Coronavirus

[Fellbeast]

We are where we are, and without lockdown, with advise, I can't see we would have done worse. We might have done far better as resources could then have been more focussed on the vulnerable.

We’ve gone over (and over) this point loads of times before. If the virus was given free or much looser reign it would inevitably shut down the effectiveness of the nhs - firstly they get swamped with patients and secondly all of their staff get the virus. The same would happen to care home staff. I’m all for the use of restrictions and tiers too, it’s not all about lockdown, but you have consistently argued against the tide of a wall of facts Witton. In the early days you concluded (wrongly) that the country had already reached a high infection point, you’ve argued against the massively proven contagiousness of covid, you’ve argued against its potential to spread exponentially, you’ve argued against masks, you’ve argued against not shutting down businesses (where there is a high risk of infection) and have pretty much taken a contrarian view (contrarian to science and the views of most of the world’s scientists, not just our own) all the way through

[Graham Breeze]

We’ve gone over (and over) this point loads of times before. If the virus was given free or much looser reign it would inevitably shut down the effectiveness of the nhs - firstly they get swamped with patients and secondly all of their staff get the virus. The same would happen to care home staff. I’m all for the use of restrictions and tiers too, it’s not all about lockdown, but you have consistently argued against the tide of a wall of facts Witton. In the early days you concluded (wrongly) that the country had already reached a high infection point, you’ve argued against the massively proven contagiousness of covid, you’ve argued against its potential to spread exponentially, you’ve argued against masks, you’ve argued against not shutting down businesses (where there is a high risk of infection) and have pretty much taken a contrarian view (contrarian to science and the views of most of the world’s scientists, not just our own) all the way through

And based on this philosophy "... but it's a bit like debating the best route from CP3-CP4 at Sedbergh Hills. You end up in the same place in the end." WP probably jumps red traffic lights and drives without a seat belt while drunk because ...we all end up in the same place dead in the end.

(My best is 2.42 at Sedbergh btw).

[Witton Park]

We’ve gone over (and over) this point loads of times before. If the virus was given free or much looser reign it would inevitably shut down the effectiveness of the nhs - firstly they get swamped with patients and secondly all of their staff get the virus. The same would happen to care home staff. I’m all for the use of restrictions and tiers too, it’s not all about lockdown, but you have consistently argued against the tide of a wall of facts Witton. In the early days you concluded (wrongly) that the country had already reached a high infection point, you’ve argued against the massively proven contagiousness of covid, you’ve argued against its potential to spread exponentially, you’ve argued against masks, you’ve argued against not shutting down businesses (where there is a high risk of infection) and have pretty much taken a contrarian view (contrarian to science and the views of most of the world’s scientists, not just our own) all the way through

Stolly I'm only putting some thoughts out there for people to consider and I'm conscious I don't want to fall out with you or anyone on here.

But I don't accept the "inevitability" and 100% confidence you have in some of the situations we've discussed, although I do accept your opinions have validity.

I haven't argued against any facts. I've looked at the information out there and there are University Academics of international renown looking at the same information and coming to differing conclusions to each other.

Facts are thin on the ground.

You've attributed assertions to me that are not as I have made them.

So Stolly, do you think the country only attained a low infection point? What does it even mean? I'm not sure what level equates to low and what level equates to high.

My position is that I think many more have had it than the case statistics we see. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that. SAGE, supposedly at a tangent to me suggest cases of 100k a day back in March. I suggest more IF the initial assessment of R=4 without suppression policies holds water.

[JohnK]

The simple fact is that the virus is still in its infancy and as such there is not yet enough information for any conclusions to be drawn, better to just relax and follow commonsense preventative measures after all that is what people have been doing with the HIV virus for the last 40yrs.

[Witton Park]

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/sta...07981982855168

[Muddy Retriever]

you’ve argued against masks, you’ve argued against not shutting down businesses (where there is a high risk of infection) and have pretty much taken a contrarian view (contrarian to science and the views of most of the world’s scientists, not just our own) all the way through

Whose science? Scientists don't agree with each other or even with themselves at different times.

Our own scientists argued against masks to begin with. Not only that they wouldn't do much good but that they could actually be harmful. A few months later they became essential. If they are why weren't they essential at the start? It's not as if some people in the far east haven't been wearing masks for years.

As late in the day as 13th March Vallance was arguing for herd immunity. He said that we shouldn't be suppressing the virus because it might crop up again at the wrong time like winter when the NHS was overstretched. So was he right then or is he right now?

I don't think there is the same case for lockdown now as there was in the spring especially when our science and medical advisors have to produce a dodgy dossier to justify it. Not only the scenario that put deaths already at being nearly 1,000 for England on 1st November but also all the four "scenarios" going forward. As I said the other day, given the case numbers were already known it would have been relatively straight forward to make a reasonable estimate for deaths in November. They were already baked in. Lets see how the scenarios compare with the actual figures at the end of the month.

[Witton Park]

Noticed no one has posted a link the long awaited Danish study, the most relevant of it's type, in to mask use by the public as an aid to restricting the spread of covid.
It cannot find any benefit in the use of masks in the public.

[Mike T]

Noticed no one has posted a link the long awaited Danish study, the most relevant of it's type, in to mask use by the public as an aid to restricting the spread of covid.
It cannot find any benefit in the use of masks in the public.

Too short, not enough people - no definite conclusions can be reached. Rumour has it that it was rejected by multiple journals.

[noel]

Whose science? Scientists don't agree with each other or even with themselves at different times.

Our own scientists argued against masks to begin with. Not only that they wouldn't do much good but that they could actually be harmful. A few months later they became essential. If they are why weren't they essential at the start? It's not as if some people in the far east haven't been wearing masks for years.

As late in the day as 13th March Vallance was arguing for herd immunity. He said that we shouldn't be suppressing the virus because it might crop up again at the wrong time like winter when the NHS was overstretched. So was he right then or is he right now?

I don't think there is the same case for lockdown now as there was in the spring especially when our science and medical advisors have to produce a dodgy dossier to justify it. Not only the scenario that put deaths already at being nearly 1,000 for England on 1st November but also all the four "scenarios" going forward. As I said the other day, given the case numbers were already known it would have been relatively straight forward to make a reasonable estimate for deaths in November. They were already baked in. Lets see how the scenarios compare with the actual figures at the end of the month.

Some good points in this. I saw the initial argument against masks as being more to do with trying to ringfence them for the front line medical staff. But this makes people suspicious (and rightly so) when it then comes out that they probably are useful.

And yes, I remember them talking about herd immunity. That was when they were still locked into the mindset of a flu outbreak. And at the time I thought it was crazy.

And your post shows how dodgy use of figures erodes trust in the people making these decisions. It feels a bit too much like social engineering.

That's not to say we don't need a second lock-down. Just that they shouldn't tell lies to justify it.

[Witton Park]

Too short, not enough people - no definite conclusions can be reached. Rumour has it that it was rejected by multiple journals.

Anecdotal - but my wife worked almost throughout. Her factory makes textiles for a Department Store, closed only for a few weeks and made gowns and masks until around June, when the orders came back on stream in their normal area.

No confirmed cases of Covid all through until end July.

Face coverings came in following announcement of special measures in Blackburn mid July.

First two cases August.

Another 3 in September.

Now well in to double figures.

So the wearing of face coverings in the workplace on the evidence before me, doesn't seem to have had a positive effect.

It didn't spread, when the pandemic was more prevalent and there was less community resistance and no face coverings.