By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Virtually every comment is supporting him as well. It's almost as if a large number of people have crossed some form of Einstein—Rosen bridge and have travelled to a point in space-time which equates to October 2019.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 10:18 - Oct 2 with 1066 views
Well this is helpful.... on 08:41 - Oct 2 by StokieBlue
The flu comparison is horrible in my opinion. I am not saying you are doing this but it tends to be used by people with an agenda who want to downplay C19 for their own reasons.
"Don't forget we get different strains of flu each year so one year can be much worse than another. For example we had 50'000 excess deaths over the winter of 2017/18 and flu was attributed as a major contributing factor towards this."
Once again it's not a like-for-like comparison as there was no lockdown, social distancing, hand washing or any of the other measures. That was flu running totally free and it "possibly" was as bad over the year as a heavily restricted C19 was in 4 months or so.
"I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths. We cannot say definitively that not having the lockdown would have led to 'far higher' numbers."
I have to disagree totally on this, it just looks like you are seeing what you want to see. Numbers rose after lockdown because C19 is a "laggy" virus in that symptoms might not arise for 2 weeks and then it can be another few weeks to a month in hospital. You know this so I am not sure why you are pushing this "after lockdown" theory.
This study from Nature shows how effective lockdown was at stopping the transmission:
An Imperial University study reached the conclusion that the lockdowns prevented 3m deaths in Europe.
"A novel illness like this is always going to take more victims in the initial outbreak, it is widely accepted that its lethality will wain a little overtime as more immunity is acquired."
Spanish Flu, a novel strain at the time, killed more people in the second wave than the first so weakening is not a hard and fast rule.
SB
I certainly have no desire to downplay C19 for any agenda, I acknowledge that there are some that do though. I'm only interested in getting as close to the truth of the situation as possible. What I would say is that I believe it works the other also and I am particularly wary of those seeking to exaggerate C19 to pursue their own agenda. Again I am not suggesting anybody on here has such an agenda but it is clear that there are huge amounts of money to be gained in times such as these and from a Governments point of view a great opportunity to gain additional powers. I think we should all maintain a healthy skepticism towards much of the information we receive.
With regards to the study you have provided, you will have to forgive me but I struggle to take seriously anything that has Neil Ferguson's name on it. He has a proven track record of monumental failure when it comes to his statistical modelling predictions.
I'm not really pushing an 'after lockdown theory' as such, I just genuinely believe it is too early to say definitively one way or the other. If we look at deaths per million of population we can find examples of countries that have done very well with strict early lockdowns ( eg. New Zealand, Greece ) but we can also see countries that have taken a different approach with either no lockdown or a much lighter approach that have also faired pretty well ( eg. Japan, South Korea ).
What I would point out is that if you look at the top 5 worst performing countries in regards to deaths per million of population it reads like this :
I think we can disregard San Marino and Andorra from the conversation because of their tiny population sizes so that leaves Peru, Belgium & Spain. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all three of these countries has pretty strict and early lockdowns.
Again, I think it is too early to make final judgements and as I have already demonstrated in this thread with Sweden, there are many other contributing factors to be considered alongside the lockdown policy.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 10:26 - Oct 2 with 1055 views
Well this is helpful.... on 03:29 - Oct 2 by J2BLUE
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19
Have you got any links about this please? Genuinely interested. I'm taking it as something that won't do any harm and might have some sort of positive benefit but I haven't seen any decent evidence for it having an effect.
Edit: Don't worry about it, thank you anyway. Found it with a quick google. Can't believe they aren't making a bigger deal of this. Your post was the first I had heard about it in ages. They don't need to make definitive claims, just tell people it might help and they should take it.
Cheers.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 3:37]
Friend sent me this link back in the Spring re boosting your immune system via good food, vits & mins - very interesting reading -
Well this is helpful.... on 10:18 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
I certainly have no desire to downplay C19 for any agenda, I acknowledge that there are some that do though. I'm only interested in getting as close to the truth of the situation as possible. What I would say is that I believe it works the other also and I am particularly wary of those seeking to exaggerate C19 to pursue their own agenda. Again I am not suggesting anybody on here has such an agenda but it is clear that there are huge amounts of money to be gained in times such as these and from a Governments point of view a great opportunity to gain additional powers. I think we should all maintain a healthy skepticism towards much of the information we receive.
With regards to the study you have provided, you will have to forgive me but I struggle to take seriously anything that has Neil Ferguson's name on it. He has a proven track record of monumental failure when it comes to his statistical modelling predictions.
I'm not really pushing an 'after lockdown theory' as such, I just genuinely believe it is too early to say definitively one way or the other. If we look at deaths per million of population we can find examples of countries that have done very well with strict early lockdowns ( eg. New Zealand, Greece ) but we can also see countries that have taken a different approach with either no lockdown or a much lighter approach that have also faired pretty well ( eg. Japan, South Korea ).
What I would point out is that if you look at the top 5 worst performing countries in regards to deaths per million of population it reads like this :
I think we can disregard San Marino and Andorra from the conversation because of their tiny population sizes so that leaves Peru, Belgium & Spain. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all three of these countries has pretty strict and early lockdowns.
Again, I think it is too early to make final judgements and as I have already demonstrated in this thread with Sweden, there are many other contributing factors to be considered alongside the lockdown policy.
Lockdown in Spain was certainly pretty strict and generally well observed. I certainly wouldn't say it was an early lockdown though (unless it's being gauged against UKs later lockdown restrictions). Easier in hindsight but even at the time, and seeing what was happening in Italy, it came too late. The country also came out of lockdown too suddenly. One day my movement was restricted to essential shopping and doctor visits, the next I was free to travel anywhere in Spain and meet up with who I liked.
It's little coincidence that lockdown suddenly ended when the main tourist season was set to start. The govt put the economy ahead of health very suddenly and although tourism per se hasn't caused the subsequent waves we're seeing in different regions now, the message it sent out certainly emboldened the population after 4 or 5 months of living by strict rules.
After a couple of months or relative freedom, a new lockdown is a hard sell. Add the poitical posturing between national and local autonmous regions and it's no wonder the situation is spiralling out of control again.
1
Well this is helpful.... on 11:18 - Oct 2 with 1025 views
Well this is helpful.... on 10:45 - Oct 2 by BarcaBlue
Lockdown in Spain was certainly pretty strict and generally well observed. I certainly wouldn't say it was an early lockdown though (unless it's being gauged against UKs later lockdown restrictions). Easier in hindsight but even at the time, and seeing what was happening in Italy, it came too late. The country also came out of lockdown too suddenly. One day my movement was restricted to essential shopping and doctor visits, the next I was free to travel anywhere in Spain and meet up with who I liked.
It's little coincidence that lockdown suddenly ended when the main tourist season was set to start. The govt put the economy ahead of health very suddenly and although tourism per se hasn't caused the subsequent waves we're seeing in different regions now, the message it sent out certainly emboldened the population after 4 or 5 months of living by strict rules.
After a couple of months or relative freedom, a new lockdown is a hard sell. Add the poitical posturing between national and local autonmous regions and it's no wonder the situation is spiralling out of control again.
Sounds very much like a more extreme version of what we have seen here in the UK then.
I'm not sure I totally buy the opening up for tourism angle though, I appreciate that is very much what it looks like but a cynical mind could wonder whether these sudden Policy changes were actually more of a psychological ploy to create certain behaviours in the population, in effect to engineer a second wave and then put the blame on the public.
I will probably get slaughtered for even suggesting such a thing, but it is a fact that the UK Government has a 'Behavioural Insights Team' that advised the Government early on in the pandemic that people were 'not scared enough' and that the media should be used to increase the 'perceived threat to the individual' or something along those lines.
Well this is helpful.... on 11:18 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
Sounds very much like a more extreme version of what we have seen here in the UK then.
I'm not sure I totally buy the opening up for tourism angle though, I appreciate that is very much what it looks like but a cynical mind could wonder whether these sudden Policy changes were actually more of a psychological ploy to create certain behaviours in the population, in effect to engineer a second wave and then put the blame on the public.
I will probably get slaughtered for even suggesting such a thing, but it is a fact that the UK Government has a 'Behavioural Insights Team' that advised the Government early on in the pandemic that people were 'not scared enough' and that the media should be used to increase the 'perceived threat to the individual' or something along those lines.
I'll quickly combine answers to a couple of points here:
On lockdown, you keep saying that locking down early made no difference but your evidence doesn't support it. You don't know how many people had the infection before lockdown was imposed and were asymptomatic and then when on to develop systems and died. If lockdown had been even earlier there is a good argument to say that less people would have been in that situation come lockdown. The lag really is important and seems to be disregarded.
On the behaviour team, I don't think you are taking those quotes in the right context. I read it to mean than unless people are scared enough they won't follow the rules and C19 will be harder to stop. I think that's been proven 100% correct. Even now people weren't scared in places like Liverpool and you see the videos of people ignoring the rules and suddenly Liverpool has the most cases per 100,000 in the country.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 11:41 - Oct 2 with 1010 views
Well this is helpful.... on 11:18 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
Sounds very much like a more extreme version of what we have seen here in the UK then.
I'm not sure I totally buy the opening up for tourism angle though, I appreciate that is very much what it looks like but a cynical mind could wonder whether these sudden Policy changes were actually more of a psychological ploy to create certain behaviours in the population, in effect to engineer a second wave and then put the blame on the public.
I will probably get slaughtered for even suggesting such a thing, but it is a fact that the UK Government has a 'Behavioural Insights Team' that advised the Government early on in the pandemic that people were 'not scared enough' and that the media should be used to increase the 'perceived threat to the individual' or something along those lines.
Not wishing to go off topic but I really think the tourism "angle" is a given. German tourists were allowed in Mallorca when I still wasn't allowed to leave my small part of Catalonia. The govt were desperate to get the tourist industry going again.
Back to your previous post though about comparisons to other countries and infection rates, there are just so many variables and regional differences I don't see how it's really possible to compare such disparate countries as Peru, Sweden, Belgium, Spain etc by only looking at their lockdown strategies.
1
Well this is helpful.... on 11:45 - Oct 2 with 1006 views
Well this is helpful.... on 22:55 - Oct 1 by Bluesquid
I think that the Mayor is justified in making that statement going on this.
Han Kok should be out on his arse.
I am amazed that more isn't being made of this to be honest. We have mounting evidence that the tests are generating false positives and yet people are quite happy to take the reporting of 'cases' at face value. I would love to know what percentage of cases are people that are actually presenting symptoms.
I couldn't quite make out if Raab said 7% or 70% in that clip? It actually sounds like 7 but I presume he must have meant 70 as 7 would be ridiculously low and would mean the test should be scrapped immediately. It would also tie in with the Times article mentioned.
Hancock is embarrassingly poor in that clip.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 11:49 - Oct 2 with 1002 views
You can egg this whichever way you want too... mayor asks for action and complains when action is made, knowing it will make him more popular with the put-upon locals.
I too have a certain sympathy with the uppity mayor. It would be nice if central government discussed options with regional hotspots and devolved powers to people on the ground, rather than imposing rules they themselves clearly dont understand at short notice without consultation.
Well this is helpful.... on 11:26 - Oct 2 by StokieBlue
I'll quickly combine answers to a couple of points here:
On lockdown, you keep saying that locking down early made no difference but your evidence doesn't support it. You don't know how many people had the infection before lockdown was imposed and were asymptomatic and then when on to develop systems and died. If lockdown had been even earlier there is a good argument to say that less people would have been in that situation come lockdown. The lag really is important and seems to be disregarded.
On the behaviour team, I don't think you are taking those quotes in the right context. I read it to mean than unless people are scared enough they won't follow the rules and C19 will be harder to stop. I think that's been proven 100% correct. Even now people weren't scared in places like Liverpool and you see the videos of people ignoring the rules and suddenly Liverpool has the most cases per 100,000 in the country.
SB
"you keep saying that locking down early made no difference but your evidence doesn't support it."
Come on now Stokie, I haven't even said that once let alone repeatedly. What I said was that it is too early to make a definitive judgement either way and that there are many other variables to consider. I provided examples on both sides of the argument.
You, on the other hand have provided one study from a dubious source and appear to be suggesting that this does provide definitive evidence that strict early lockdowns work. This is not taking into account the long term effects of lockdown.
My feeling is that the evidence is not strong enough to justify the attack on freedoms and the undeniable long terms effects that locking down will have on economies and public health. Time will tell of course.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 12:07 - Oct 2 with 985 views
Well this is helpful.... on 11:41 - Oct 2 by BarcaBlue
Not wishing to go off topic but I really think the tourism "angle" is a given. German tourists were allowed in Mallorca when I still wasn't allowed to leave my small part of Catalonia. The govt were desperate to get the tourist industry going again.
Back to your previous post though about comparisons to other countries and infection rates, there are just so many variables and regional differences I don't see how it's really possible to compare such disparate countries as Peru, Sweden, Belgium, Spain etc by only looking at their lockdown strategies.
We are pretty much in agreement, at least on your second paragraph. I think you can find examples to suit an argument either way but I agree there are so many other variables between countries that have to be considered.
That said though, I don't think it should be discounted that the three major countries in the top 5 'deaths per million' list all had strict lockdowns.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 12:54 - Oct 2 with 972 views
Well this is helpful.... on 03:54 - Oct 2 by jeera
Can you share a link please? This has cropped up many times since the early days but there has been no definitive conclusion [?].
I've looked a bit and find either conflicting stuff or only half-baked theories. I do understand there are all sorts of ongoing studies, naturally.
As discussed elsewhere, all sorts of vitamins aid the immune system but that's not news. What seems to be pushed from some quarters is that vitamin D is some wonder thing that particularly builds the immune system against Covid.
Eating properly and sleeping properly to keep oneself well is hardly a revelation and it's an odd angle for people to push if based on speculation alone.
*I stress, I am replying to your post only and not suggesting it's your angle.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 4:07]
If you google vitamin d coronavirus you'll be able to select a range of sources and see what you think. It seems to be something that might help a bit but there's little concrete evidence for. It occurred to me at 5am whilst brushing my teeth after watching the NFL that they probably didn't recommend it as a certain section of society would push it as a miracle cure and not bother with the social distancing and masks etc.
Well this is helpful.... on 12:07 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
We are pretty much in agreement, at least on your second paragraph. I think you can find examples to suit an argument either way but I agree there are so many other variables between countries that have to be considered.
That said though, I don't think it should be discounted that the three major countries in the top 5 'deaths per million' list all had strict lockdowns.
To be honest, I have no idea how strict the lockdown was in Peru or Belgium but I can't see how much can be inferred from comparing these two countries with Spain...or with many others really. It's going to take years to pick the bones out of all of this and putting up countries to support a stance right now just doesn't make much sense.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 13:03 - Oct 2 with 967 views
Well this is helpful.... on 12:54 - Oct 2 by J2BLUE
If you google vitamin d coronavirus you'll be able to select a range of sources and see what you think. It seems to be something that might help a bit but there's little concrete evidence for. It occurred to me at 5am whilst brushing my teeth after watching the NFL that they probably didn't recommend it as a certain section of society would push it as a miracle cure and not bother with the social distancing and masks etc.
Thanks for the video Harry, i'll give it a watch.
Thanks for the link Ryorry
You're welcome.
There may or may not be evidence for its effectiveness specifically in relation to Covid_19 - but at the end of the day, Covid_19 is still basically just a virus, and vitD (esp in conjunction with magnesium to help its absorption*) is well documented within medicine generally as useful in improving the immune system which helps fight viruses. Along with other things such as vit C of course.
*Should be taken together after meals to help absorption.
Well this is helpful.... on 11:45 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
I am amazed that more isn't being made of this to be honest. We have mounting evidence that the tests are generating false positives and yet people are quite happy to take the reporting of 'cases' at face value. I would love to know what percentage of cases are people that are actually presenting symptoms.
I couldn't quite make out if Raab said 7% or 70% in that clip? It actually sounds like 7 but I presume he must have meant 70 as 7 would be ridiculously low and would mean the test should be scrapped immediately. It would also tie in with the Times article mentioned.
Hancock is embarrassingly poor in that clip.
Raab said 7% and it is absolutely appalling that they are not being pressed on this. The media should be seriously going to town on the Government on this but they aren't and here's why - (click for full image).
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 14:47]
0
Well this is helpful.... on 14:59 - Oct 2 with 913 views
Well this is helpful.... on 12:01 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
"you keep saying that locking down early made no difference but your evidence doesn't support it."
Come on now Stokie, I haven't even said that once let alone repeatedly. What I said was that it is too early to make a definitive judgement either way and that there are many other variables to consider. I provided examples on both sides of the argument.
You, on the other hand have provided one study from a dubious source and appear to be suggesting that this does provide definitive evidence that strict early lockdowns work. This is not taking into account the long term effects of lockdown.
My feeling is that the evidence is not strong enough to justify the attack on freedoms and the undeniable long terms effects that locking down will have on economies and public health. Time will tell of course.
"I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths."
Given you've said deaths rose rapidly after the lockdown that looks a lot to me like you believe early lockdown made no difference. If that isn't what you meant then fine but that was my interpretation. You also cited SK etc who have a totally different system of track and trace which is good but not really relevant in the lockdown debate. You could cite China, surely the strictest lockdown of them all as evidence it does work given their cases but there are lots of unanswered questions there (for a start their figures are likely very dodgy).
I've not addressed the long term effects of lockdown anywhere - all my posts are with regards to the restriction in transmission of C19.
I don't think it's justified to call Nature a dubious source whilst your own link came from SSRN which is nothing more than a repository where anyone can post anything.
SB
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 15:01]
0
Well this is helpful.... on 15:04 - Oct 2 with 900 views
Well this is helpful.... on 14:42 - Oct 2 by Bluesquid
Raab said 7% and it is absolutely appalling that they are not being pressed on this. The media should be seriously going to town on the Government on this but they aren't and here's why - (click for full image).
Well this is helpful.... on 15:04 - Oct 2 by J2BLUE
Surely Raab is incorrect? 7%? That can't be true?
Well if we had a truly independent functioning media we'd know wouldn't we? Which is why i posted the tweet. Extremely worrying and concerning times in a so called democratic nation.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 15:24 - Oct 2 with 874 views
Well this is helpful.... on 15:09 - Oct 2 by Bluesquid
Well if we had a truly independent functioning media we'd know wouldn't we? Which is why i posted the tweet. Extremely worrying and concerning times in a so called democratic nation.
Sadly this seems much more realistic and in line with other indicators:
It's not true as that article correctly demonstrates.
Interestingly if it were true that would mean that the mortality rate of C19 had been hugely understated and that it was actually much more deadly if you catch it so I wonder how many would square that?
It would surely mean an even greater need for restrictions to ensure more people don't get this suddenly much more deadly disease given only very few people would have had it due to all the false positives.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 15:48 - Oct 2 with 845 views
Well this is helpful.... on 11:45 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
I am amazed that more isn't being made of this to be honest. We have mounting evidence that the tests are generating false positives and yet people are quite happy to take the reporting of 'cases' at face value. I would love to know what percentage of cases are people that are actually presenting symptoms.
I couldn't quite make out if Raab said 7% or 70% in that clip? It actually sounds like 7 but I presume he must have meant 70 as 7 would be ridiculously low and would mean the test should be scrapped immediately. It would also tie in with the Times article mentioned.
Hancock is embarrassingly poor in that clip.
"Hancock is embarrassingly poor in that clip."
Yep, as he is here.
He should be out on his arse - pt2.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 15:49]
0
Well this is helpful.... on 15:51 - Oct 2 with 841 views
Well this is helpful.... on 14:59 - Oct 2 by StokieBlue
"I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths."
Given you've said deaths rose rapidly after the lockdown that looks a lot to me like you believe early lockdown made no difference. If that isn't what you meant then fine but that was my interpretation. You also cited SK etc who have a totally different system of track and trace which is good but not really relevant in the lockdown debate. You could cite China, surely the strictest lockdown of them all as evidence it does work given their cases but there are lots of unanswered questions there (for a start their figures are likely very dodgy).
I've not addressed the long term effects of lockdown anywhere - all my posts are with regards to the restriction in transmission of C19.
I don't think it's justified to call Nature a dubious source whilst your own link came from SSRN which is nothing more than a repository where anyone can post anything.
SB
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 15:01]
Hmm...I have clearly stated my position and that I think there are valid arguments on both sides, the jury is still out etc. At this stage it looks very much like you are going down the route of twisting things to suit your argument which is a shame as it is an interesting discussion. I think i'll bow out gracefully at this point as I really don't have time to challenge these points this evening and even if I did I think we are heading into into rather pointless territory.
0
An accountant/investor..... on 16:04 - Oct 2 with 831 views
An accountant/investor..... on 13:56 - Oct 1 by Bloots
....who owns a racing team and David Bowie's old gaff on Mustique.
He's got a few quid.
Owning a racing team is a very quick way to eroding any fortune you may have.
The bloke seems to be exercising his right to free speech. I do totally disagree with his premise but if wants to challenge the Gov then he can.
Owning Bowie's old gaff is cool.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Well this is helpful.... on 15:57 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
Hmm...I have clearly stated my position and that I think there are valid arguments on both sides, the jury is still out etc. At this stage it looks very much like you are going down the route of twisting things to suit your argument which is a shame as it is an interesting discussion. I think i'll bow out gracefully at this point as I really don't have time to challenge these points this evening and even if I did I think we are heading into into rather pointless territory.
I've not twisted anything, I've not even commented on your arguments in that specific post and I've said I may have been mistaken in my interpretation of what you meant. I resent the implication of "twisting" when someone doesn't agree with your points.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
