advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deej1992 said:
With cases going down, hospitalisations and deaths will also, when you take into account the lag period.

The only choice the government can now make is a return to the tier system if you ask me. Another lockdown would be wrong and there is no justification for another lockdown.
Click to expand...

Cases are rising in London and the SE, that is being offset by a fall in areas such as Liverpool such that they're stable on average - R is still thought to be bigger that 1 today which means case numbers are rising...
 
Deej1992 said:
With cases going down, hospitalisations and deaths will also, when you take into account the lag period.

The only choice the government can now make is a return to the tier system if you ask me. Another lockdown would be wrong and there is no justification for another lockdown.
Click to expand...

I guess the logic behind that is that tier 3, or tier 3 +, will put enough of a break on it to keep deaths at an acceptable level. It's a gamble isn't it, especially over Xmas.

The Mail and The Sun are full of the "leak" that we'll be allowed to let it rip over the holiday week, party party party, snog a stranger under the mistletoe, go home and hug granny, and then it'll have to be a month of payback time -- hard lockdown in January. Deal?

Astonishing idea IMO. I suddenly feel as though I'm on Mars, aliens everywhere.
 
gavreid said:
Cases are rising in London and the SE, that is being offset by a fall in areas such as Liverpool such that they're stable on average - R is still thought to be bigger that 1 today which means case numbers are rising...
Click to expand...
That isn’t a reason to extend the lockdown. The NHS isn’t being overwhelmed by this virus and the whole justification for this approach was to protect it.
The facts show that tier 3 restrictions were working in bringing cases down, as were tier 2 to a lesser extent.
Yes maybe beef up the tier system a little, especially in tier 1 which wasn’t shown to be having much of an effect.
I think it’s important to strike a balance between public health and the many cons of lockdowns. The tier approach does this a lot better in my opinion.
Have a read of this excellent article in the Daily Mail. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....l-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html
 
mandryka said:
I guess the logic behind that is that tier 3, or tier 3 +, will put enough of a break on it to keep deaths at an acceptable level. It's a gamble isn't it, especially over Xmas.

The Mail and The Sun are full of the "leak" that we'll be allowed to let it rip over the holiday week, party party party, kiss strangers under the mistletoe, go home and hug granny, and then it'll have to be a month of payback time -- hard lockdown in January. Deal?

Astonishing idea IMO. I suddenly feel as though I'm on Mars, aliens everywhere.
Click to expand...
Stick to tier restrictions and do away with Christmas. It’s one Christmas and has to be better than another lockdown.
 
Deej1992 said:
That isn’t a reason to extend the lockdown. The NHS isn’t being overwhelmed by this virus and the whole justification for this approach was to protect it.
The facts show that tier 3 restrictions were working in bringing cases down, as were tier 2 to a lesser extent.
Yes maybe beef up the tier system a little, especially in tier 1 which wasn’t shown to be having much of an effect.
I think it’s important to strike a balance between public health and the many cons of lockdowns. The tier approach does this a lot better in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's a nice fairy tale but perhaps you can tell us all why cases are rising in London and the SE if lockdown is working and lesser restrictions will be sufficient?
 
Deej1992 said:
Stick to tier restrictions and do away with Christmas. It’s one Christmas and has to be better than another lockdown.
Click to expand...


Capture.png
 
gavreid said:
It's a nice fairy tale but perhaps you can tell us all why cases are rising in London and the SE if lockdown is working and lesser restrictions will be sufficient?
Click to expand...
Because the second wave of the virus hasn’t peaked there? We’re not talking about numbers anywhere near the first peak in London and the SE.

In the North West which has been hit badly second time round, cases are on the decline.

Tier 3 restrictions, and tier 2 restrictions to a lesser extent have been shown to work. That has to be a better approach than lockdown and sod the huge costs which come with it.
 
mandryka said:
Capture.png
Click to expand...
My wish is for Christmas to be cancelled, not that it will be as a household can celebrate it, or a support bubble and there’s Zoom. I’d rather go and watch my local footy team (where crowds are allowed), do a bit of shopping in some shops, have a pub lunch and play footy with a few mates, than see a load of family over Christmas. As nice as it is, it’s not worth it for a January lockdown, and plenty more Christmases to make up for lost time. I have my girlfriend so I can cope. Appreciate others are in different circumstances but the whole households mixing ban doesn’t bother me as much.
 
Deej1992 said:
My point is when lockdown was eased last time, the virus hadn’t peaked in the North west. We’re seeing the same in London.

Anyway I’m not after an argument. If you want to spend the rest of your life locked down then fair enough but others don’t.
Click to expand...

I know, but you can't wish it away - you come here every day with this stuff.
 
gavreid said:
I know, but you can't wish it away - you come here every day with this stuff.
Click to expand...
I’m not wishing it away, just trying to be rational and put a bit of context on things.

There is so much negativity and the likes of Piers Morgan feed on it. He only tweets on the days when deaths and cases have shot up. I honestly do feel that people like him have some kind of urge for deaths to rise so they can justify calling for us to be endlessly locked down. People like Piers Morgan may benefit from lockdown but the ordinary man and woman on the street who has a business to run doesn’t.

The level of debate around this whole subject is poor. Anyone who dares to question endless lockdowns is branded a “Covidiot” by Mr Morgan or a conspiracy theorist.

You couldn’t make it up.
 
Deej1992 said:
I’m not wishing it away, just trying to be rational and put a bit of context on things.

There is so much negativity and the likes of Piers Morgan feed on it. He only tweets on the days when deaths and cases have shot up. I honestly do feel that people like him have some kind of urge for deaths to rise so they can justify calling for us to be endlessly locked down. People like Piers Morgan may benefit from lockdown but the ordinary man and woman on the street who has a business to run doesn’t.

The level of debate around this whole subject is poor. Anyone who dares to question endless lockdowns is branded a “Covidiot” by Mr Morgan or a conspiracy theorist.

You couldn’t make it up.
Click to expand...

Well I don't - I'm a scientist, I'm trying to be objective with the data that we have, in the same way as I've been doing for months...
 
Today, I didn't hold my tongue as well as I usually do when someone i knew told me of some shitty news relating to a possible Lockdown Extension. He said to the 11th of December.

I haven't checked this yet. I said in (bluntly) that this will likely result in a number of people taking their own lives.

I also suggested that It's about time this particular element was taken into account.

Personally, I'm getting rather close to losing it big time, yet we seem to be expected to keep at it.
 
Deej1992 said:
I’m not wishing it away, just trying to be rational and put a bit of context on things.

There is so much negativity and the likes of Piers Morgan feed on it. He only tweets on the days when deaths and cases have shot up. I honestly do feel that people like him have some kind of urge for deaths to rise so they can justify calling for us to be endlessly locked down. People like Piers Morgan may benefit from lockdown but the ordinary man and woman on the street who has a business to run doesn’t.

The level of debate around this whole subject is poor. Anyone who dares to question endless lockdowns is branded a “Covidiot” by Mr Morgan or a conspiracy theorist.

You couldn’t make it up.
Click to expand...
The problem is that your idea of rationality involves accepting several hundred deaths (200-300, say) every day.

All the signs indicate that the second peak will be longer and flatter than the first but that does not make it any less deadly. I think the Tories are quite happy with this though: the NHS will not be overwhelmed and they can rely on people like you to shrug and say, "whadya gonna do?" as the death toll steadily rises. Not having a go at you; it just seems to be the natural end point of a lazily managed public health crisis that has created a sense of fatalism in many people.

The correct response to the second wave, would have been to lock down much harder and much earlier, to drive the numbers right down again. It would have saved lives, bought more time until the vaccine arrives, and allowed more of the economy to be reopened sooner.

We knew all this in March, and we knew it in September, but the government repeated its earlier mistake anyway and we're in the same old mess.
 
Last edited:
droodzilla said:
your idea of rationality involves accepting several hundred deaths (200-300, say) every day.
Click to expand...

Yes. I suppose one alternative would be to argue that human life is so valuable that you can't trade it. Or is there a third alternative available now? Maybe there's an approach which gets better or equally good results and involves less deaths.

gavreid said:
It's the BS around schools that's the big problem.
Click to expand...

I think you say that too confidently, you may be right, if we were round a table and you mumbled it into your beer it would be fine, but somehow to see it in writing like that seems premature. How many lives would be saved by closing primary, secondary, tertiary eduation? I bet you can't say, at least I've never seen the modelling, and we know that there would be a cost. So to say "that's the big problem" is a bit over the top I think. But with hindsight, I may well conclude that you were right.
 
droodzilla said:
The problem is that your idea of rationality involves accepting several hundred deaths (200-300, say) every day.

All the signs indicate that the second peak will be longer and flatter than the first but that does not make it any less deadly. I think the Tories are quite happy with though: the NHS will not be overwhelmed and they can rely on people like you to shrug and say, "whadya gonna do?" as the death toll steadily rises. Not having a go at you; it just seems to be the natural end point of a lazily managed public health crisis that has created a sense of fatalism in many people.

The correct response to the second wave, would have been to lock down much harder and much earlier, to drive the numbers right down again. It would have saved lives, bought more time until the vaccine arrives, and allowed more of the economy to be reopened sooner.

We knew all this in March, and we knew it in September, but the government repeated its earlier mistake anyway and we're in the same old mess.
Click to expand...

I don’t accept several hundred deaths a day. I am someone who sympathises with the idea that we need to find an alternative to a cycle of constant lockdowns. One that is based around protecting the vulnerable and allowing the rest of society to go about their lives fairly normal.

I don’t agree with the idea of locking down hard, as the moment you open up, infections rise again. All lockdowns do is delay the inevitable, kicking the can down the road could be be another way to put it, and with all the damaging consequences that come with them.

I think most people submitted to the idea of a lockdown in March to protect the NHS and as part of collective national effort. However, I think what we’re seeing how is fatigue and the reality that the NHS never has been overwhelmed and will never be. There was a particularly bad flu season a few years ago and the NHS was said to be bursting at the seams but we didn’t lockdown over that.

The Tories rightly are trying to balance the need to contain the virus with keeping the economy open and avoiding all the damaging other things that come with lockdowns, such as missed operations, poorer mental health, and jobs and businesses disappearing.

A return to the tier system better balances this.
 
gavreid said:
Well I don't - I'm a scientist, I'm trying to be objective with the data that we have, in the same way as I've been doing for months...
Click to expand...
The thing is you can’t call some of these scientists objective. Scientists themselves don’t agree.

You’re putting your own negative spin on the figures whereas I’m being more positive.

We both want the same, an end to this crisis. Difference with me is I don’t want to lock people up for the rest of their lives until absolutely nobody dies of anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top