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 13:40 - Nov 4 with 1339 views
National lockdown - the case against on 11:35 - Nov 4 by urbanblue
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?
The original threshold was 60 days. Under the current criteria of 28 days recorded covid deaths 'dropped' from 51,000 in August to 41,000. However, it's still quite likely to be an underestimate as many critical care patients die well after the 28 day threshold as in significant numbers, critical care tends to 'prolong' death a fair bit.
National lockdown - the case against on 11:33 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
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.
THREAD: You may have seen false claims that Imperial COVID-19 "modelling envisaged Sweden paying a heavy price for its rejection of lockdown, with 40,000 Covid deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June". Our researchers made no such prediction
Professor Ferguson and the Imperial COVID-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths. Imperial's work is being conflated with that of an entirely separate group of researchers
National lockdown - the case against on 12:14 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
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?
Ah yes, the Great Barrington Declaration which was signed by such luminaries as Dr Johnny Bananas, Prof. Dominic Cummings of Durham Univercity(sic), 18 homeopaths, Harold Shipman and one Dr IP Freely.
National lockdown - the case against on 13:49 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
Ah yes, the Great Barrington Declaration which was signed by such luminaries as Dr Johnny Bananas, Prof. Dominic Cummings of Durham Univercity(sic), 18 homeopaths, Harold Shipman and one Dr IP Freely.
National lockdown - the case against on 13:27 - Nov 4 by urbanblue
'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
“.. based mostly I suspect on the evidence presented by Johnson, Vallance & Whitty on Saturday Night”
An incorrect assumption, in my case, maybe others as well.
You would have to run a poll on the board to see if your assumption is in any way valid.
Other countries are following an elimination followed by aggressive track and trace strategy, and are more successful.
This Government has bias against lockdown and stricter measure, and is being influenced by economics, and is trying to perform a balancing act and failing on both sides.
I am prioritising the lives of my parents against the economy.
The economy has been rebuilt after world wide crashes/depressions and world wars.
So far none of my extended family, including recently departed, have shown they can survive death.
It is interesting isn’t it, what would have been the contemporary attitude if the Government said to the prospect of a war with Germany, or a cheaper one like Argentina, “Oooof that looks a bit too expensive, ahhh, youse carry on”.
So errr no, that isn’t why I think a strict lockdown is welcome.
1
National lockdown - the case against on 14:32 - Nov 4 with 1285 views
National lockdown - the case against on 12:38 - Nov 4 by gordon
Do you have a link to some evidence that suicide rates have increased because of lockdown?
Well the official stats on suicide are not released until next year but based on the below which details a 70% increase in suicide or attempted suicide in the London area I think it's a safe bet that they are going to be up by some magnitude.
Of course you can make a argument that it is not Lockdowns that have directly caused this but just the tragedy of the pandemic itself. I would argue again though that it is the constant fear porn in the media along with the consequences of Government actions and policies that have created the conditions for this, not the virus itself.
Sadly, the number of suicide and attempted suicide incidents we attend are increasing.
Our crews now attend an average of 37 suicides or attempted suicides per day, compared to 22 in 2019 and 17 five years ago.#Ambulancepic.twitter.com/a0Va0jySNP
National lockdown - the case against on 12:14 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
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?
"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."
It was the "reasonable" worst case scenario and that word is more than a semantic difference in modelling.
"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."
This isn't answering what I asked. The projections that prompted the lockdown were made on at the start of October and were 100 deaths. We were at 300 deaths and this prompted the lockdown and the change in modelling to new numbers without lockdown.
"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."
Two points there. Firstly "medical practitioners" is a general term for all kinds of nonsense and woo - I don't think it's in your interest to cite it as evidence. With regards to the scientists there are are a lot of question marks there as well. Have you applied the same level of scrutiny to those signatories as you have to scientist you don't agree with? I hate to say that I suspect not.
On the second point: An individuals investments are really that relevant - a single person is unlikely to move the share price much. Funding from the Gates Foundation is even less relevant given they fund many excellent causes around the world and this is very similar to a conspiracy trope - citing this detracts from your case substantially as we move into the realms of conspiracies. It furthermore leads us to your vaccine opposition and makes it look like you've just expanded on that position which isn't ideal either. You can't be against a vaccine that you don't know the specifics about yet so it's a disingenuous position.
"How can they be trusted to make impartial decisions on vaccines for example with such clear conflicts of interests?"
How can you be trusted to make posts about vaccines that don't yet exist based on your dislike of existing vaccines?
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
2
National lockdown - the case against on 14:41 - Nov 4 with 1264 views
National lockdown - the case against on 12:36 - Nov 4 by Ryorry
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.
"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"
Is the latter part of that not exactly what happened in the first lockdown though and has continued ever since which is why we are now seeing an excess of non covid deaths in the home.
Also out today are leaked NHS figures that show that on the whole hospitals and ICUs are quieter than at this stage last year. Again there is nowhere near enough evidence to justify a Lockdown.
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?
If you are trying to steer me towards claiming it is all a global hoax and conspiracy then you are going to be disappointed.
By the same token if you dismiss out of hand the possibility that very rich and powerful people could influence Governments and Scientists then I would say that is a bit naive.
The honest answer is I don't know. All I do know is that something is off, the evidence does not support the actions being taken and almost everything most Western Governments have done has been completely disproportionate.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 14:55 - Nov 4 with 1241 views
National lockdown - the case against on 14:48 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
If you are trying to steer me towards claiming it is all a global hoax and conspiracy then you are going to be disappointed.
By the same token if you dismiss out of hand the possibility that very rich and powerful people could influence Governments and Scientists then I would say that is a bit naive.
The honest answer is I don't know. All I do know is that something is off, the evidence does not support the actions being taken and almost everything most Western Governments have done has been completely disproportionate.
Would you say China's actions were disproportionate? The locked down and entire country at gunpoint for 2-3 months and banned everything: work, socialising, exercise, Chinese New Year.
That actually seemed to work as it has in Australia as well.
Or is it only Western governments that are disproportionate? This isn't about the response by the government, this is some kind of civil liberties agenda without any evidence to back it up. There have been no instances of anything that has been restricted not being allowed after restrictions.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 15:03 - Nov 4 with 1231 views
National lockdown - the case against on 14:41 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
"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"
Is the latter part of that not exactly what happened in the first lockdown though and has continued ever since which is why we are now seeing an excess of non covid deaths in the home.
Also out today are leaked NHS figures that show that on the whole hospitals and ICUs are quieter than at this stage last year. Again there is nowhere near enough evidence to justify a Lockdown.
National lockdown - the case against on 14:34 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Seriously? read the OP and watch the video.
The projections were 'wrong' because we staged an intervention, namely a lockdown, to stop those projections happening. It's a bt like saying the 'projection' of 100% fatalities from cardiac arrest is 'wrong' because generally we intervene to do something about it.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 15:36]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
National lockdown - the case against on 14:48 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
If you are trying to steer me towards claiming it is all a global hoax and conspiracy then you are going to be disappointed.
By the same token if you dismiss out of hand the possibility that very rich and powerful people could influence Governments and Scientists then I would say that is a bit naive.
The honest answer is I don't know. All I do know is that something is off, the evidence does not support the actions being taken and almost everything most Western Governments have done has been completely disproportionate.
The key evidence to support the current action is the fact that cases, hospitalisations and deaths are rising and many hospitals were already stretched playing 'catch up'. Overwhelming hospital capacity will do nothing for people's health of all flavours. Try accessing the out-of-hours mental health tam via A&E if they've closed doors to walk-ups because they're overwhelmed with people with respiratory difficulties, for example. A hospital riddled with Covid-19 cases will be placing ALL of its vulnerable cancer patients(for example) at high risk of delayed treatment or hospital acquired infection. A hospital swamped with Covid will be performing much less surgery full stop, because ITU capacity will all be taken up, meaning both high-risk cases, emergency surgery AND elective surgery faces cancellation because there's no ITU support for the sickest and fewer theatre staff around because You insist on banging on about 'looking at the big picture' well there's the big picture.
No-one's naive enough to believe there isn't a cost to all this, it's just that the cost of not doing it is much, much higher - measures in place were failing and had been failing for weeks. A shorter, less damaging lockdown had been being suggested for weeks now and been ignored. So now, we'll have a longer, more damaging one.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 17:56]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
National lockdown - the case against on 14:41 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
"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"
Is the latter part of that not exactly what happened in the first lockdown though and has continued ever since which is why we are now seeing an excess of non covid deaths in the home.
Also out today are leaked NHS figures that show that on the whole hospitals and ICUs are quieter than at this stage last year. Again there is nowhere near enough evidence to justify a Lockdown.
Mmmm - and the first lockdown was in spring/early summer, which is always a quieter time for the NHS, as you well know. So your saying that things being bad for the NHS then is to actually contradict your own argumnt. Not that I read anywhere of anyone being refused treatment for a cardiac arrest or broken limb - did you? If so, link please.
You can also conveniently continue to ignore the meaning of "exponential growth" - but continuing to ignore that & the facts above means you've basically spiked your own argument.
is this the same excellent Julia Hartley-Brewer who wondered if Whitty and Vallance might admit their “not a prediction” of 200 deaths a day wasn’t a very honest “example scenario” .
Which epidemiologists should we trust, epidemiologists or talk show hosts?
National lockdown - the case against on 15:36 - Nov 4 by WestStanderLaLaLa
is this the same excellent Julia Hartley-Brewer who wondered if Whitty and Vallance might admit their “not a prediction” of 200 deaths a day wasn’t a very honest “example scenario” .
Which epidemiologists should we trust, epidemiologists or talk show hosts?
This Julia Hartley-Brewer here?
He urinated BESIDE the plaque. He did not urinate ON it. This is basic stuff.
Are we still going to continue debating that not having a lockdown is the way forward?
I also see that Starmer is saying the lockdown can't be lifted if the R isn't below 1 so I assume he will now come under your umbrella for criticism. Given this are the opposition also working with the government to erode our civil liberties or perhaps you might be seeing something that isn't there.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
3
National lockdown - the case against on 16:29 - Nov 4 with 1125 views
National lockdown - the case against on 14:32 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Well the official stats on suicide are not released until next year but based on the below which details a 70% increase in suicide or attempted suicide in the London area I think it's a safe bet that they are going to be up by some magnitude.
Of course you can make a argument that it is not Lockdowns that have directly caused this but just the tragedy of the pandemic itself. I would argue again though that it is the constant fear porn in the media along with the consequences of Government actions and policies that have created the conditions for this, not the virus itself.
Sadly, the number of suicide and attempted suicide incidents we attend are increasing.
Our crews now attend an average of 37 suicides or attempted suicides per day, compared to 22 in 2019 and 17 five years ago.#Ambulancepic.twitter.com/a0Va0jySNP
The Great Barrington Declaration would not ameliorate these problems with it's strategy of 'lock away the vulnerable and hope for the best'.
There would inevitable casualties amongst the 'healthy' population, a much higher count of those suffering from 'long covid' and the clinical vulnerable, a group which is already massively vulnerable to mental health problems, would be placed at even more risk of deterioration in their mental health, whilst effectively having reduced access to mental health services which are overwhelmingly community-and-clinic based. And that's before we factor in added strain on carers and relatives of the clinically vulnerable.
And this is before we factor in the other flaws in the GBD....
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 16:32]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
National lockdown - the case against on 13:49 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
Ah yes, the Great Barrington Declaration which was signed by such luminaries as Dr Johnny Bananas, Prof. Dominic Cummings of Durham Univercity(sic), 18 homeopaths, Harold Shipman and one Dr IP Freely.
National lockdown - the case against on 15:36 - Nov 4 by WestStanderLaLaLa
is this the same excellent Julia Hartley-Brewer who wondered if Whitty and Vallance might admit their “not a prediction” of 200 deaths a day wasn’t a very honest “example scenario” .
Which epidemiologists should we trust, epidemiologists or talk show hosts?
I think you will find TV presenter types are quite capable of running countries, actually.
Checks US death rates.
Oh, yes, of course.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 17:22 - Nov 4 with 1080 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:09 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Along with leading professors from institutions such as Harvard, Stanford and Oxford.
Definitely best to focus on the couple of jokers that tried to sabotage it though.
As a general rule, if said professors are in agreement with homeopaths and various other quacks, their professional credibility is in question, frankly.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
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.
Agree flu won't disappear but with the ubiquitous use of face coverings, social distancing, jabs, remote working and self isolation you'd think it should be ok.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
