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 21:05 - Nov 4 with 2620 views
National lockdown - the case against on 20:36 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Apologies, I am not avoiding your questions but I am getting challenged by numerous posters now so not easy to keep up.
In answer to your question I agree with Carl Heneghan that we should have maintained the regional approach for now which appeared to be working. Going back further I agree with the approach Sweden have taken but obviously it is too late for that now here. I know you won't agree but I believe their approach strikes the best balance between protecting peoples rights, the economy overall health.
Have you listened to heneghan yet? do you honestly see no validity in what he is saying?
In answer to your other questions :
What is your main objection to lockdown? You've said it will be "catastrophic" in the long run but you've not been precise.
I think I have covered this one during the course of this thread. In a nutshell I believe the long term effects of lockdowns will be worse than that caused by the virus. The damage to the economy will be immense leading to mass unemployment, poverty etc. and all of the health consequences that go with it.
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?
Of course, China were massively disproportionate in my view. It seems to have worked but then what can we really believe where China is concerned anyway?
No worries, thanks for responding.
So I did just listen to it but stopped it after 1:31 because the first thing he said seems to be incorrect. I think quickly checked his website and he is referring to the same chart I posted from the BBC earlier. Here is is from his website:
He says at this point that we were expecting deaths of 1000 by the start of November. That is incorrect. Only one prediction from one set of modellers shows that many deaths and the rest are all below that and he's being disingenuous as well because all the actions taken by the government are based on the "reasonable worst case" scenario which is the grey line on the graph and is very much in line with what we have seen (well it's actually above their prediction but lets not worry about that).
Now if you look at the deaths today we are at 500 which is pretty much bang on the 2nd worst case estimate and above the 3th and 4th worst case estimates. It's about 5 times above the "reasonable worst case" estimate.
Not really sure what his game is - this is very simple analysis of datasets and he's been very dubious about it within the first 90 seconds of the interview.
Is it worth me listening to the rest? I'll listen anyway because perhaps he changes tack and I am sure he knows more than me about the datasets so something doesn't add up.
SB
Edit: So he talked about flatlining but that clearly isn't the case with regards to deaths. They are increasing quicker and at a high volume than the "reasonable worst case" scenario. She's very much leading him in this interview to where she wants to be with regards to the broadcast.
His data on excess deaths from non-C19 factors in the home is interesting and not great but once again he's using it in a weird way. He's said their have been 600-700 excess deaths in the home over 4 months. That's 5 or 6 a day - there were 500 deaths from C19 recorded just today. Those deaths are not good of course but to cite them as an argument against the measures is bizarre given the disparity in numbers. He's right that it won't get better under a lockdown but lets say it's 10 a day (100% increase) then it's 300 over the whole lockdown whereas with 500 a day for C19 we are looking at 15000. It's horrible to look at it in plain numbers but that's what the experts and policy makers need to do.
His points on how to get out of lockdown are fair - there should be some criteria which is applied to get out of lockdown and then out of the tiers.
I find it incredible that he wants to pause for another week. He's worried about 600 deaths in the home over 4 months but not worried about 3500 C19 deaths in one week (assuming todays numbers). It's frankly an unjustifiable position.
He's right about the fact we should have created more bed space. They have done that with the Nightingales but he's also said the NHS runs at 95%. Given the increase in cases and deaths if he knows that it doesn't tally well with not wanting a lockdown given there will be increasing hospitalisations.
Overall you asked what I thought of his points. Not much really.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:25]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 21:05 - Nov 4 with 2619 views
National lockdown - the case against on 20:25 - Nov 4 by Nthsuffolkblue
I haven't trawled through all the rest of this thread but I can assure you that the only way the "lockdown" is unnecessary now is because it was needed weeks ago and it is not enough now.
The death statistics show exponential growth. The hospital admissions are already swamping the NHS.
Oxford University (the University with a reputation as a top arts university) has a lot of social scientists who have all along claimed lockdowns are unnecessary. Cambridge University (with a world-leading reputation for science) has consistently been in line with what SAGE has recommended.
There is a case against lockdown. It is weak and flawed and will lead to deaths on an unprecedented scale, be that 4000 per day or 1000+ per day for months. It is reckless and irresponsible to argue against it.
I found out today about the first person I know personally who died from it.
Disagree for all the reasons I have posted previously but I am very sorry to hear of your loss.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 21:22 - Nov 4 with 2587 views
National lockdown - the case against on 20:06 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Sigh, the growth in CASES is not exponential. that is what I was talking about and what a number of experts who actually look at the data had concluded.
Cases in Liverpool, Manchester etc. have been slowing down or dropping, presumably because the tier 3 restrictions were starting to work. when cases start to fall it follows that hospital admissions and deaths will also fall in due course.
This is why I am saying a National lockdown was inappropriate at this point. Pointing out that deaths and hospitalisations from respiratory illness is higher in November than September and is not really proving anything. It happens every year.
Cases are really not an accurate measure, not everyone will be tested and a large portion are asymptotic so won’t be tested.
The data that should be used is admissions and deaths, they are exponentially rising, are you simply ignoring the rise in deaths and admissions as it doesn’t fit your narrative here ? Liverpool and Manchester were effectively locked down 2 weeks ago so of course cases will drop there first.
National lockdown - the case against on 21:05 - Nov 4 by StokieBlue
No worries, thanks for responding.
So I did just listen to it but stopped it after 1:31 because the first thing he said seems to be incorrect. I think quickly checked his website and he is referring to the same chart I posted from the BBC earlier. Here is is from his website:
He says at this point that we were expecting deaths of 1000 by the start of November. That is incorrect. Only one prediction from one set of modellers shows that many deaths and the rest are all below that and he's being disingenuous as well because all the actions taken by the government are based on the "reasonable worst case" scenario which is the grey line on the graph and is very much in line with what we have seen (well it's actually above their prediction but lets not worry about that).
Now if you look at the deaths today we are at 500 which is pretty much bang on the 2nd worst case estimate and above the 3th and 4th worst case estimates. It's about 5 times above the "reasonable worst case" estimate.
Not really sure what his game is - this is very simple analysis of datasets and he's been very dubious about it within the first 90 seconds of the interview.
Is it worth me listening to the rest? I'll listen anyway because perhaps he changes tack and I am sure he knows more than me about the datasets so something doesn't add up.
SB
Edit: So he talked about flatlining but that clearly isn't the case with regards to deaths. They are increasing quicker and at a high volume than the "reasonable worst case" scenario. She's very much leading him in this interview to where she wants to be with regards to the broadcast.
His data on excess deaths from non-C19 factors in the home is interesting and not great but once again he's using it in a weird way. He's said their have been 600-700 excess deaths in the home over 4 months. That's 5 or 6 a day - there were 500 deaths from C19 recorded just today. Those deaths are not good of course but to cite them as an argument against the measures is bizarre given the disparity in numbers. He's right that it won't get better under a lockdown but lets say it's 10 a day (100% increase) then it's 300 over the whole lockdown whereas with 500 a day for C19 we are looking at 15000. It's horrible to look at it in plain numbers but that's what the experts and policy makers need to do.
His points on how to get out of lockdown are fair - there should be some criteria which is applied to get out of lockdown and then out of the tiers.
I find it incredible that he wants to pause for another week. He's worried about 600 deaths in the home over 4 months but not worried about 3500 C19 deaths in one week (assuming todays numbers). It's frankly an unjustifiable position.
He's right about the fact we should have created more bed space. They have done that with the Nightingales but he's also said the NHS runs at 95%. Given the increase in cases and deaths if he knows that it doesn't tally well with not wanting a lockdown given there will be increasing hospitalisations.
Overall you asked what I thought of his points. Not much really.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:25]
To be fair he did say it was the 'worst case scenario' line that was incorrect and my understanding is that this is the line which generated the headlines and which helped shape the policy, I would have to watch back the Vallance/Whitty broadcast again to be sure.
He was talking about cases with regards to the flatlining I believe. Maybe I am naive on this but I really don't see what ulterior motives he could have here. I appreciate your honest take on it though.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:29]
0
National lockdown - the case against on 21:28 - Nov 4 with 2574 views
National lockdown - the case against on 21:25 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
To be fair he did say it was the 'worst case scenario' line that was incorrect and my understanding is that this is the line which generated the headlines and which helped shape the policy, I would have to watch back the Vallance/Whitty broadcast again to be sure.
He was talking about cases with regards to the flatlining I believe. Maybe I am naive on this but I really don't see what ulterior motives he could have here. I appreciate your honest take on it though.
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:29]
The policy is based on the "reasonable worst case" scenario line.
"These outputs should not be interpreted as a forecast of what is most likely to happen, but rather scenarios to inform planning at the time. Reasonable worst case scenarios are considered for planning to ensure that we are able to respond to a range of scenarios."
"They said the reasonable worst-case planning scenario is not a forecast of what is to happen but is used to help plan for COVID-19 during the winter."
He also didn't point out that we are right on the other "worst case" scenario lines and well above the one used for planning.
I agree that I don't know what his motives would be but I think his analysis is pretty flawed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but it seemed disingenuous and agenda driven to me.
SB
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:34]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 22:21 - Nov 4 with 2530 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]
"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."
Do you really think lockdown is the government punishing the people?
National lockdown - the case against on 21:02 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Mullet, you have clearly been more affected by Covid than me and I am sorry to hear you are not well and also know other people who have been affected, genuinely I am.
I do live in a less affected area and I'm sure if I walked in your shoes I would have a different viewpoint. Despite what you have told me I still believe that in the long term this ( and any ) lockdown will do more harm than good. I don't believe I am aligning with 'morally repugnant' people in this belief, in fact most of the people I see that share similar views are good decent caring people. There can't be many more morally repugnant people than Boris Johnson and there are questions around Vallance, Cummings, Ferguson etc. yet most of the board seem happy to go with their calls.
For the record I haven't used anecdotes and empty wards, i merely stated that I had seen such things in responding to Swansea who himself was using anecdotal evidence to prove his point.
I agree with your final paragraph but have to dispute the last bit. I really don't see how people such as Heneghan have a vested interest in securing our money by giving their expert opinion on things.
I hope you get a negative test result and you are feeling better soon.
I live and work in a 'less affected area' and frankly I'd hate to work one that's been more affected because the toll it's taken on me and my colleagues has been horrific. This year has been the worst of my professional life and the main things that have seen me through have been my years of experience, the coping strategies I've developed(mainly beer and loud music - and to be honest, they're struggling hard, right now) Your blithe indifference and smug, wilful ignorance is, frankly, genuinely, upsetting and offensive particularly given your enthusiasm in quoting proven charlatans and frauds to prove whatever f*ckwitted point you're trying to make.
Don't try to kid me that you're a 'decent, caring' person. You don't 'care' any more than people like Johnson, Cummings or bottom-feeders like Paz 'care'. You 'care' when you think your point is 'proved' by flawed science whilst people are suffering, you 'care' when one in several million suffers a couldn't-be-predicted anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, you 'care' when you're vaguely incovenienced by having to wear a mask for 30 minutes Tescos, you 'care' when you haven't had to deliver end of life care via Zoom, you 'care' when you you're happy to blithely ignore long-term incapacity. You' can gan go f*ck yourself, you utter ireemdemable t0sser, I'm done trying to be polite to you, you c*nt.
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 19:09 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
I could give you plenty of anecdotal evidence and pictures posted online of empty wards etc. but I prefer to stick to the evidence, and the evidence is that so far this is a normal autumn / winter.
Here's my anecdotal evidence: You're talking sh1t. Frontline 'covid' areas had an AWFUL time of it March through May. Non-Covid areas have been HAVING an awful time of it May through to now.
ALL areas are having increasingly bad time of it RIGHT NOW and have been for the past couple of weeks.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 9:38]
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 18:56 - Nov 4 by Harry_Palmer
Viral cases, deaths and hospital admissions were also rising this time last year funnily enough, and the year before that.
I've just checked back, and no you definitely were not proposing a lockdown last year.
Seriously, F*CK OFF. You know-nothing, you understand nothing. You exist to share and propagate the same fear you claim to stand against. You and your kind are the actual worst of humanity. Take your smug, patronising 'well actually someone once got the sh*ts three weeks and 46 hours to the day after their MMR' bullsh1t and shove it somewhere where it might stop you contracting an easily preventable disease.
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 23:17 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
Seriously, F*CK OFF. You know-nothing, you understand nothing. You exist to share and propagate the same fear you claim to stand against. You and your kind are the actual worst of humanity. Take your smug, patronising 'well actually someone once got the sh*ts three weeks and 46 hours to the day after their MMR' bullsh1t and shove it somewhere where it might stop you contracting an easily preventable disease.
Absolutely, this is tw*tism of the highest fu*king order and has no place on this forum.
My wife is a oncology nurse and is witnessing this first hand at the moment. This is NOTHING like flu or other seasonal viruses. Rolling out people like Hartley-Brewer doesn't help your cause, but moreover indicates your motives and ideology behind posts like this.
National lockdown - the case against on 23:32 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue
Absolutely, this is tw*tism of the highest fu*king order and has no place on this forum.
My wife is a oncology nurse and is witnessing this first hand at the moment. This is NOTHING like flu or other seasonal viruses. Rolling out people like Hartley-Brewer doesn't help your cause, but moreover indicates your motives and ideology behind posts like this.
National lockdown - the case against on 23:17 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
Seriously, F*CK OFF. You know-nothing, you understand nothing. You exist to share and propagate the same fear you claim to stand against. You and your kind are the actual worst of humanity. Take your smug, patronising 'well actually someone once got the sh*ts three weeks and 46 hours to the day after their MMR' bullsh1t and shove it somewhere where it might stop you contracting an easily preventable disease.
Nah, lets throw caution to the wind. Freedom is more important. Not lock down, open everything. Back to life as it was in '19.
No masking, no social distancing, Why bother to test? Tests just make us look bad. If a few people die, its just nature taking its course.
And, Hi, my name is Donald...
0
National lockdown - the case against on 13:14 - Nov 5 with 2264 views
National lockdown - the case against on 23:03 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
I live and work in a 'less affected area' and frankly I'd hate to work one that's been more affected because the toll it's taken on me and my colleagues has been horrific. This year has been the worst of my professional life and the main things that have seen me through have been my years of experience, the coping strategies I've developed(mainly beer and loud music - and to be honest, they're struggling hard, right now) Your blithe indifference and smug, wilful ignorance is, frankly, genuinely, upsetting and offensive particularly given your enthusiasm in quoting proven charlatans and frauds to prove whatever f*ckwitted point you're trying to make.
Don't try to kid me that you're a 'decent, caring' person. You don't 'care' any more than people like Johnson, Cummings or bottom-feeders like Paz 'care'. You 'care' when you think your point is 'proved' by flawed science whilst people are suffering, you 'care' when one in several million suffers a couldn't-be-predicted anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, you 'care' when you're vaguely incovenienced by having to wear a mask for 30 minutes Tescos, you 'care' when you haven't had to deliver end of life care via Zoom, you 'care' when you you're happy to blithely ignore long-term incapacity. You' can gan go f*ck yourself, you utter ireemdemable t0sser, I'm done trying to be polite to you, you c*nt.
I have considered how to respond to your flurry of abusive rants and while tempted to hit the abuse button, for that is exactly what it is, one thing I am not is a snitch and I can fight my own battles, trust me I have stood up to far bigger bullies than BlueBadger on TWTD. I am sure you would love me to cower away now and stop posting so that you could slowly get the board more closely resembling the echo chamber you seem to clearly desire. Sorry but that is not going to happen. I will continue to make what I think are reasonable posts such as this one which you are welcome to challenge, although in a respectful way would be nice.
I have great respect for what you do for a living and genuine compassion for what you have been through this year. I too have family members that work for the NHS, one of whom has had covid, so while I may live in a 'less affected area' that does not mean I have not been affected or do not care. None of this however means that I am going to let emotion cloud my judgement when it comes to looking at the evidence and calling it as I see it.. As terrible as covid is I still have a firm belief that Lockdowns cause more long term harm than good in dealing with it. I simply don't believe you can stop a virus by locking people away, it offers temporary respite only and at significant cost.
There are many people who agree with this and plenty of evidence to support it. No amount of sweary rants are going to make this position unreasonable or invalid.
Former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption said recently, and I quote.
"The Government have been shown that lockdowns do not reduce deaths in the longer term but do not want to listen"
and
"Fear has been 'skilfully and deliberately' used by government to ensure compliance"
Is he a C**t and a Charlatan and a fraud as well? Why would a retired Judge have an ulterior motive to make such comments? Speaking of which, out of the respected professionals I have quoted in this thread, which ones are you calling frauds exactly?
Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University? Professor David Livermore of UEA? Professor Tim Spector from Kings College London?
I'm sure they would be very interested to hear your allegations against them.
With regards to your judgements of me as a person, well quite simply you know NOTHING at all about me, my life, what I have been through, what I have done or how I treat other people. So your judgement of me carries no significance whatsover to me. I know exactly who I am as a person right now and I know when I look in the mirror each night whether or not my heart is in the right place. Of course none of us are perfect and I also know I have work to do to be the person I ultimately want to become. We will all be judged one day by a much higher source, I am sure of that.
I'm not entirely sure what your line about the MMR vaccine was about, or indeed how it had any relevance to this thread. Seeing as you brought it up though, here is a piece from back when the media were allowed to report such things, showing a young man who's life was destroyed by serious and permanent brain damage because of a reaction to MMR. I'm sure his family would be delighted at your assertion that reactions amount to nothing more than the 'sh!ts'. While this type of reaction is admittedly very rare, it just goes to prove that it can and does happen.
National lockdown - the case against on 13:14 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
I have considered how to respond to your flurry of abusive rants and while tempted to hit the abuse button, for that is exactly what it is, one thing I am not is a snitch and I can fight my own battles, trust me I have stood up to far bigger bullies than BlueBadger on TWTD. I am sure you would love me to cower away now and stop posting so that you could slowly get the board more closely resembling the echo chamber you seem to clearly desire. Sorry but that is not going to happen. I will continue to make what I think are reasonable posts such as this one which you are welcome to challenge, although in a respectful way would be nice.
I have great respect for what you do for a living and genuine compassion for what you have been through this year. I too have family members that work for the NHS, one of whom has had covid, so while I may live in a 'less affected area' that does not mean I have not been affected or do not care. None of this however means that I am going to let emotion cloud my judgement when it comes to looking at the evidence and calling it as I see it.. As terrible as covid is I still have a firm belief that Lockdowns cause more long term harm than good in dealing with it. I simply don't believe you can stop a virus by locking people away, it offers temporary respite only and at significant cost.
There are many people who agree with this and plenty of evidence to support it. No amount of sweary rants are going to make this position unreasonable or invalid.
Former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption said recently, and I quote.
"The Government have been shown that lockdowns do not reduce deaths in the longer term but do not want to listen"
and
"Fear has been 'skilfully and deliberately' used by government to ensure compliance"
Is he a C**t and a Charlatan and a fraud as well? Why would a retired Judge have an ulterior motive to make such comments? Speaking of which, out of the respected professionals I have quoted in this thread, which ones are you calling frauds exactly?
Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University? Professor David Livermore of UEA? Professor Tim Spector from Kings College London?
I'm sure they would be very interested to hear your allegations against them.
With regards to your judgements of me as a person, well quite simply you know NOTHING at all about me, my life, what I have been through, what I have done or how I treat other people. So your judgement of me carries no significance whatsover to me. I know exactly who I am as a person right now and I know when I look in the mirror each night whether or not my heart is in the right place. Of course none of us are perfect and I also know I have work to do to be the person I ultimately want to become. We will all be judged one day by a much higher source, I am sure of that.
I'm not entirely sure what your line about the MMR vaccine was about, or indeed how it had any relevance to this thread. Seeing as you brought it up though, here is a piece from back when the media were allowed to report such things, showing a young man who's life was destroyed by serious and permanent brain damage because of a reaction to MMR. I'm sure his family would be delighted at your assertion that reactions amount to nothing more than the 'sh!ts'. While this type of reaction is admittedly very rare, it just goes to prove that it can and does happen.
There are always two sides mate, we should all perhaps try to remember that before making judgements.
"As terrible as covid is I still have a firm belief that Lockdowns cause more long term harm than good in dealing with it. I simply don't believe you can stop a virus by locking people away, it offers temporary respite only and at significant cost. "
That for me is the crux of the matter. The negative aspects of the lockdown are huge, both financially and in terms of the social impacts. Anyone arguing differently is poorly informed, clearly.
But "temporary respite" assumes that the virus comes back again, in full. Which I think assumes no vaccine is developed / rolled out.
For me the idea of the lockdown has 2 major benefits. It will buy time so that the vaccines can be developed / rolled out. Second it will ensure the NHS doesn't become overwhelmed by CV patients on top of the normal winter needs.
If there was no prospect of a vaccine, then there would be more in your argument. And even without a vaccine we would still need to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed.
On balance, it seems short sighted to allow the virus free reign when we may be just a matter of weeks from starting to roll out a vaccine.
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]
I'm acutely aware of the implications Covid is having on individuals and the wider world.
I see it every single day, as a business owner I've had to lay people off, had to support people who are struggling with mental health issues. I've friends and clients who work within the care sector that have seen and dealt with the 'actual reality' of Covid that the likes of your and I will likely never see.
Every single country in the world will be affected by this. Every single country will have a 'price' to pay - whether it be through deaths, taxes or both.
Now, I will agree with you that things could have been done differently but you know what - even those that have managed it better than we have - have still seen and continue to see lockdowns of lesser or greater than the UK (Germany and Australia, for example) - they are in the same boat as us.
What makes you think that we could ever get though this without people being affected?
What evidence do you have that alternative approaches would mean a better short, medium or long term outcome?
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
"These outputs should not be interpreted as a forecast of what is most likely to happen, but rather scenarios to inform planning at the time. Reasonable worst case scenarios are considered for planning to ensure that we are able to respond to a range of scenarios."
"They said the reasonable worst-case planning scenario is not a forecast of what is to happen but is used to help plan for COVID-19 during the winter."
He also didn't point out that we are right on the other "worst case" scenario lines and well above the one used for planning.
I agree that I don't know what his motives would be but I think his analysis is pretty flawed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but it seemed disingenuous and agenda driven to me.
SB
[Post edited 4 Nov 2020 21:34]
Afternoon Harry.
So I've now provided evidence that the government planning is based of the grey line which is the "reasonable worst case scenario". Given this confirmation and my comments around the interview posted will you now concede that what he is saying is incorrect? Whatever his motives are is irrelevant - saying "I can't see why he would lie" isn't relevant. What is relevant is that he is wrong and that is what needs to be referenced.
If you cannot point out where in my analysis of his interview I am wrong can you please stop citing him in subsequent posts as you have done today as a reliable individual on the subject? You've not really addressed any of the points I've raised against the interview.
If not then it seems harsh to accuse people on the board of being in an echo chamber when you can't leave your own one when shown the information is suspect.
SB
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 13:38]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
4
National lockdown - the case against on 14:03 - Nov 5 with 2197 views
National lockdown - the case against on 23:03 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
I live and work in a 'less affected area' and frankly I'd hate to work one that's been more affected because the toll it's taken on me and my colleagues has been horrific. This year has been the worst of my professional life and the main things that have seen me through have been my years of experience, the coping strategies I've developed(mainly beer and loud music - and to be honest, they're struggling hard, right now) Your blithe indifference and smug, wilful ignorance is, frankly, genuinely, upsetting and offensive particularly given your enthusiasm in quoting proven charlatans and frauds to prove whatever f*ckwitted point you're trying to make.
Don't try to kid me that you're a 'decent, caring' person. You don't 'care' any more than people like Johnson, Cummings or bottom-feeders like Paz 'care'. You 'care' when you think your point is 'proved' by flawed science whilst people are suffering, you 'care' when one in several million suffers a couldn't-be-predicted anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, you 'care' when you're vaguely incovenienced by having to wear a mask for 30 minutes Tescos, you 'care' when you haven't had to deliver end of life care via Zoom, you 'care' when you you're happy to blithely ignore long-term incapacity. You' can gan go f*ck yourself, you utter ireemdemable t0sser, I'm done trying to be polite to you, you c*nt.
that might be the most extreme character assassination I’ve ever read on here.
I think it may be a little harsh - if there's evidence that Harry's heart isn't in the right place (ie, what's good for society as a whole and in the long run), then I've missed it.
Having said that, I largely agree with your side of this argument (edit: minus the abuse) and certainly appreciate the work you and others do in the health service, so maybe you do get the right to speak so bluntly? i'm not sure...
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 14:10]
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
National lockdown - the case against on 14:03 - Nov 5 by giant_stow
that might be the most extreme character assassination I’ve ever read on here.
I think it may be a little harsh - if there's evidence that Harry's heart isn't in the right place (ie, what's good for society as a whole and in the long run), then I've missed it.
Having said that, I largely agree with your side of this argument (edit: minus the abuse) and certainly appreciate the work you and others do in the health service, so maybe you do get the right to speak so bluntly? i'm not sure...
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 14:10]
I think probably when you've been part of a team that's had to make decisions to switch off life support several times some things can give you the hump.
Especially if you've spent days investing in fighting for that person's life.
National lockdown - the case against on 14:18 - Nov 5 by jeera
I think probably when you've been part of a team that's had to make decisions to switch off life support several times some things can give you the hump.
Especially if you've spent days investing in fighting for that person's life.
Yes, I can only guess at what that must feel like. I don't mean to sound like I’m telling Bagder o9ff (as if it would matter anyway) cos he's a good egg.
I just feel that this debate is being conducted honestly and in good faith - it’s about how to get the most ‘good’ outcome for society.
Badger and his colleagues are heroically holding the line against this horrible virus and I thank them for that. But that that’s separate from what’s the best strategy to cope overall and in totality.
For the little it's worth, I do agree with whoever it was above who said that lockdown buys us vital time to get a vaccine together or even to just get through the winter, but feel harry has the right to question that. Free thinking is important no?
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 14:32]
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
National lockdown - the case against on 14:30 - Nov 5 by giant_stow
Yes, I can only guess at what that must feel like. I don't mean to sound like I’m telling Bagder o9ff (as if it would matter anyway) cos he's a good egg.
I just feel that this debate is being conducted honestly and in good faith - it’s about how to get the most ‘good’ outcome for society.
Badger and his colleagues are heroically holding the line against this horrible virus and I thank them for that. But that that’s separate from what’s the best strategy to cope overall and in totality.
For the little it's worth, I do agree with whoever it was above who said that lockdown buys us vital time to get a vaccine together or even to just get through the winter, but feel harry has the right to question that. Free thinking is important no?
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 14:32]
Free-thinking is important.
But indoctrinated thinking isn't the same thing is it.
National lockdown - the case against on 14:39 - Nov 5 by jeera
Free-thinking is important.
But indoctrinated thinking isn't the same thing is it.
And can become quite offensive after a while.
Well Badger's clearly extremely offended so perhaps Harry ought to think about that (and me too - Badger, the last thing I want is to piss you off, especially after all you've been through). "indoctrinated thinking" is a very subjective term though and the other side could just as easily throw that one back. I'm not sure we'll ever even know the costs of lockdown, but there are definately going to be knocks ons on top of knock ons.
Just as an example of that, I read someone pointing out that it's low waged people, who are fairly often immigrants, who get laid off first in lockdown. They will often be sending remitances back home to their even poorer families. Those funds will now have ceased - God only knows what havoc that's caused.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
National lockdown - the case against on 14:03 - Nov 5 by giant_stow
that might be the most extreme character assassination I’ve ever read on here.
I think it may be a little harsh - if there's evidence that Harry's heart isn't in the right place (ie, what's good for society as a whole and in the long run), then I've missed it.
Having said that, I largely agree with your side of this argument (edit: minus the abuse) and certainly appreciate the work you and others do in the health service, so maybe you do get the right to speak so bluntly? i'm not sure...
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 14:10]
No he doesn't get the right to speak so bluntly, he is in clear breach of the T&Cs of this site and regardless of the very valuable and no doubt stressful job he does I don't think its really acceptable.
Despite that, I would not want to see him banned and will certainly not report it as I do understand emotions run high on topics such as this. Thanks for the support by the way.
1
National lockdown - the case against on 16:16 - Nov 5 with 2060 views
National lockdown - the case against on 16:10 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
No he doesn't get the right to speak so bluntly, he is in clear breach of the T&Cs of this site and regardless of the very valuable and no doubt stressful job he does I don't think its really acceptable.
Despite that, I would not want to see him banned and will certainly not report it as I do understand emotions run high on topics such as this. Thanks for the support by the way.
That reminds me, while we are on the subject of T&Cs, given the current state of the world and the deterioration in the value placed on truth, I feel that the T&Cs here are due an update to include something about not spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
But that's just my take.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 16:20]
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
