS could cope, because they believed they could not stop everybody getting it. He regrets mentioning herd immunity because it was misconstrued. The actual thoughts at the time were that it would be counter-productive to attempt to stop everybody from getting it, because they wouldn't get chance to build up an immunity. Which is very different from saying you are going to let it rip through the population. They were caught out by the speed of the spike in cases, and if you can put down your biased glasses for a moment, remind yourself of what the public did when the lockdown was announced. Like fucking idiots, they held parties, had family gathering, flocked to the seaside / tourist spots, packed out pubs... instead of being sensible the public held super spreaders events up and down the country. In the end we did no worse than Germany or France (looking at excess deaths), and we did a hell of lot better than Italy and Spain. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 11, 2022 7:43:17 GMT
I suggest you look at the actual figures. A year 6 child could see the NHS was going to see the exponentially increasing load on the NHS would leave it wrecked be end of April 2020 and that would mean Covid would have infected all 65 million in the UK and with a 1% fatality rate of the then variants that would be that 500,000+ deaths coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ I think that's the kind of argument that a year 6 child might come out with - but it's completely wrong. I think the overall mortality rate is 0.66% (not 1%) but the majority of deaths is in the over 80 year olds. Below 65 the death rate is much lower. The mortality rate in children under 10 is 0.0016%. Most of the people dying were very old. The basic question is what price do you pay to save a life? NICE has the policy of allowing £30k for each extra year of life. That's the figure they use to determine whether the license a drug for NHS use. When you use the same criterion to work out if lockdowns should have been implemented it shows that the cost for each extra year of life was vastly greater than £30k. The bottom line is that the model that Sage was using was completely wrong. Look at the Swedish data. We would have been better off with no lockdowns and we would also have saved about £400 billion in furlough. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 11, 2022 7:46:12 GMT
I suggest you look at the actual figures. A year 6 child could see the NHS was going to see the exponentially increasing load on the NHS would leave it wrecked be end of April 2020 and that would mean Covid would have infected all 65 million in the UK and with a 1% fatality rate of the then variants that would be that 500,000+ deaths coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ I think that's the kind of argument that a year 6 child might come out with - but it's completely wrong. I think the overall mortality rate is 0.66% (not 1%) but the majority of deaths is in the over 80 year olds. Below 65 the death rate is much lower. The mortality rate in children under 10 is 0.0016%. Most of the people dying were very old. The basic question is what price do you pay to save a life? NICE has the policy of allowing £30k for each extra year of life. That's the figure they use to determine whether the license a drug for NHS use. When you use the same criterion to work out if lockdowns should have been implemented it shows that the cost for each extra year of life was vastly greater than £30k. The bottom line is that the model that Sage was using was completely wrong. Look at the Swedish data. We would have been better off with no lockdowns and we would also have saved about £400 billion in furlough. I wanna rebate, missus as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 11, 2022 8:10:50 GMT
But you said the Tories were late to act and that we couldn't assume Labour would have done the same - I gave you a specific example where the Tories have been roundly condemned for not acting and we know that Labour would have done exactly the same in that instance. My reference about Boris being late to act referred specifically to the early stages, i.e. his "herd immunity" approach. I don't recall Labour MPs calling for the Herd immunity approach. In fact the only other idiot calling for it as I recall, was Trump. There was never a 'herd immunity' approach - the entire Government policy consisted of doing what SAGE told them to do. Hence people like me complaining at the time that they were putting too much reliance on SAGE and Prof Fergusons models. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2022 12:30:03 GMT
What I found interesting was that the average age of deaths with Covid, was the same as the average age of death in general. To me, that suggests that having the virus had very little bearing on the time of death. Mostly, it must have been the pre-existing conditions which killed people.
The original version of the virus appeared to be more potent, but the current variants are little more than a cold or mild flu. It's time we gave the same status to Covid as we do to Influenza.
Emergency over.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 11, 2022 12:32:44 GMT
It's time we gave the same status to Covid as we do to Influenza. Emergency over. We have |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 11, 2022 12:58:24 GMT
What I found interesting was that the average age of deaths with Covid, was the same as the average age of death in general. To me, that suggests that having the virus had very little bearing on the time of death. Mostly, it must have been the pre-existing conditions which killed people. The original version of the virus appeared to be more potent, but the current variants are little more than a cold or mild flu. It's time we gave the same status to Covid as we do to Influenza. Emergency over. Yes the mean age of people who died "with Covid" was 79 I believe. Which is about the average life expectancy. However although the average life expectancy in the UK is about 80 that doesn't mean "actuarily" that when you're 80 you don't have many more years to live. The life expectancy of a 20 year old may be 80 - i.e. another 60 years. But the life expectancy of an 80 year old isn't zero years. I forget the actual figures but if you live to 80 your life expectancy is still another 5 years. As I said it's very complicated and SAGE completely screwed it all up. So much for experts. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 11, 2022 14:38:38 GMT
I think that's the kind of argument that a year 6 child might come out with - but it's completely wrong. I think the overall mortality rate is 0.66% (not 1%) but the majority of deaths is in the over 80 year olds. Below 65 the death rate is much lower. The mortality rate in children under 10 is 0.0016%. Most of the people dying were very old. The basic question is what price do you pay to save a life? NICE has the policy of allowing £30k for each extra year of life. That's the figure they use to determine whether the license a drug for NHS use. When you use the same criterion to work out if lockdowns should have been implemented it shows that the cost for each extra year of life was vastly greater than £30k. The bottom line is that the model that Sage was using was completely wrong. Look at the Swedish data. We would have been better off with no lockdowns and we would also have saved about £400 billion in furlough. I wanna rebate, missus as well.
Oh the irony  And you keep swerving all around the real issue - saving the country On March 27th 2020 we had 7,267 Covid cases in our hospitals A week later in April 4th it was 17,502, a growth rate of 240% a week. At that exponential rate, by April 25th it would have been 244 thousand needing to be in hospital, something like 10 million infected and the NHS would have collapsed. We would have local insurrections blockading streets or even whole towns etc and worse Europe would rightly be blocking UK drivers and European truck drivers would literally have been avoiding the UK like the plague so the 50% of food we import would not be available and getting our own produced 50% to shops would have been fraught. Supermarkets would have been ransacked for what food was left on the empty shelves and some people would literally have been starving But it didn't happen as by that April 4th, lockdown was already cutting in and a week later the 'cases in hospital' numbers were declining and the cases didn't become 20% of the country. Lockdowns saved the country, stop this denial whining that it cost money. Most necessary things cost. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 11, 2022 17:08:22 GMT
My reference about Boris being late to act referred specifically to the early stages, i.e. his "herd immunity" approach. I don't recall Labour MPs calling for the Herd immunity approach. In fact the only other idiot calling for it as I recall, was Trump. You are talking like these are all established facts. We are having an enquiry to get the full picture of what actually happened. There is so much rubbish, lies and counterclaims that people are just picking information that matches their narrative. Patrick Valance gave evidence to a hearing that herd immunity was never the government's policy. He may well of said that, but I recall Boris referring to heard immunity in Jan 2020. Even though I find Google to be a load of rubbish these days I will look and see if I can find it. |
|
