UK Covid death toll

[baggy1]

I know many friends and family under 60  who are working to keep food on their table and their houses over their heads - No issue with that

Covid is the least of their problems after a first lockdown and then a completely unneeded second one. The rates of hospitalisations and those in hospital were rising week on week, excess deaths have started to increase following that, I've shown you this many times. If you can't see that doing nothing meant that those would have continued to rise then you are blind.

Family who are teachers who can spend their days with 30-40 kids but can't see their elderly parents. They can't see their elderly parents because they may pass on a virus that may kill them, you not seeing this is crazy.

I notice people yet again having a dig at those who say going back to some form of normality is not possible. It absolutely is possible because we manage it every winter flu season when thousands of elderly and vulnerable die of respiratory illnesses. Again Covid is far more deadly than flu no matter how you keep denying it.

And I'll say again because this bored seems generally incapable of understanding the question of whether this lockdown and current measures are in the best interests overall for our society in terms of overall health, education, finance, economy, mental heath etc etc. The usual suspects dodge the question I don't understand why. If they can provide a compelling argument for this being in our best interests I'll happily listen to it. It seems that the argument that we can't possibly know is enough to assuage them from having a debate about it and mollify their conscience in the almost certain probability that over the next 3-5 years the overall costs to life and economy will far outweigh the actions we've taken. This has been answered time and time again but just because we can't provide you with a formulaic answer to how many deaths will be caused at what cost probability vs covid being seen and known to cause excess deaths. You keep saying this hasn't been answered but maybe you need to read responses rather than deny them.

I think, this inability to engage on this level and the arguments being made, is in all probability an output of the fact that the demographics of this bored are probably overwhelmingly of a certain type (a hypothesis based on the people posting and what they post). I would probably say that this bored is almost certainly not a good cross-section of the total population of the UK. I would say that the vast majority of the population is abiding by the rules that this bored is a reasonable representation. 

I've answered in bold - it doesn't help your argument when you keep posting manipulated graphs and skewed data and ignore cold hard facts (no matter how much you play them down). We do have a much higher number of deaths this year than normal, and that number of excess deaths has started to increase again over the last 4 weeks measured.

The problem as I see it is that people are now arguing for the sake of arguing - we have a vaccine on the very near horizon and we only need to carry on like this for a few more weeks.

[Protheroe]

I would say that the vast majority of the population is abiding by the rules that this bored is a reasonable representation. 

God help us if this bored is a reasonable representation of anything.

[baggy1]

The Christmas break makes no sense at all, it's purely PR to get a headline 'Boris saves Christmas'.

From the sounds of it we are not far off being out of this, or being at the start of being out of this, very soon with these vaccines - why we feel the need to take a 3 day break at this point makes no sense at all when that will delay the actual point in time that we get out of it and potentially allows the virus to spread and infect the vulnerable.

And agree with the kids point as well - they had 6 months to think of a solution and came up with pretty much fuck all and spent a fortune on reaching that level of fuck all.

 A Christmas break or free for all is silly to put it mildly. Although I don’t think it makes one iota of difference whether the government allow it or not. A goodly proportion will ignore any restrictions anyway. For that reason, I do think it a bit harsh to say it’s a publicity stunt. Because, as you demonstrate, many will think it a ridiculous decision and condemn the government. So where is the ‘good’ publicity?

If you watched the BBC2 programme yesterday ‘Lockdown1- Following the Science’  With all the contradicting recommendations, modelling, gain saying and hindsight amongst the varying scientific communities, I am not surprised misguided actions were taken.

The decisions made by the government throughout this have been haphazard at best. If they had an approach that was consistent and joined up then I could understand it even if I didn't agree with it. An example is Nightingales - built brilliantly but there were no staff to work in them which must have been known, and then when there was an option there they could have separated out nightingales purely for Covid patients allowing other hospitals to run normal services.

Schools, Testing, timing of lockdowns, level of support to business - all been haphazard and reactive throughout, which doesn't fill me with confidence about a vaccine rollout but who knows. They've been shocking throughout, not because of too many conflicting information but because they changed at each point of that information arising.

---

I would say that the vast majority of the population is abiding by the rules that this bored is a reasonable representation. 

God help us if this bored is a reasonable representation of anything.

  I did think that before I typed

[backsidebaggie]

I don't think the vast majority of the population are complying, got to admit. In the cross section of family/friends/workmates I know, at least 80% are breaking the rules to varying degrees (although probably still socialising less than prior to lockdown).

I'm finding a lot of people are sticking to them, say 5 or 6 days a week, but deciding to break them slightly with a small group once or twice a week (and not admitting it to many people! lol)

Compare this to the first lockdown, when 90% of the same bunch of people were sticking to the rules completely.

I've also been out on the road a couple of times a week on an evening, and its quite busy, even at 10-11pm.

That's only my experience, and may not be a cross-section of society.

[baggy1]

I don't think the vast majority of the population are complying, got to admit. In the cross section of family/friends/workmates I know, at least 80% are breaking the rules to varying degrees (although probably still socialising less than prior to lockdown).

I'm finding a lot of people are sticking to them, say 5 or 6 days a week, but deciding to break them slightly with a small group once or twice a week (and not admitting it to many people! lol)

Compare this to the first lockdown, when 90% of the same bunch of people were sticking to the rules completely.

I've also been out on the road a couple of times a week on an evening, and its quite busy, even at 10-11pm.

That's only my experience, and may not be a cross-section of society.

I'd agree with those observations bb with the big difference this time being schools therefore many people running kids around, from what I've heard though the urban areas are worse than the rural areas. Certainly round the midlands it doesn't feel like a lockdown, roads are as busy - the only missing parts are shops and pubs.

[billybassett]

I know many friends and family under 60  who are working to keep food on their table and their houses over their heads - No issue with that

Covid is the least of their problems after a first lockdown and then a completely unneeded second one. The rates of hospitalisations and those in hospital were rising week on week, excess deaths have started to increase following that, I've shown you this many times. If you can't see that doing nothing meant that those would have continued to rise then you are blind.

Family who are teachers who can spend their days with 30-40 kids but can't see their elderly parents. They can't see their elderly parents because they may pass on a virus that may kill them, you not seeing this is crazy.

I notice people yet again having a dig at those who say going back to some form of normality is not possible. It absolutely is possible because we manage it every winter flu season when thousands of elderly and vulnerable die of respiratory illnesses. Again Covid is far more deadly than flu no matter how you keep denying it.

And I'll say again because this bored seems generally incapable of understanding the question of whether this lockdown and current measures are in the best interests overall for our society in terms of overall health, education, finance, economy, mental heath etc etc. The usual suspects dodge the question I don't understand why. If they can provide a compelling argument for this being in our best interests I'll happily listen to it. It seems that the argument that we can't possibly know is enough to assuage them from having a debate about it and mollify their conscience in the almost certain probability that over the next 3-5 years the overall costs to life and economy will far outweigh the actions we've taken. This has been answered time and time again but just because we can't provide you with a formulaic answer to how many deaths will be caused at what cost probability vs covid being seen and known to cause excess deaths. You keep saying this hasn't been answered but maybe you need to read responses rather than deny them.

I think, this inability to engage on this level and the arguments being made, is in all probability an output of the fact that the demographics of this bored are probably overwhelmingly of a certain type (a hypothesis based on the people posting and what they post). I would probably say that this bored is almost certainly not a good cross-section of the total population of the UK. I would say that the vast majority of the population is abiding by the rules that this bored is a reasonable representation. 

I've answered in bold - it doesn't help your argument when you keep posting manipulated graphs and skewed data and ignore cold hard facts (no matter how much you play them down). We do have a much higher number of deaths this year than normal, and that number of excess deaths has started to increase again over the last 4 weeks measured.

The problem as I see it is that people are now arguing for the sake of arguing - we have a vaccine on the very near horizon and we only need to carry on like this for a few more weeks.

I'm not arguing or misrepresenting. Guarantee there will be another lockdown in Jan/Feb. Covid doesn't get managed by lockdowns, masks and PCR mass testing.

[baggy1]

I've shown where you have misrepresented many times - graphs not showing up to date data ignoring recent upturns; graphs including random numbers for population growth that don't make sense but do downplay the excess deaths.

What is the way to manage covid then?

And just so as I understand - does this concern you?

[backsidebaggie]

Vaccinate the older generation and the vulnerable and, if it’s effective, then that solves the vast majority of this problem. The rest of us can either vaccinate or get immunity if we are healthy enough.

Jumping back a few days to this baggy1. Do you think this is how it will go? My gut feeling is that it won't be effective enough and the mandatory vaccination for everyone/every adult will come about. Then there'll be some carnage! What do you think?

[baggy1]

I think that in theory it should make things better, however seeing the way that everything else has been handled in this situation doesn't give me much confidence. There has to be identification of the people in each group, then there will be those that don't want to take it, followed by the distribution of the correct amount of vaccines to the right areas, then the resources to administer it (twice at a gap of 3 months each time). There are a lot of logistics involved and they need to deliver it properly, not promise 'x squillion people will be vaccinated by midnight tonight' soundbites.

Hopefully it will work, I wouldn't make it mandatory but I personally will have it when it gets to my turn.

[backsidebaggie]

I think that in theory it should make things better, however seeing the way that everything else has been handled in this situation doesn't give me much confidence. There has to be identification of the people in each group, then there will be those that don't want to take it, followed by the distribution of the correct amount of vaccines to the right areas, then the resources to administer it (twice at a gap of 3 months each time). There are a lot of logistics involved and they need to deliver it properly, not promise 'x squillion people will be vaccinated by midnight tonight' soundbites.

Hopefully it will work, I wouldn't make it mandatory but I personally will have it when it gets to my turn.

I wouldn't make it mandatory either.

I think we're already seeing the problem of people being labelled "idiot anti vaxers" when many just have legitimate concerns about a vaccine for something that (in their age group) has a tiny chance of killing them. Many of these people have had many vaccinations in the past but just aren't keen to have this one. 

As usual, the narrative of "idiot anti vaxer" will send people the other way and they'll dig their heels in even more.

I firmly believe those who oppose having the vaccine should be given the chance to debate it against those who are pro vaccine, on tv etc, so everyone can make their own mind up. I'm dubious about the current idea of "censoring anti vaxers" on social media, as its not an "all or nothing" thing. Many pro vaccine people, who have had many vaccines over the years, simply don't want this one.

Let them speak in the media, debate with them, that's the best way to arrive at the truth IMO. Censoring increases suspicion.