| Is "following the science" 06:39 - Apr 18 with 7725 views | bluelagos |
an adequate defence to the charges / lost lives that will have occured due to our government's dithering?
We even had football authorities taking the tough decisions before our own politicians.
Or is it really acceptable that they wasted precious time when all around them the evidence was there for a need to act to reduce social contacts?
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/eleven-days-may-have-tragically-cost-uk-fig [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 6:51]
|  |
| |  |
| Is "following the science" on 09:31 - Apr 18 with 618 views | bluelagos |
| Is "following the science" on 09:25 - Apr 18 by Guthrum |
The lift-off in detected cases (increasing from 590 to 5,018) happened between 13th and 21st March (with deaths going from 10 to 233).
Given those detections represent people who were sick enough to be admitted to hospital, they caught the disease an absolute minimum of five, but more likely seven to ten days earlier. Thus they caught Covid-19 between about the 3rd and 14th March - and were spreading it after that date, as were all their contacts.
So, to be really effective, the lockdown would have to have been imposed on 1st March. When we had 12 known cases and no deaths, believing that penetration into the populace was still very low. And well before the ideas of unregulated herd immunity were trotted out.
The disease was already in and spreading before it was an issue.
In any case, how much public credibility would a politician have if they turned round to their leading scientists and said "You're wrong"? |
Had they done the lockdown earlier - I'd think they would now have a huge amount of public credibility given the way things progressed in Italy/Spain etc.
Accept that at the time plenty would have been unhappy. I'd suggest it is the role of government to protect our lives ahead of worrying about their own popularity.
Concede it would have taken some bravery / balls. Such as was demonstrated by Jeremy Hunt when he spoke out... | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 09:32 - Apr 18 with 613 views | sparks |
| Is "following the science" on 09:28 - Apr 18 by ElephantintheRoom |
No I suspect that Stanford University are applying some very good science to a blindingly obvious problem.... if you don't protect your population against a virulent virus - the population will catch it. And if you only test people with serious symptoms.... then you'll think its much more serious that it is - as you are ignoring the vast majority of the population happily getting on with their lives whilst living with the virus in a largely ineffectual partial lockdown.
That's the elephant in the room and always has been.... the virus is in the community, it is only in hospitals where people who have caught it in the community are taken there. IF 80% of people in lockdown have had the virus.... it makes a global response utterly wrong.
The only way to prove this hypothesis is an effective test for the antibody... which the government tried to get to back its herd immunity hypothesis.... unfortunaltely they bought 15 million ineffective ones.
But the underlying point is correct.... underprepared governments may be wildly over-exagerrating the deadliness of this pandemic .... and some honesty might be the best way out of all these lockdowns. |
The level of fallacy and disinformation / innuendo in this thread is not only extraordinary (starting with the OP) it is embarrassing and dangerous.
I really cant be arsed and wouldnt know where to begin dealing with it. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 with 609 views | bluelagos |
| Is "following the science" on 09:28 - Apr 18 by ElephantintheRoom |
No I suspect that Stanford University are applying some very good science to a blindingly obvious problem.... if you don't protect your population against a virulent virus - the population will catch it. And if you only test people with serious symptoms.... then you'll think its much more serious that it is - as you are ignoring the vast majority of the population happily getting on with their lives whilst living with the virus in a largely ineffectual partial lockdown.
That's the elephant in the room and always has been.... the virus is in the community, it is only in hospitals where people who have caught it in the community are taken there. IF 80% of people in lockdown have had the virus.... it makes a global response utterly wrong.
The only way to prove this hypothesis is an effective test for the antibody... which the government tried to get to back its herd immunity hypothesis.... unfortunaltely they bought 15 million ineffective ones.
But the underlying point is correct.... underprepared governments may be wildly over-exagerrating the deadliness of this pandemic .... and some honesty might be the best way out of all these lockdowns. |
You are right that IF 80% have had the virus - we should do things differently - but it is speculation, no more no less. Indeed the figures in that German study were under 20% from memory. | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 with 612 views | bluejacko |
Here we go again another thread from the experts who know better than the chief scientific and medical officers!
These are the same people who would advise ANY British govt.
Perhaps you all could have joined Cummings in his madcap idea about advisers to join the govt and of course you would have had all this sorted with no problems whatsoever. |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 with 605 views | Pinewoodblue |
We were heading for trouble from the outset. The first phase, testing and tracking, was never going to work. Public Health England We’re responsible for testing, they never had the ability to do it properly and continually refused offers of assistance from not just private labs but also from the NHS.
When this crisis is fully investigated it will highlight a series of failings, and failing to lockdown will be just one of them.
The one person who knew the full picture, Jeremy Hunt, was also the person to blame for the NHS being totally unprepared. I found it so wrong yesterday when he was putting the boot in to Hancock about PPE.
Still we are where we are and it is what happens going forward that matters now. This is no time for recrimination but heads must roll at sometime in the future. I can foresee a lot of early retirements on nice fat pensions. |  |
| |
| Is on 09:38 - Apr 18 with 601 views | Guthrum |
| Is "following the science" on 09:31 - Apr 18 by bluelagos |
Had they done the lockdown earlier - I'd think they would now have a huge amount of public credibility given the way things progressed in Italy/Spain etc.
Accept that at the time plenty would have been unhappy. I'd suggest it is the role of government to protect our lives ahead of worrying about their own popularity.
Concede it would have taken some bravery / balls. Such as was demonstrated by Jeremy Hunt when he spoke out... |
We'd now be six or seven weeks into the lockdown. Given how badly people are chafing after half that, things could be interesting. Especially as there was not the urgent imperative of rising infection and death rates to drive public opinion in favour of restrictions.*
We also don't know really how effective the lockdown has been, or whether other factors have been more significant in the rise and fall (in China's case, being the only place where it has significantly done so) of the outbreak. That goes for others as well. Lockdowns in Italy, Spain and France have not prevented significant death tolls in those countries (higher than ours).
* Edit: Most governments everywhere are reactive anyway. Being too proactive carries the risk of opposition, being proven wrong and subsequent public disapproval (including at the ballot box). [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 9:42]
|  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 09:39 - Apr 18 with 598 views | Suffolktractor |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 by bluejacko |
Here we go again another thread from the experts who know better than the chief scientific and medical officers!
These are the same people who would advise ANY British govt.
Perhaps you all could have joined Cummings in his madcap idea about advisers to join the govt and of course you would have had all this sorted with no problems whatsoever. |
Absolutely.
I take no notice of scientific evidence on anything these days. There’s no need, when there are so many internet experts around. You choose the opinion you like best and then shout endlessly about it until everyone else agrees with you and if they don’t well it’s because they are deluded/warped/thick or just plain stupid. | | | |
| Is on 09:52 - Apr 18 with 575 views | bluelagos |
| Is on 09:38 - Apr 18 by Guthrum |
We'd now be six or seven weeks into the lockdown. Given how badly people are chafing after half that, things could be interesting. Especially as there was not the urgent imperative of rising infection and death rates to drive public opinion in favour of restrictions.*
We also don't know really how effective the lockdown has been, or whether other factors have been more significant in the rise and fall (in China's case, being the only place where it has significantly done so) of the outbreak. That goes for others as well. Lockdowns in Italy, Spain and France have not prevented significant death tolls in those countries (higher than ours).
* Edit: Most governments everywhere are reactive anyway. Being too proactive carries the risk of opposition, being proven wrong and subsequent public disapproval (including at the ballot box). [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 9:42]
|
Think those are very fair comments.
THough ref being 6 weeks in - we would of course have far lower deaths, be seeing that as a success and be closer to ending the lockdown (All with hindsight of course)
And there is still much to learn about what happened etc. But the fact that the FA stopped football before the govt. did suggests that if others were capable of making tough decisions in what they felt were the public interests of safety, why didn't our own government?
I think it a very fair (If uncomfortable for many) question albeit we will have to wait til the inquiries to even try and get close to an answer. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is "following the science" on 09:53 - Apr 18 with 572 views | BloomBlue |
| Is "following the science" on 09:31 - Apr 18 by bluelagos |
Had they done the lockdown earlier - I'd think they would now have a huge amount of public credibility given the way things progressed in Italy/Spain etc.
Accept that at the time plenty would have been unhappy. I'd suggest it is the role of government to protect our lives ahead of worrying about their own popularity.
Concede it would have taken some bravery / balls. Such as was demonstrated by Jeremy Hunt when he spoke out... |
I think the Gov does have a huge amount of credibility with those who aren't looking at it as an opportunity to politically point score.
As a Gov they have to balance other outcomes, we could have locked down from last Dec until next Jan, stopped all entry into the Country and reduced deaths from CV but that would destroy the economy and lead to 1000s more deaths.
Watching the TV news yesterday from a hospital A&E and the Doctor said there has been a huge increase of domestic violence cases coming into A&E, is locking down an acceptable defence for the incease in domestic violence / deaths? |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 09:57 - Apr 18 with 563 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 by bluelagos |
You are right that IF 80% have had the virus - we should do things differently - but it is speculation, no more no less. Indeed the figures in that German study were under 20% from memory. |
well yes... you can only know the answer to the problem IF you have an effective test.
The interesting thing about the Stanford study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, is that it has been done with a test which is allegedly accurate in a dispersed 'locked down' population
The point of that is that in a more densely populated area with less well observed 'isolation'.... the virus may be even more widely spread....
.... | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 09:58 - Apr 18 with 560 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Is "following the science" on 09:32 - Apr 18 by sparks |
The level of fallacy and disinformation / innuendo in this thread is not only extraordinary (starting with the OP) it is embarrassing and dangerous.
I really cant be arsed and wouldnt know where to begin dealing with it. |
You already have - by ignoring reality and putting your head in the sand. | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 10:08 - Apr 18 with 550 views | longtimefan |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 by bluelagos |
You are right that IF 80% have had the virus - we should do things differently - but it is speculation, no more no less. Indeed the figures in that German study were under 20% from memory. |
Not that I agree with Elephant, but you’ve just called his assertion speculation ,when throughout this thread you’ve asserted your speculation as facts. | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 10:10 - Apr 18 with 542 views | bluelagos |
| Is "following the science" on 10:08 - Apr 18 by longtimefan |
Not that I agree with Elephant, but you’ve just called his assertion speculation ,when throughout this thread you’ve asserted your speculation as facts. |
So challenge away :-) | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 10:12 - Apr 18 with 540 views | StokieBlue |
| Is "following the science" on 08:52 - Apr 18 by ElephantintheRoom |
On the other hand the first trial large-scale trial on the extent of corona virus infection in the community coming out of Stanford suggests that infection rates in the commuity may be 80 x higher than reported..... and consequently reported death rates are being vastly exagerrated.
If true it not only vindicates a certain 'herd immunity strategy' that one government was much criticised for and forced into an abrupt u-turn on - and illuminates a very clear pathway to come out of pointless partial lockdown.
Science, like statitistics, can be bent to show whatever you want. |
This is basically the opposite of a study coming out of Germany in one of the most hart hit towns which says infection rates might be as low as 15%.
I think the thing to take from this is that we simply don't know at the moment.
SB |  | | |
| Is on 10:15 - Apr 18 with 534 views | StokieBlue |
| Is "following the science" on 09:28 - Apr 18 by ElephantintheRoom |
No I suspect that Stanford University are applying some very good science to a blindingly obvious problem.... if you don't protect your population against a virulent virus - the population will catch it. And if you only test people with serious symptoms.... then you'll think its much more serious that it is - as you are ignoring the vast majority of the population happily getting on with their lives whilst living with the virus in a largely ineffectual partial lockdown.
That's the elephant in the room and always has been.... the virus is in the community, it is only in hospitals where people who have caught it in the community are taken there. IF 80% of people in lockdown have had the virus.... it makes a global response utterly wrong.
The only way to prove this hypothesis is an effective test for the antibody... which the government tried to get to back its herd immunity hypothesis.... unfortunaltely they bought 15 million ineffective ones.
But the underlying point is correct.... underprepared governments may be wildly over-exagerrating the deadliness of this pandemic .... and some honesty might be the best way out of all these lockdowns. |
"But the underlying point is correct.... underprepared governments may be wildly over-exagerrating the deadliness of this pandemic .... and some honesty might be the best way out of all these lockdowns."
Honesty about what?
There was a peer reviewed study which cited that if no measures were taken by governments then there could have been 50m deaths this year alone if C19 was left to it's own devices. Is that a risk you want to take?
Perhaps the measures have worked and that is why you feel it's exaggerated?
SB | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 10:27 - Apr 18 with 519 views | urbanblue |
As someone who watched what was happening over there from afar I could see disaster coming. Letting plane loads fly in from Italy as the Pandemic took hold over there. Throwing 3 odd thousand football fans from Madrid into a stadium for the Liverpool game (While in Paris the game was behind closed doors). The only reason I could see for all that was the Herd Immunity idea that was put forward at the time.
The best thing we did here in Australia was close our borders which was done mid March. Ou figures have progressively improved since.Taiwan did that in January I think.
Closing borders, Testing and contact tracing seems to work and we can now do that here. Of course, once the virus is really on the move that is not possible and that horse bolted a long time ago in the UK. |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 10:31 - Apr 18 with 506 views | Guthrum |
| Is "following the science" on 10:12 - Apr 18 by StokieBlue |
This is basically the opposite of a study coming out of Germany in one of the most hart hit towns which says infection rates might be as low as 15%.
I think the thing to take from this is that we simply don't know at the moment.
SB |
Or the Austrian random sample test, which also found a low rate of penetration.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/less-than-1-of-austria-infected-wi | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 10:58 - Apr 18 with 494 views | pointofblue |
The one area where I would argue the government was accurate is lockdown fatigue. I am seeing and hearing about more and more people stretching at best and breaking at worse the instructions in place to try and prevent the spread. People are caring less and this will continue to build through the next through weeks.
Yes, we could have enforced a lockdown eleven days earlier. Yes, we possibly should have. But we’d just be eleven days further down the line of people’s patience at this snapping; we’ll see how we’re coping as a nation on Wednesday week.
I do think there are things the government should have done earlier - take control of our borders sooner (oh the irony) and enforce everyone flying in into fourteen days quarantine, requesting that the Liverpool match against Atletico match, at best, be played behind closed doors and asking the organisers to cancel the Cheltenham Festival. Their instructions when advising people not to go to pubs and theatres should have been firmer; the pubs and theatres should have been closed. But on social distancing the longer this goes on the longer I can accept the argument that many people will not accept this for too long, to their long term detriment. | |
| |
| Is on 11:06 - Apr 18 with 483 views | StokieBlue |
| Is "following the science" on 10:58 - Apr 18 by pointofblue |
The one area where I would argue the government was accurate is lockdown fatigue. I am seeing and hearing about more and more people stretching at best and breaking at worse the instructions in place to try and prevent the spread. People are caring less and this will continue to build through the next through weeks.
Yes, we could have enforced a lockdown eleven days earlier. Yes, we possibly should have. But we’d just be eleven days further down the line of people’s patience at this snapping; we’ll see how we’re coping as a nation on Wednesday week.
I do think there are things the government should have done earlier - take control of our borders sooner (oh the irony) and enforce everyone flying in into fourteen days quarantine, requesting that the Liverpool match against Atletico match, at best, be played behind closed doors and asking the organisers to cancel the Cheltenham Festival. Their instructions when advising people not to go to pubs and theatres should have been firmer; the pubs and theatres should have been closed. But on social distancing the longer this goes on the longer I can accept the argument that many people will not accept this for too long, to their long term detriment. |
There were definite signs of lockdown fatigue in London yesterday. Lots more people about, chatting and using buses. Was noticeable and a few people commented on it.
However, there can be a legitimate argument made that lockdown fatigue is just tough luck. In many other countries the lockdown has been enforced by the police and military so we could have locked down earlier and it could have been enforced.
That however would also have been unacceptable to many of the same people who said we locked down too late as they rightly point out that people need to get out of the house.
Once again, it's not black and white.
SB | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 11:09 - Apr 18 with 482 views | bluelagos |
| Is "following the science" on 10:58 - Apr 18 by pointofblue |
The one area where I would argue the government was accurate is lockdown fatigue. I am seeing and hearing about more and more people stretching at best and breaking at worse the instructions in place to try and prevent the spread. People are caring less and this will continue to build through the next through weeks.
Yes, we could have enforced a lockdown eleven days earlier. Yes, we possibly should have. But we’d just be eleven days further down the line of people’s patience at this snapping; we’ll see how we’re coping as a nation on Wednesday week.
I do think there are things the government should have done earlier - take control of our borders sooner (oh the irony) and enforce everyone flying in into fourteen days quarantine, requesting that the Liverpool match against Atletico match, at best, be played behind closed doors and asking the organisers to cancel the Cheltenham Festival. Their instructions when advising people not to go to pubs and theatres should have been firmer; the pubs and theatres should have been closed. But on social distancing the longer this goes on the longer I can accept the argument that many people will not accept this for too long, to their long term detriment. |
A pretty balanced and fair response.
The only thing I think is wrong is that unfortunately the fatigue argument (Which I accept) doesn't stack against the additional deaths. The exponential growth of the virus means we needed to act asap to minimise the virus' growth.
The harsh reality is that the delay will have caused additional deaths. A very uncomfortable position but a correct one. People not obeying the rules as the numbers of infected are reducing will have had (if that were true) a lower impact that on the path we followed.
Hopefully it will all come out when they do the inquiry.
(Anyhow - off for some govt approved cycling - people will no doubt be glad to hear!) | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 11:11 - Apr 18 with 473 views | Ace_High1 |
| Is "following the science" on 10:27 - Apr 18 by urbanblue |
As someone who watched what was happening over there from afar I could see disaster coming. Letting plane loads fly in from Italy as the Pandemic took hold over there. Throwing 3 odd thousand football fans from Madrid into a stadium for the Liverpool game (While in Paris the game was behind closed doors). The only reason I could see for all that was the Herd Immunity idea that was put forward at the time.
The best thing we did here in Australia was close our borders which was done mid March. Ou figures have progressively improved since.Taiwan did that in January I think.
Closing borders, Testing and contact tracing seems to work and we can now do that here. Of course, once the virus is really on the move that is not possible and that horse bolted a long time ago in the UK. |
What is the wider public thoughts on Australia's approach. Is everyone happy and complying with the instructions issued by the government?
Looking from over here you seem to have got on top of it quite well and as you say the biggest difference is the control of your borders at an early stage. There is talk of the borders remaining closed until 2021 - is that being spoken about over there? |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 11:12 - Apr 18 with 474 views | BlueBadger |
| Is "following the science" on 09:25 - Apr 18 by Guthrum |
The lift-off in detected cases (increasing from 590 to 5,018) happened between 13th and 21st March (with deaths going from 10 to 233).
Given those detections represent people who were sick enough to be admitted to hospital, they caught the disease an absolute minimum of five, but more likely seven to ten days earlier. Thus they caught Covid-19 between about the 3rd and 14th March - and were spreading it after that date, as were all their contacts.
So, to be really effective, the lockdown would have to have been imposed on 1st March. When we had 12 known cases and no deaths, believing that penetration into the populace was still very low. And well before the ideas of unregulated herd immunity were trotted out.
The disease was already in and spreading before it was an issue.
In any case, how much public credibility would a politician have if they turned round to their leading scientists and said "You're wrong"? |
Re: your final question, politicians have been trotting out variations on 'we've all had enough of experts' for a few years now without any perceivable harm to their careers and public credulity. |  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 11:16 - Apr 18 with 467 views | StokieBlue |
| Is "following the science" on 11:11 - Apr 18 by Ace_High1 |
What is the wider public thoughts on Australia's approach. Is everyone happy and complying with the instructions issued by the government?
Looking from over here you seem to have got on top of it quite well and as you say the biggest difference is the control of your borders at an early stage. There is talk of the borders remaining closed until 2021 - is that being spoken about over there? |
I think the difference in Australia came when the shocking photos of Bondi beach were published.
After that the public seemed to take on board the need to distance and when coupled with the closed borders and testing it seems to have served them very well.
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
