Durham

[billybassett]

Forget about Proths "limited to the hospital and care sector comment", that is plain stupid as people contract it prior to going into hospital.

PHE suggests at least 20% of those who've had Covid 19 contracted it in hospital and, of course 90% of health workers who've had it have contracted it in hospital.

The death rate for social care workers from Covid 19 is double that of the general working age population. The numbers of deaths in care homes are awful and are recorded by the CQC / ONS.

I don't make this stuff up you know.

If you have a problem in specific sectors, you target those specific sectors. You don't blanket lockdown everyone.

But you do manipulate figures to inflate them - 20% of those who've had it will include the 90% figure which is unnecessary but as it's a big number it sounds impressive. What are the actual numbers of cases, not % that you are talking about. 

And no doubt that care workers are in the firing line here, I'm very much of the belief that the 'loading' element of this virus is very important in understanding how to deal with it and that is especially in the case of putting people in a crowded room together as we would normally do.

And again you talk of people who have had it when that data is simply not available, it might be being estimated but we simply don't know because we haven't tested. 

You might not make this stuff up, but you do a very good impression of someone who is ignoring obvious figures like 65,000 excess deaths with a lockdown - you've ignored this question a few times so it would be nice to get an answer. Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?

He doesn't need me to answer but clearly if everyone had just carried on then it would obviously have been worse.

But, the point is that not everyone needs to be locked down now. Lockdown for old and vulnerable yes (and your own personal responsibility applies here as well so if you're old and vulnerable and want to go about your business unchanged then so be it take the consequences). But for the rest no.

[Protheroe]

Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?

Sweden, using the same "science" suggests not. That is the point I was trying to make.

[Babel]

You're right, of course, Proth. Sweden is a great example.

Non-lockdown Sweden has eight times the death rate to Covid than its comparable Nordic neighbour, quick-to-lock-down Denmark. Allowing for population size differences, non-lockdown Sweden's relative morbidity rate is between four and five times higher that of lockdown Denmark (or Norway, or Finland--all of whom have locked down).

What does all this suggest? Lockdowns demonstrably reduce death rates.

[baggy1]

Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?

Sweden, using the same "science" suggests not. That is the point I was trying to make.

Again - you're avoiding the question by making an idiotic comparison. The population of Stockholm is less than 1 million and the total population of Sweden is about 2 million more than London itself. Sweden is twice the size (area) of the UK so there is a density multiplier of less people (6x) and size (x2) They have managed to have 0.04% of its population die from this disease (4,468 deaths from a population of 10.23M). 0.04% of the UK Population would be 30k times 6 times 2 is 360k (a big fucking number).

You have already argued that this disease is worse with loading so you agree that the tighter packed everyone is the more chance that it will spread therefore letting it unloose as with Sweden is a pretty fucking risky strategy.

So straight question, do you think we would have had a worse death toll if we hadn't have locked down?

[Shabby Russian]

Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?

Sweden, using the same "science" suggests not. That is the point I was trying to make.

The thing that Proth doesn't answer is why more comparable countries such as Czech Republic, Greece, Finland etc have far better records than Sweden when it comes to Covid19 - they all locked down hard and fast and have emerged from lockdown faster and with less risk than we are taking.

[The liquidator]

Would like to see the figure on how many bame live in these countries compared to ours .

[Borin' Baggie]

Would like to see the figure on how many bame live in these countries compared to ours .

Bangladesh has a better record on dealing with the Coronavirus, you're really overthinking race as an issue of our response.

---

Do you think that figure would have been better or worse without a lockdown?

Sweden, using the same "science" suggests not. That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes, let's have the worst effected European nation take the same strategy as the second worst effected.

I'd also suggest looking at Brazil, going brilliantly there.

[foreveralbion]

im sure the numbers will be extensively analysed eventually but we as a nation have either been very unlucky or we made some big mistakes.

i only really use germany as a comaprison to the uk and the difference in outcomes is huge.

[baggy1]

Would like to see the figure on how many bame live in these countries compared to ours .

I've seen you mention this a couple of times and think you might be getting the information coming at you confused. When they talk of ethnicity rate they are not talking about the total number of deaths they are talking about the likelihood of death based on ethnicity. A big factor in that is the number of people of that ethnicity in the country of which the vast majority in the UK (86% in the 2011 census) are white.

For some reason they haven't done (or published) any latest data, the latest published data is as at 10th April so not wide enough in my opinion. However for the 12,805 deaths in the dataset 10,726 were White.

The number of non-white people in a countries population will have a very small impact on the death rates.

[hudds]

A significant factor may be fat bastardry:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/j...-your-risk