(01-12-2021, 10:33 AM)baggy1 Wrote: Final week of 2020 figures are now official (week 53) up to the 1st Jan 2021. This makes comparison a bit more difficult as there aren't many week 53s obviously however there is one included in the 5YA figure which was 2015 when there were 7,524 deaths. 2020 week 53 is showing 10,069 and when you take into account there are two bank holidays reducing the registrations makes it grim reading. 

It does give us a final figure for 2020 of over 75k excess deaths in E&W than the 5YA and that includes the 1st 12 weeks which were nearly 5k under average, which equates to 80k more deaths than normal in 41 weeks.

To put a bit of context around the numbers in comparison to other years, including adjustment for population growth (with a good explanation as to why that isn't a straight forward measure) Sky did a good video on the news about it last night: 

https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-analysing-the-data-how-severe-is-covid-19-12185455

And there are still some out there that are saying it's just flu.

(01-07-2021, 04:48 PM)baggy1 Wrote: This is where my frustration kicks in, during September Sage advised a lockdown was needed but Boris bottled it because of all the nay sayers in his party. I hope each and every one of those that said 'lockdowns are damaging' and 'we have this every year' are now thinking again. Lockdowns are damaging, there is no doubt about that, but delaying them against something like covid means they go on for longer and cause more damage. I really hope this puts that to bed.

(01-12-2021, 12:44 PM)baggy1 Wrote: The problem with that Proth is that because of the delay the lockdown has to be harder and for longer so it has taken away more of your liberty and ability to run a business and more time for kids out of school. We will, more than likely, be locked down until March / April now whereas a lockdown to keep the numbers down around the half term and then an extended christmas break would have kept the numbers down, resulting in less deaths and also less time off schools. We could have moved along like that until April when we will have most of those that need it vaccinated.

You also seem tied to kids finishing education at 16 or 18, delaying their education is a million miles off denying it

And, we agree on this btw, you will regularly say that business owners take more risk and therefore deserve more reward when it is there, but there is another side to risk and unfortunately times like these mean that you can't have it both ways.

(10-11-2020, 07:20 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 05:49 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 09:33 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:25 AM)billybassett Wrote: Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

Billy, I've tried to stay out of this debate because I think the situation is very complex and I'm no expert. I also understand the basis for both sides of the argument but I would return to what I said much earlier, which is that statistical data analysis is a somewhat inexact science. You seem to criticise Derek for not being able to supply an answer to your question of whether saving a certain number of lives in the here and now is worth the risk of "50-100,000 lives" further down the line. How do you arrive at your figure?  There is no certainty that such a number of lives will be lost - not least if a vaccine turns up within the next 6 or even 12 months.

The one real concern that you seem not to want to take onboard is what might happen if the virus is to be treated as a lesser evil and allowed a certain amount of give. I think it's clear that the greatest immediate concern is what happens inside hospitals if Covid patients with severe life-threatening symptoms are admitted as a result of a rising infection rate. Some argue that the NHS can cope, I've seen it stated that things were not as bad as they were painted earlier this year - but I am sure that whatever rationale is being used for the present actions (or inaction) at its heart is the desire to ensure that hospitals and NHS workers are not overwhelmed.

Maybe they wouldn't be, but the rate at which infections and hospital admissions are going, leads me to think it's not a risk worth taking because while, as Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead", I'd rather have the chance of a long run rather than a short one. I think the idea is to keep deaths as low as possible and hope that the vaccine trials mean the long-term damage remains a lesser evil.

(01-12-2021, 12:19 PM)Protheroe Wrote:

(01-07-2021, 04:48 PM)baggy1 Wrote: This is where my frustration kicks in, during September Sage advised a lockdown was needed but Boris bottled it because of all the nay sayers in his party. I hope each and every one of those that said 'lockdowns are damaging' and 'we have this every year' are now thinking again. Lockdowns are damaging, there is no doubt about that, but delaying them against something like covid means they go on for longer and cause more damage. I really hope this puts that to bed.

I know you don't like me making this point, but Lockdown can only ever be a political decision - regardless of what Sage says. It's not just the naysayers in his party, it's everyone who can't work out how the hell they're going to make a living, it's everyone whose taken on ever more debt to keep a business and employees afloat, it's everyone (like me) who believes that the education / protection of the most vulnerable kids is an equal if not greater priority than the protection of the elderly and infirm.

I would ALWAYS rather have a leader of whatever hue, who delayed restrictions on our liberty and our childrens' education until the last possible moment. Is a late call any worse than making a premature call?

If your only measures are lives saved or NHS bed occupancy then a premature call may be better. However, the criteria upon which we judge quality of life, life chances, economic, social and mental well being are far greater and more varied in number. Hence Lockdown can only ever be a political decision based on the opportunity cost / benefit between all these different sectional interests.

(01-13-2021, 10:33 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: We are such an apathetic country, we seem to be accepting an appalling record on the handling of this pandemic with a shrug of our shoulders. Not to mention the arseholes who won’t stick to the rules and similar who want everything back to normal many of which sit on the Tory benches.