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.
On a recent TWTD poll 80% were in favour of the national lockdown, based mostly I suspect on the evidence presented by Johnson, Vallance & Whitty on Saturday Night, however some of the data used has already been proven to be incorrect and numerous Scientists, experts, and MPs are now calling them out on it and are claiming a National Lockdown is not required at this stage.
Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University has pointed out that :
- The projections were based on 3 week old data. - They have already proven to be incorrect. 1000 deaths forecast on 1st November, the actual number was around 200 ( official reporting now states 162 ). - 4000 deaths per day is a doomsday prediction was never a realistic number - Cases are Dropping or flatlining in the most affected areas, Manchester cases down 20% in the previous week. - The 3 Tier system therefore showing signs of working but has not been given the full enough time. - Non-covid excess deaths in the home are increasing, this will get worse in another lockdown.
Professor Tim Spector from Kings College London is another who has disputed the figures. Based on the Zoe study which surveys a million people in the UK weekly they have shown that that cases are far from rising exponentially and in fact are falling in the Northern hotspot areas. They also have the 'R' number dropping to around 1.
Professor David Livermore of UEA has said that the Government is using "clearly ropey statistics" that just "don't make sense"
Tory MP Peter Bone has said "There are lies, damn lies, and covid statistics' going on to add that the Government is using selective data to prove it's case and not getting a balanced range to get to the right decision.
Another Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne is "devastated" about a second lockdown: "It's a disaster... people will be unemployed... their lives ruined and they'll die in greater numbers... it's mass hysteria".
Cases dropped overall last week for Suffolk and we know that other areas such as Cornwall have low numbers. Why do we need a National Lockdown when the tier system seems to be showing signs of success and other areas have falling numbers anyway?
Boris has claimed there is 'no alternative' to the National lockdown, this is simply not true and Boris is doing what he has proven over a long period of time that he does best - telling lies. History will show him to be one of the worst PMs this country has ever known.
The long term effects of this year are going to catastrophic in my view, and it will not be because of a new virus, it will be because of the direct actions the Government has taken, causing huge long term damage to their own Country and people.
Everybody is so fixated on Covid cases and deaths that I am concerned we are not seeing the bigger picture. I urge everybody to start looking at all of the evidence ( Julia Hartley Brewer on Talk Radio is worth a look ) and to then start questioning what is really going on and why?
[Post edited 6 Jan 2021 10:59]
0
National lockdown - the case against on 11:19 - Nov 4 with 3612 views
National lockdown - the case against on 10:48 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
What are the 'proven falsehoods' here?
The FACTS are, cases are rising, hospitalisations are rising, DEATHS are rising. Just carrying as we were with the failing 3 tier system was not an option, even for someone as inept as Boris.
It's in the OP and on the video I have attached. The projections they used are already provably wrong before the lockdown has even started.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 11:19 - Nov 4 with 3600 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:12 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Disappointing that you chose to downvote my post Stokie. I appreciate you do not agree but you have always asked people on here who post alternative views to provide some evidence which I have done.
It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
I have addressed the NHS question in another post, this is on the Government and they have no right to punish the people for it. The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though.
397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason.
It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus.
I don't know why putting over a different viewpoint is met with such hostility on here, I have already been called a mentalist just for putting across a reasoned and evidenced point of view. This place seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber of late and I get the idea that certain people on here quite like it like that, which is a shame.
when you get time I would genuinely like you to listen to the Heneghan interview and tell me if you honestly believe there is no merit to what he is saying.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:17]
Maybe just open your eyes and ears, listen to those (on here and elsewhere) working in the front line of NHS hospitals, and remind yourself of the definition of 'exponential growth' then.
National lockdown - the case against on 11:12 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Disappointing that you chose to downvote my post Stokie. I appreciate you do not agree but you have always asked people on here who post alternative views to provide some evidence which I have done.
It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
I have addressed the NHS question in another post, this is on the Government and they have no right to punish the people for it. The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though.
397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason.
It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus.
I don't know why putting over a different viewpoint is met with such hostility on here, I have already been called a mentalist just for putting across a reasoned and evidenced point of view. This place seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber of late and I get the idea that certain people on here quite like it like that, which is a shame.
when you get time I would genuinely like you to listen to the Heneghan interview and tell me if you honestly believe there is no merit to what he is saying.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:17]
Just a couple of points.
"...The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though."
This is true, but those other winters are not during a pandemic that adds thousands of extra patients into hospitals. So if we are usually at breakpoint on a normal winter, we need to be extra vigilant when we add something else into the mix that causes a lot more hospitalisations.
"It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus."
You can say this about almost any part of science, it's very unlikely that all scientists agree all the time. But where do you draw the line? If 9/10 say we should lock down, is that enough? 8/10? etc.
National lockdown - the case against on 11:12 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Disappointing that you chose to downvote my post Stokie. I appreciate you do not agree but you have always asked people on here who post alternative views to provide some evidence which I have done.
It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
I have addressed the NHS question in another post, this is on the Government and they have no right to punish the people for it. The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though.
397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason.
It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus.
I don't know why putting over a different viewpoint is met with such hostility on here, I have already been called a mentalist just for putting across a reasoned and evidenced point of view. This place seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber of late and I get the idea that certain people on here quite like it like that, which is a shame.
when you get time I would genuinely like you to listen to the Heneghan interview and tell me if you honestly believe there is no merit to what he is saying.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:17]
I don't see downvotes as a reflection of the person, just that I disagree with that post which is the case here. I do agree you have cited some of your evidence which is of course a good thing.
"It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
Whilst only one team cited 4000 deaths as a possibility many others were in the 1000-3000 range so it's not fair to dismiss the modelling in general.
"397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason."
I believe the original projected figure for the start of November was ~100 deaths per day when they presented the modelling at the start of October. It's well above that projection so can you please clarify what projected figure you are citing.
"It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus."
We've discussed the Barrington Declaration before. The funding and motives are highly suspect as are the "expert" signatories.
I will try and listen to it when I get a chance.
SB
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:26]
1
National lockdown - the case against on 11:33 - Nov 4 with 3569 views
National lockdown - the case against on 10:54 - Nov 4 by StokieBlue
You need to clarify this:
1) Proven to be wrong before the lockdown?
2) Proven to be wrong after the lockdown because the lockdown actually affected the modelling assumptions?
Once again - it's not just SAGE - the majority of governments scientists have reached the same conclusions as SAGE - are they all in on it or are they all incompetent as you seem to suggest? It would mean that the minority of scientists in the world are competent and remarkably they all seem to agree with you.
SB
In the case of the first Lockdown it was proven after the lockdown that the Imperial College London modelling was out by some distance and this is clearly demonstrated by their predictions for Sweden which was 100'000 deaths in the first wave, it was under 6000.
With this new lockdown the modelling has been already debunked as inaccurate before any action has even been taken.
I don't know the answer to your question about other countries, but based on what we have seen in this one, they are making decisions which are not based on solid reliable evidence.
Many ministers including Boris were saying only weeks ago that a 2nd National Lockdown would not happen, they have now changed their mind based on evidence that is just not good enough. We are talking about destroying lives and businesses here, ultimately forcing thousands if not millions into unemployment and poverty, increasing isolation of people which is proven to negatively effect mental health while closing places like gyms and Golf courses that are proven to increase it.
Robert Jenrick was asked four times yesterday if the Government had carried out an overall impact assessment for a 2nd lockdown and at the fourth attempt he finally admitted that they haven't. That is just unforgivable in my opinion.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 11:35 - Nov 4 with 3561 views
National lockdown - the case against on 10:29 - Nov 4 by gordon
Carl Heneghan has been consistently wrong about COVID for months so I'm happy going with the opposite of what he says, cheers.
Wasn't it Carl Heneghan who first bought to public attention that the Government figures contained no time limit to a death being classed as from Covid after a positive test, resulting in the change to 28 days?
1
National lockdown - the case against on 11:37 - Nov 4 with 3560 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:12 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Disappointing that you chose to downvote my post Stokie. I appreciate you do not agree but you have always asked people on here who post alternative views to provide some evidence which I have done.
It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
I have addressed the NHS question in another post, this is on the Government and they have no right to punish the people for it. The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though.
397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason.
It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus.
I don't know why putting over a different viewpoint is met with such hostility on here, I have already been called a mentalist just for putting across a reasoned and evidenced point of view. This place seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber of late and I get the idea that certain people on here quite like it like that, which is a shame.
when you get time I would genuinely like you to listen to the Heneghan interview and tell me if you honestly believe there is no merit to what he is saying.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:17]
There's no merit to what he's saying, no.
This all sounds so similar climate change denialism it's untrue.
What's your 'opinion' on climate change, by the way?
1
National lockdown - the case against on 11:39 - Nov 4 with 3554 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:19 - Nov 4 by Ryorry
Maybe just open your eyes and ears, listen to those (on here and elsewhere) working in the front line of NHS hospitals, and remind yourself of the definition of 'exponential growth' then.
My ears and eyes are very open thanks, and the data shows we do not have exponential growth, that is the point.
And the NHS is not currently being overun anymore than it is during any normal Autumn /Winter season.
National lockdown - the case against on 10:42 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
First of all I will say that people have very short memories. Every winter for as long as I can remember the NHS has been overextended beyond capacity, it has not suddenly happened with Covid.
The Government have had all Summer to look at NHS capacity and to prepare for Winter, it should not take locking people in their own homes and closing business to 'protect the NHS' and facilitate the management of a respiratory virus. And by the way I assume you know that deaths are around normal for the time of year and that Influenza has mysteriously all but disappeared this year?l
I don't think you are quite grasping this Harry.
Yes, we typically are at capacity most winters due to flu and/ or other bugs.
Flu hasn't disappeared and nor will the other bugs.
I merely pointed out to you that as of the end of October my friends hospital is 'well' beyond capacity just dealing with Covid patients - to the point where they now are not treating other healthcare issues - this is significantly worse than in previous years, considerably so and the numbers are not coming down.
That's the reality we are in.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
National lockdown - the case against on 11:37 - Nov 4 by gordon
There's no merit to what he's saying, no.
This all sounds so similar climate change denialism it's untrue.
What's your 'opinion' on climate change, by the way?
My opinion on climate change is that the climate is definitely changing.
Exactly how much of the change is caused by Humans is really the ultimate question I guess. We do clearly have a negative effect so I am not a denier if that is what you are getting at.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 11:47 - Nov 4 with 3515 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:39 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
My ears and eyes are very open thanks, and the data shows we do not have exponential growth, that is the point.
And the NHS is not currently being overun anymore than it is during any normal Autumn /Winter season.
If the R rate is more than 1.0 and the chain isn't broken, then exponential growth is inevitable.
The point has already been made to you by many, incl Badger, a front-line NHS hospital nurse, that some hospitals are already at, or close to, capacity, therefore any extra from Covid_19 means that they certainly will be "overun", hence lock-down is right thing to do right now.
National lockdown - the case against on 11:12 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Disappointing that you chose to downvote my post Stokie. I appreciate you do not agree but you have always asked people on here who post alternative views to provide some evidence which I have done.
It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
I have addressed the NHS question in another post, this is on the Government and they have no right to punish the people for it. The NHS is overwhelmed most winters, we don't usually lockdown as a result though.
397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason.
It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus.
I don't know why putting over a different viewpoint is met with such hostility on here, I have already been called a mentalist just for putting across a reasoned and evidenced point of view. This place seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber of late and I get the idea that certain people on here quite like it like that, which is a shame.
when you get time I would genuinely like you to listen to the Heneghan interview and tell me if you honestly believe there is no merit to what he is saying.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:17]
Doom and Gloom overplayed their hand with the slides they used on Saturday. The trouble with scaremongering is that it leads to people dismissing everything when in truth there is cause for concern and lockdown is justified.
It is only going to work though if it properly policed.
National lockdown - the case against on 11:24 - Nov 4 by StokieBlue
I don't see downvotes as a reflection of the person, just that I disagree with that post which is the case here. I do agree you have cited some of your evidence which is of course a good thing.
"It has been shown that the 4000 deaths a day scenario was incorrect and Vallance and Whitty even admitted to this yesterday, but the damage has been done now, public opinion has been swayed, MPs have been swayed and we will get another National Lockdown based on very ropey evidence. Can you not see that they have cherry picked data and again used worst case scenarios not based on reality to scare the public?
Whilst only one team cited 4000 deaths as a possibility many others were in the 1000-3000 range so it's not fair to dismiss the modelling in general.
"397 deaths is still nowhere near the projected figure, I used the figure because it tied in with the date of the interview I used, no other reason."
I believe the original projected figure for the start of November was ~100 deaths per day when they presented the modelling at the start of October. It's well above that projection so can you please clarify what projected figure you are citing.
"It is not just the three scientists I have quoted, there are many more that agree, the Great Barrington Declaration should tell you that. the point is there is not a consensus."
We've discussed the Barrington Declaration before. The funding and motives are highly suspect as are the "expert" signatories.
I will try and listen to it when I get a chance.
SB
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 11:26]
I think the point is that the headline figure was the worst case scenario, this is what has ultimately prompted the action that has been taken.
The projections they used on Saturday were put together 3 weeks ago and the worst case scenario figure was for a 1000 deaths on or around November 1st.
There are over 11'000 scientists that have signed the GBD and over 33'000 medical practicioners, it is rather short sighted to dismiss it because of funding when the same scrutiny is not applied to Sage etc.. It has already come to light that Vallance has shares in GSK and that Whitty gets substantial funding from the Gates foundation who have a clear financial interest in vaccines.
How can they be trusted to make impartial decisions on vaccines for example with such clear conflicts of interests?
0
National lockdown - the case against on 12:21 - Nov 4 with 3471 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:47 - Nov 4 by Ryorry
If the R rate is more than 1.0 and the chain isn't broken, then exponential growth is inevitable.
The point has already been made to you by many, incl Badger, a front-line NHS hospital nurse, that some hospitals are already at, or close to, capacity, therefore any extra from Covid_19 means that they certainly will be "overun", hence lock-down is right thing to do right now.
I disagree. The lockdown will only slow down the virus temporarily and at great cost. How will you feel if they decide to extend it for another four weeks because we haven't quite got the R down, and then another four weeks after that, where does it end?
Hospitals have been overwhelmed many times in previous Winters, this is on the Government, instead of locking people and closing businesses, and wasting billions on PPE etc. how about actually funding the NHS so capacity is sufficient.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 12:27 - Nov 4 with 3453 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:42 - Nov 4 by homer_123
I don't think you are quite grasping this Harry.
Yes, we typically are at capacity most winters due to flu and/ or other bugs.
Flu hasn't disappeared and nor will the other bugs.
I merely pointed out to you that as of the end of October my friends hospital is 'well' beyond capacity just dealing with Covid patients - to the point where they now are not treating other healthcare issues - this is significantly worse than in previous years, considerably so and the numbers are not coming down.
That's the reality we are in.
And again I will refer to the bigger picture.
The long term effects of multiple lockdowns will be catastrophic and will cause far more damage than the virus ever will. How many more businesses need to go bust, how many more people need to commit sucicide, how families need to be plunged into long term poverty before people realise what is happening?
We will be paying for this for decades in taxes and inflation and millions of young people will be deprived of a future as jobs disappear.
With the greatest of respect I don't think it is me that is not grasping it.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 12:28]
2
National lockdown - the case against on 12:28 - Nov 4 with 3450 views
The death rate from Covid has doubled in the last two weeks, the rolling 7 day average was 136 on the 20th September and was 269 yesterday, by using the rolling 7 day average that takes out under reporting at weekends and the huge rise every Tuesday. That rolling average death rate has been rising by around 10 - 12 every day, at what point would you say the daily death rate needs to be before the government takes any action?
2
National lockdown - the case against on 12:29 - Nov 4 with 3449 views
"then start questioning what is really going on and why?"
so what do YOU think is really going on and why? i'm assuming that it's more than inconclusive statistics that interests you here. what do you think is really driving all this?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
2
National lockdown - the case against on 12:36 - Nov 4 with 3411 views
National lockdown - the case against on 12:21 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
I disagree. The lockdown will only slow down the virus temporarily and at great cost. How will you feel if they decide to extend it for another four weeks because we haven't quite got the R down, and then another four weeks after that, where does it end?
Hospitals have been overwhelmed many times in previous Winters, this is on the Government, instead of locking people and closing businesses, and wasting billions on PPE etc. how about actually funding the NHS so capacity is sufficient.
I'm actually one of the people who, thinking of the longer term economic & mental health impact, has been looking for alternatives to the alternating lock-down->release->lockdown->release modus operandi.
Fact is, sadly, that for this winter, managing things thus - lockdown & release in managed tranches so that the NHS is not overwhelmed, is just necessary - unless you're prepared for a survival-of-the-fittest scenario in which you and yours, along with the rest of the population, might not be treated for cardiac arrest, broken limbs etc.
National lockdown - the case against on 12:27 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
And again I will refer to the bigger picture.
The long term effects of multiple lockdowns will be catastrophic and will cause far more damage than the virus ever will. How many more businesses need to go bust, how many more people need to commit sucicide, how families need to be plunged into long term poverty before people realise what is happening?
We will be paying for this for decades in taxes and inflation and millions of young people will be deprived of a future as jobs disappear.
With the greatest of respect I don't think it is me that is not grasping it.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 12:28]
Do you have a link to some evidence that suicide rates have increased because of lockdown?
0
National lockdown - the case against on 12:54 - Nov 4 with 3370 views
National lockdown - the case against on 12:29 - Nov 4 by lowhouseblue
"then start questioning what is really going on and why?"
so what do YOU think is really going on and why? i'm assuming that it's more than inconclusive statistics that interests you here. what do you think is really driving all this?
I believe they answered that before for me, it's that they want to keep the additional power they have gained via the pandemic after it is finished.
National lockdown - the case against on 12:54 - Nov 4 by DanTheMan
I believe they answered that before for me, it's that they want to keep the additional power they have gained via the pandemic after it is finished.
well that's clearly delusional nonsense. there is nothing at all to establish that the pandemic is being intentionally mismanaged in order to enhance the power of the state in the long term. it does seem then that a one sided reading of the statistics is motivated by a rather fantastical political agenda.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
4
National lockdown - the case against on 13:11 - Nov 4 with 3339 views
National lockdown - the case against on 13:11 - Nov 4 by jeera
And it is almost every government on the planet don't forget, not only ours.
They cannot agree on some basic trade deals but are all in together when it comes to complete population control.
'To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism' .... The World Economic Forum
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
