| Heading into lockdown aren't we 17:11 - Oct 6 with 8401 views | chrismakin |
Very quiet from the government on things, but behind the scenes they all know Covid is out of control again around the UK.
I See it being a Jan lockdown
Why? the company i work for, government contract have cancelled all January recruitment events. |  |
| |  |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:51 - Oct 6 with 1475 views | StokieBlue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:19 - Oct 6 by GlasgowBlue |
I agree. I said this months ago when people were posting covid denial on here. TBF Phil did crack down hard on them.
But then there is also a lot of unfounded scaremongering in the other direction.
I recall when there were predictions that we would reach 100,000 cases a day by the end of August, people were saying it would be far higher and happen far sooner. It didn't happen. No retractions or acknowledgement.
The debate needs to be informed and balanced. |
I'm going to have to pull you up on this one GB.
What you've outlined in your post is an "argument to moderation" fallacy in that you've tried to establish a middle ground between the two sides which in reality doesn't exist.
The specific case you've highlighted was based on published modelling from a number of different modelling groups and was a plausible case at the time. There was a huge range of uncertainty but basing ones behaviour on the worst-case scenario in times like these is the appropriate thing to do. It's not right to expect retractions of posts because the modelling by it's very nature is based on assumptions which may be unquantifiable and by it's very nature non-deterministic. Thankfully the vaccine has proven to be more effective than expected at limiting the spread but we have still been at 30000 a day for at least a month now and 100-150 deaths a day (equating to 50000+ a year even with the vaccines). Let's hope that trends downwards when everyone is inside in winter.
Conversely, mask wearing is fundamentally deterministic and isn't modelling based. If you wear a mask then you will be less likely to pass on C19 and less likely to contribute to the spread. There is no debate about that, it's an entirely falsifiable conclusion.
Given the above, the "but both sides" argument isn't one that myself and I suspect many can subscribe to when it comes to important issues like C19.
SB |  | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:55 - Oct 6 with 1468 views | Trequartista |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 18:24 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
They don't work, as the studies show, so it won't be happening again. |
Can we not just hear this person out instead of all jumping to condemn? They've produced some evidence, and are arguing politely at this point, lets investigate the source and see where it leads us. If it is proven to be nonsense and they are unwilling to accept it, then that's the time to censor. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:56 - Oct 6 with 1451 views | GlasgowBlue |
This isn't a pop at you but that looks very much like a home made conspiracy type site with conformation bias language at the forefront.
There is a debate to be had regarding how lockdowns save lives and curtail infections VS the damage to the economy, mental health and education. But presenting in=t in the language I've read in your link isn't that. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:58 - Oct 6 with 1431 views | Digger77 |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:40 - Oct 6 by StokieBlue |
Your source is a non-peer reviewed newspaper which propagated the Obama passport theory, second hand smoke deniers, ozone depletion deniers and climate change deniers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
I go back to my original point.
Don't post about things you don't know about or understand when they are potentially damaging to other people.
SB |
"Don't post about things you don't know about or understand when they are potentially damaging to other people."
Sorry, but that's a bit rich. I believe you thought we should stay in lockdown longer as we were about to see a massive spike in deaths? Boris was a murderer etc. That's damaging. |  | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:02 - Oct 6 with 1405 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:51 - Oct 6 by StokieBlue |
I'm going to have to pull you up on this one GB.
What you've outlined in your post is an "argument to moderation" fallacy in that you've tried to establish a middle ground between the two sides which in reality doesn't exist.
The specific case you've highlighted was based on published modelling from a number of different modelling groups and was a plausible case at the time. There was a huge range of uncertainty but basing ones behaviour on the worst-case scenario in times like these is the appropriate thing to do. It's not right to expect retractions of posts because the modelling by it's very nature is based on assumptions which may be unquantifiable and by it's very nature non-deterministic. Thankfully the vaccine has proven to be more effective than expected at limiting the spread but we have still been at 30000 a day for at least a month now and 100-150 deaths a day (equating to 50000+ a year even with the vaccines). Let's hope that trends downwards when everyone is inside in winter.
Conversely, mask wearing is fundamentally deterministic and isn't modelling based. If you wear a mask then you will be less likely to pass on C19 and less likely to contribute to the spread. There is no debate about that, it's an entirely falsifiable conclusion.
Given the above, the "but both sides" argument isn't one that myself and I suspect many can subscribe to when it comes to important issues like C19.
SB |
Good to have you back Stokie.
I'm not trying to establish a middle ground. Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics are way over the other side of the divide. But there are also people on the right side of the debate who relish any bad news and only ever link worst case scenarios. | |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:02 - Oct 6 with 1398 views | Digger77 |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:56 - Oct 6 by GlasgowBlue |
This isn't a pop at you but that looks very much like a home made conspiracy type site with conformation bias language at the forefront.
There is a debate to be had regarding how lockdowns save lives and curtail infections VS the damage to the economy, mental health and education. But presenting in=t in the language I've read in your link isn't that. |
It was tweeted by Maadjid Nawaz on LBC. I'm not getting this from some random rabbit hole conspiracy platform. This was being discussed on national radio. | | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:07 - Oct 6 with 1375 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:02 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
It was tweeted by Maadjid Nawaz on LBC. I'm not getting this from some random rabbit hole conspiracy platform. This was being discussed on national radio. |
I used to have a lot of time for Maadjid, but he went off piste many months ago.
I think the language used in the link comes from a position of 'already made their mind up 'and want a study to reinforce their position.
As I say, lockdowns curtail the spread but too many lockdowns and long lockdowns have very negative consequences for society.
There is a debate to be had. However, lockdowns were the only tool we had to stem the rise of infections. But with the vaccine I don't believe they are anymore. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:08 - Oct 6 with 1376 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:43 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
Other studies are available! And Sweden. [Post edited 6 Oct 2021 20:46]
|
You have not even linked the "study".
You have linked an opinion piece from a sensationalist newspaper that says no one has reported on this study they are referring to. A study from "a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research".
If you do not understand science, probably best not to try to comment on it. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:10 - Oct 6 with 1376 views | BlueBlueBluex2 |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:55 - Oct 6 by Trequartista |
Can we not just hear this person out instead of all jumping to condemn? They've produced some evidence, and are arguing politely at this point, lets investigate the source and see where it leads us. If it is proven to be nonsense and they are unwilling to accept it, then that's the time to censor. |
Traditionally TWTD has been somewhere where polite posters, wrong or not, are abused and shouted down.
You just need to ignore it and read another post. | | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:14 - Oct 6 with 1350 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Taking the BMJ study the findings are "in the absence of an effective vaccine for covid-19, school closures would result in more overall deaths than no school closures".
So, in other words, if there had not been an effective vaccine the effect of school closures (not lockdown), would have been to prolong the pandemic and increase long term deaths.
However, there are effective vaccines so the study does not show what "The Fat Emperor" is claiming it does. | |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:21 - Oct 6 with 1318 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:14 - Oct 6 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Taking the BMJ study the findings are "in the absence of an effective vaccine for covid-19, school closures would result in more overall deaths than no school closures".
So, in other words, if there had not been an effective vaccine the effect of school closures (not lockdown), would have been to prolong the pandemic and increase long term deaths.
However, there are effective vaccines so the study does not show what "The Fat Emperor" is claiming it does. |
Do we know if the fat emperor has any clothes? |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:22 - Oct 6 with 1314 views | itfc_bucks |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 18:54 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
I'll try and dig out the study.
#bekind |
you don't get to post absolute twaddle, get called out for it and then hide behind "#bekind". | | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:46 - Oct 6 with 1262 views | Illinoisblue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:55 - Oct 6 by Trequartista |
Can we not just hear this person out instead of all jumping to condemn? They've produced some evidence, and are arguing politely at this point, lets investigate the source and see where it leads us. If it is proven to be nonsense and they are unwilling to accept it, then that's the time to censor. |
They haven’t produced evidence; the link is from an organization as biased and blinkered as Fox News. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 22:01 - Oct 6 with 1241 views | Trequartista |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:46 - Oct 6 by Illinoisblue |
They haven’t produced evidence; the link is from an organization as biased and blinkered as Fox News. |
It doesn't matter if the link is from The Washington Post, The Guardian or The Beano, it is the study that is referenced that is relevant. Who did the study? What are their motives or vested interests? How wide were the parameters used? They are type of questions to be examined, and as I said if they don't stand up to scrutiny, the source can be dismissed. | |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 22:07 - Oct 6 with 1216 views | Digger77 |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 21:07 - Oct 6 by GlasgowBlue |
I used to have a lot of time for Maadjid, but he went off piste many months ago.
I think the language used in the link comes from a position of 'already made their mind up 'and want a study to reinforce their position.
As I say, lockdowns curtail the spread but too many lockdowns and long lockdowns have very negative consequences for society.
There is a debate to be had. However, lockdowns were the only tool we had to stem the rise of infections. But with the vaccine I don't believe they are anymore. |
Perhaps it does contain some ball-hang studies, I really haven't read all of them myself. As you say, there is a debate to be had, hopefully without all the "tw@t" comments! People just can't tolerate different opinions on here it seems.
This was discussed on his Sunday show (couple of weeks ago so probably on catch up) and OFCOM would have stepped in if he was peddling anti vax conspiracy theories etc. This was on national radio. Some of what he says I disagree with completely too. [Post edited 6 Oct 2021 22:14]
| | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 22:11 - Oct 6 with 1193 views | HARRY10 |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 17:32 - Oct 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I don't think they'd be able to do it now given the speed at which a lot of people have abandoned any sense of caution. Not to blame the people particularly, as the whole way coming out of lockdown was communicated was a farce. I'd be very surprised if they could put that genie back in the bottle even if they wanted to (which they don't).
Besides, I don't think they care how sick people get and the vaccines are doing a good job at keeping the death rate down to an apparently acceptable 100+ a day. |
To put it bluntly, the death rate is not the problem.
Let the bodies pile high as Johnson said
If someone enters hospital then dies a few days later, it is tragic but has a minimal usage of resources. It is those who are in intensive care for weeks that are a huge drain on resources. With what is known as 'winter pressure' hospitals are always overstretched dealing with elderly flu cases.
Start to see n increase, as before, with Civid cases needing treatment and the consequent damage that causes then there will have to be action taken to slow down the rate of admissions.
At the moment, it can only be guesswork (a bit like the absurd R numbers) as to what happens. Perhaps the mass vaccination will have some affect on flu cases. Maybe those susceptible have all ready succumbed.
As a degree of probability I would venture that we will most likely avoid another lockdown. And as a policy, anyone turning up needing hospital treatment for Covid who have not been vaccinated should be told to fck off. Perhaps place them in some kind of leper colony on a remote Scottish Island.
please accept my apologies for my comments, on a possible increase in Covid patients etc, made without my using the word spike | | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 23:36 - Oct 6 with 1093 views | factual_blue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:58 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
"Don't post about things you don't know about or understand when they are potentially damaging to other people."
Sorry, but that's a bit rich. I believe you thought we should stay in lockdown longer as we were about to see a massive spike in deaths? Boris was a murderer etc. That's damaging. |
What are your qualifications in statistics and epidemiology that enable you to gainsay the overwhelming weight of analysis from people highly qualified in statistics and epidemiology? |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 00:07 - Oct 7 with 1025 views | KingsCrossBlue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 17:32 - Oct 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I don't think they'd be able to do it now given the speed at which a lot of people have abandoned any sense of caution. Not to blame the people particularly, as the whole way coming out of lockdown was communicated was a farce. I'd be very surprised if they could put that genie back in the bottle even if they wanted to (which they don't).
Besides, I don't think they care how sick people get and the vaccines are doing a good job at keeping the death rate down to an apparently acceptable 100+ a day. |
The most equally depressing and eloquent summing up. | | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 08:25 - Oct 7 with 896 views | gordon |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 20:19 - Oct 6 by GlasgowBlue |
I agree. I said this months ago when people were posting covid denial on here. TBF Phil did crack down hard on them.
But then there is also a lot of unfounded scaremongering in the other direction.
I recall when there were predictions that we would reach 100,000 cases a day by the end of August, people were saying it would be far higher and happen far sooner. It didn't happen. No retractions or acknowledgement.
The debate needs to be informed and balanced. |
Would starting a thread titled - "New lockdown looming for Scotland" at the end of August count as unfounded scaremongering? |  | | |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 08:37 - Oct 7 with 881 views | bluelagos |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 22:07 - Oct 6 by Digger77 |
Perhaps it does contain some ball-hang studies, I really haven't read all of them myself. As you say, there is a debate to be had, hopefully without all the "tw@t" comments! People just can't tolerate different opinions on here it seems.
This was discussed on his Sunday show (couple of weeks ago so probably on catch up) and OFCOM would have stepped in if he was peddling anti vax conspiracy theories etc. This was on national radio. Some of what he says I disagree with completely too. [Post edited 6 Oct 2021 22:14]
|
I think (and correct me if wrong) you stated 'lockdowns dont work' when you meant 'the impact of lockdowns isnt justified'.
They are two very different positions. The fact is that virus spreads through contact. Lockdowns limit that contact and thus reduce the spread. To state 'Lockdowns dont work' is utter bobbins and Stokie and others will natually pull you up if/when you post something like that.
Arguing that the downsides of lockdown outweigh the benefits (and thus we shouldnt lockdown) is a completely different position and of course worthy of debate. But that wasnt what you stated.
Stokie, good to see you back. Luckily the conspiracy nonsense isnt welcome on here and in no small part to your challenging it. Twtd is a better place without it imho. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 09:12 - Oct 7 with 837 views | DanTheMan |
Lets look through a few of these shall we, and see if they prove that lockdowns "don't work".
First one is titled "Modeling social distancing strategies to prevent SARS-CoV2 spread in Israel- A Cost-effectiveness analysis".
This was printed Sept. 2020, pre-delta variant. In it's conclusion it talks about using two different strategies, one being the national lockdown and the other being a 14 day isolation period if you catch it, after which you maintain social distancing.
In short, the conclusion states that a national lockdown will saves lives but cost more money. My concern with this paper is that for it to be correct, you would need to be aware that you are carrying the disease before the isolation period starts. It does also talk in the conclusion that for it to work you would need a lot of PCR tests available for "subjects at high exposure risk" although I'm not sure that that entails.
So, does this support a lockdown "not working?" Well, no, it says it costs more and that the costs might not outweigh the benefits, which are human lives.
---
Moving onto the second paper, we have another cost benefit analysis (not an effectiveness analysis) looking at England in particular. Another key thing to note is that this was written in June 2020, which similarly is pre-Delta variant which is much easier to spread and is more dangerous.
To save on time, I'm basically going to summarise this as another "how much is a life worth compared to lockdown", similar to the previous paper. If you can put a price on lives, then that's a valid view I guess.
---
The next isn't even a paper, it's two opinions of people, one for and one against lockdowns. One of them is a John P A Ioannidis, who we will get back to shortly.
This small debate is, once again, written very early on in the pandemic, June 2020, before the major more harmful variants appeared.
Let's take a quick look at the no proponent shall we:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis
Hmmm... yes this seems like a reasonable chap.
He predicted 10,000 deaths in the whole of the U.S.
There was a quarter of that yesterday.
And that's not even the peak of the U.S. deaths.
---
Moving on to the next study we have one titled Negative impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health service access and follow-up adherence for immigrants and individuals in socio-economic difficulties
Once again, this is not looking at the effectiveness of lockdowns, but looking at the negative consequences of them which I'm sure no reasonable person will acknowledge there are, especially for mental health.
---
I'd go on if you'd like but I have work to do today. Maybe someone else can fill in. |  |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 09:38 - Oct 7 with 795 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 08:25 - Oct 7 by gordon |
Would starting a thread titled - "New lockdown looming for Scotland" at the end of August count as unfounded scaremongering? |
No. Because that thread was based on confirmed reports 9n the Times and other media outlets that Nicola Sturgeon's advisors were proposing a 'circuit-breaker lockdown' based on cases doubling week on week for three consecutive weeks in Scotland.
Although I'm glad you brought that thread up because you made a statement that the sudden rise in cases was, and I quote, "attributable to schools returning, not sure how/why it could be attributed to anything else"
This despite stats being linked showing that cases were doubling before the schools went back and that cases among school aged children were no different three weeks after returning to school than they were in the week preceding their return. You then asserted that cases in England would follow a similar trajectory when the kids returned to school and that we should re visit this at that time.
Two weeks after the schools returned in England there was only a very small increase in numbers of cases and then cases dropped to a lower level than before for something like three consecutive weeks.
I did revisit this thread at your request but for some strange reason you didn't reply . You must have missed the post at the time as I'm sure you wouldn't want me to to have thought you'd gone missing because your argument was proven to be incorrect.
New lockdown looming for Scotland by GlasgowBlue 10 Sep 2021 17:06So two weeks after the schools opened in England there was a small increase in cases but now for the second day running they are reporting fewer cases than the same day in the previous weeks.
in Scotland cases doubled the weeks the schools re opened. I posted data showing that the majority of cases were from the 18-24 group.
Do you now agree that it was foolish to hold back on relaxing restrictions during the summer months and ill judged to relax them at the same time as the kids went back and the weather cooled?
https://twitter.com/ukcovid19stats/status/1436005990613270528?s=21
| |
| |
| Heading into lockdown aren't we on 09:41 - Oct 7 with 791 views | blueconscience |
I wont be locking down again. I don't have the luxury of furlough or a pension (too young)
I have lost enough money due to the previous lockdowns. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
