UK Covid death toll
(06-08-2021, 08:44 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

That is the idea, maybe not our governments, but the generally accepted idea for a lockdown is to get track and trace set up.

We never did.

Birdy's right Proth, lockdown is the bluntest tool in the box to help reduce transmission, it really is a last resort when there is no other options. The reason it was entered into was to buy us time to set up the other tools to help, test and trace, vaccination programmes, purchase and roll out of PPE being the main three. We failed miserably on one of those, managed to scramble to get another and outperformed everyone on the vaccine programme.

One thing that is surprising me at the moment is how shit the information flow is recently on the government website. The BBC were reporting yesterday that there were 154 new patients in hospital, what they failed to notice was that was from the 1st of June. Currently for England the data is for the 4th June on those in hospital and 2nd on new admissions. At a point when information is critical into the publics understanding of what's going on this is pretty shit.
Reply
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

It wasn't over here, it was in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.
Reply
(06-08-2021, 09:34 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

It wasn't over here, it was in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.

The idea was to protect the NHS. Less than 1000 in hospital now, and less than 150 on a ventilator. 

The brothers grim (Whitty & Valance) are now spreading major doom to the Government in an attempt to keep us all locked up until next year.
Reply
(06-08-2021, 11:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 09:34 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

It wasn't over here, it was in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.

The idea was to protect the NHS. Less than 1000 in hospital now, and less than 150 on a ventilator. 

The brothers grim (Whitty & Valance) are now spreading major doom to the Government in an attempt to keep us all locked up until next year.

The idea was to prevent the initial spread so the NHS wasn't overwhelmed before we could control the spread through contact tracing, because of our inept government and dearth of quality in the cabinet that fell flat on it's arse and we spent months scrambling about and then we ended up screwing up again as we put the least competent person in Britain, Dido fucking Harding, in charge of track and trace just because she's shagging John Penrose.

Whitty and Vallance are senior advisors to the government, they don't dictate what we do. Do you think Whitty and Vallance were the ones who delayed putting India on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh just so Johnson could have a publicity stunt with Modi?
Reply
(06-08-2021, 11:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 09:34 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

It wasn't over here, it was in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.

The idea was to protect the NHS. Less than 1000 in hospital now, and less than 150 on a ventilator. 

The brothers grim (Whitty & Valance) are now spreading major doom to the Government in an attempt to keep us all locked up until next year.

Are they, or are they looking to just be cautious until we get more data (it's the latter by the way, I was being sarcastic). We had less than 500 in August last year (in England) and 2 months later we had 10k. 

Now the likelihood is that we are better protected with the vaccine rollout, but for the sake of a couple of weeks pausing the restart as the numbers in hospital have levelled off is a sensible move. Or you could read it as "THEY ARE CANCELLING FREEDOM DAY!!!!', take your pick.
Reply
(06-08-2021, 12:11 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 11:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 09:34 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(06-08-2021, 08:21 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 11:49 AM)Birdman1811 Wrote: The idea of a lockdown is to give you time to set up adequate track and trace.

No it wasn't.

It wasn't over here, it was in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.

The idea was to protect the NHS. Less than 1000 in hospital now, and less than 150 on a ventilator. 

The brothers grim (Whitty & Valance) are now spreading major doom to the Government in an attempt to keep us all locked up until next year.

Are they, or are they looking to just be cautious until we get more data (it's the latter by the way, I was being sarcastic). We had less than 500 in August last year (in England) and 2 months later we had 10k. 

Now the likelihood is that we are better protected with the vaccine rollout, but for the sake of a couple of weeks pausing the restart as the numbers in hospital have levelled off is a sensible move. Or you could read it as "THEY ARE CANCELLING FREEDOM DAY!!!!', take your pick.

I'm just frustrated by it all. I think with the vac programme, the likelihood of prolific spread in the summer is low, but I'm not a scientist.

Borin - I don't disagree with any of your assessment, and I'm not an apologist for the way the Government have handled this. I just think we are being a little too cautious now.
Reply
(06-03-2021, 06:58 PM)baggy1 Wrote: 16th Sept - 929
23rd Sept - 1,439 (1.55 x previous week)
30th Sept - 2,036 (1.41 x pw)
7th Oct - 3,066 (1.51 x pw)
14th Oct - 4,313 (1.41 x pw)
21st Oct - 6,271 (1.45 x pw)
28th Oct - 9,070 (1.45 x pw)
4th Nov - 11,037 (1.22 x pw)
11th Nov - 12,730 (1.15 x pw)
18th Nov - 14,490 (1.14 x pw)
25th Nov - 14,240 (0.98 x pw)
2nd Dec - 13,212 (0.93 x pw)
9th Dec -  13,467 (1.02 x pw)
16th Dec - 15,465 (1.15 x pw)
23rd Dec - 17,834 (1.15 x pw)
30th Dec - 22,713 (1.27 x pw)
6th Jan - 27,727 (1.22 x pw)
13th Jan - 32,689 (1.18 x pw)
20th Jan - 33,886 (1.04 x pw)
27th Jan - 30,846 (0.91 x pw)
3rd Feb - 26,374 (0.86 x pw)
10th Feb - 20,926 (0.79 x pw)
17th Feb - 16,458 (0.79 x pw)
24th Feb - 13,007 (0.79 x pw)
3rd Mar - 9,594 (0.74 x pw)
10th Mar - 6,945 (0.73 x pw)
17th Mar - 5,397 (0.77 x pw)
24th Mar - 4,005 (0.74 x pw)
31st Mar - 3,084 (0.77 x pw)
7th April - 2,486 (0.81 x pw)
14th April - 1,972 (0.79 x pw)
21st April - 1,609 (0.82 x pw)
28th April - 1,278 (0.79 x pw)
5th May - 1032 (0.81 x pw)
12th May - 907 (0.88 x pw)
19th May - 757 (0.83 x pw)
26th May - 745 (0.98 x pw)
2nd June - 801 (1.08 x pw)
9th June - 876 (1.09 x pw)

Another week of increases in numbers in hospital in England but again at a small growth rate than we have had before. However for this reason I would expect that the date of 21st June for restrictions being removed completely will be moved back by a couple of weeks at least. Logic says that if we are increasing with some restrictions in place then removing those restrictions would mean that the rate would increase. At the current rate we would reach 2.5k by the end of august, if that moved to the same rates as December without restrictions then would be at 6.5k by that point. Both of these numbers would be within the NHS's capacity but it is beyond those dates that would be a worry.

The good news is that the vaccination roll out is going strong with nearly 78% of the adult population having had their 1st dose and it only just being opened up to under 30s, based on that I would say we should get to the 90% mark which is better than expected. Also with 55% of us having had 2 doses, we are in a good position.

I think the message is that we are ok but caution is needed before we move to the next step.
Reply
I think the relaxation of the wearing of masks in schools - a couple of weeks before half-term - was a mistake. It would have been better left in place until at least 21st June, and probably until the end of the school year. The school where my wife works has seen a noticeable increase in numbers of suspected and subsequently confirmed cases and, as a consequence, an upturn in enforced absences from school at a time when it can be ill afforded.

What's been gained?
Reply
150k views - Wow!

I'm guessing 75k of them are me checking who has responded though Big Grin
Reply
(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.

(06-14-2021, 09:01 AM)baggy1 Wrote: 150k views - Wow!

I'm guessing 75k of them are me checking who has responded though Big Grin

No, that was me.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}