(06-11-2020, 10:28 AM)Protheroe Wrote:(06-11-2020, 09:34 AM)baggy1 Wrote: You look on this as one decision which is exactly where the govt (not the nation btw) got this wrong. They could only deal with one thing at a time and because of that the many issues that are raised by that decision were ignored until someone shouted about them or they fell over.
The delay and the lack of strength in any lockdown was the 1st domino mistake that couldn't be recalled. The lack of transparency throughout make it impossible to judge the points you raise above. I agree in general with your thoughts on a second spike but without knowing how many hospital admissions there are then it is difficult to make a call on it - those figures have disappeared form the govt slides.
The NHS was the biggest fuck up throughout, they govt went to great lengths to build and have photos taken with the Nightingale hospitals and then never used them - all covid patients should have been isolated in them instead of infecting the general hospitals. If they had done that then normal hospitals could have got back to normal treatments. The big problem with all of that was that they built the nightingales and then never had any staff to put in them because, lo and behold, we have had years of cuts to the NHS and there weren't enough staff.
All of those decisions and lack of action was taken by this muppet government - I hope you are now seeing that this approach needs to change
The issue of delay will come out in the Public Inquiry. Today I've read that Imperial had the ear of the Government with their flawed model when othe voices in SAGE were ignored. Perhaps if they hadn't been then we would've gone into Lockdown earlier.
My issue is not with the concept of Lockdown, it's simply the extent of it is ludicrous and highly damaging.
I completely agree with you about isolation of Covid 19 patients within the NHS, but I can't agree that it's a good use of limited resources to keep a standby army of nurses and doctors on hand for a 1 in 100 year pandemic.
Yes, all of these decisions have been taken by the government and I have been exceptionally critical of most of the reponses. Our bone of contention seems to revolve around your concept of an earlier fuller lockdown and my belief in a limited lockdown being lifted more quickly. We'll only find out who was right as this plays itself out, but if lasting damage is done to the economy, education and health of the nation (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52985446) due to the severity of the lockdown the government will pay, and rightly so.
This is really simple and i fail to understand why you can't see this. In this graph that is used every day you will see there is an increase in deaths due to the uncontrolled spread.
[img=458x207]blob:https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/621d5d7d-bd1d-46fd-88e1-8d322e46cf35[/img]
edit: not certain why this won't show but it's the daily data slide - you know what it looks like by now
And don't forget this is showing the lowest number that the govt can get away with, direct covid deaths, not the deaths with covid on the death cert or the excess deaths, so whichever way you look at it, it is a sweetened version of the truth.
If lockdown hadn't occurred then that initial spike would have continued to rise and I don't know how you can dispute that point. Now it might have tailed off eventually but we have 12M over 65s in this country that are vulnerable. The lockdown was 23rd March and although this govt chart starts are 14th March, the earliest covid 19 cases in care homes has been reported in the 1st week of March.
The govt dithered and missed opportunities - Cheltenham on the 10th - 13th March being the obvious ones. The steep line on the graph would have been much reduced with a earlier and harder lockdown meaning that by now we could have likely been in a position to get everything back to normal as soon as possible. We didn't and are now still in that uncertain phase.