-
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
What I'm saying is that if we are to make very wide ranging decisions on behalf of the public based off data and science then the data and the science should be right
You are, say, the UK government, you have a new virus, you do not yet have accurate data on transmissibility but infections are growing exponentially - doubling every 5-7 days, initial data shows a high mortality rate among the over-60's and initial modelling shows between 30k & 500k deaths within 3-6 months and early action critical.
You are hardly likely to say "hang on, lets wait a few weeks to get more data so we can protect ourselves from hindsight criticism" - you have to make decisions with only the data available at the time.
Lets face it - COVID never really took off in Africa as there's an absence of old, fat people there...
Sweden didn't do the lockdowns and in the long run appears to have fared better and the medical system didn't collapse.
African nations actually took quicker and more drastic action than the West - some like Lesotho went into lockdown before a single case was reported. Climate, demographics, population density & grouping of elderly, at risk people had a huge impact.
The inquiry Sweden commissioned post-Covid found that "more extensive measures should have been taken against the virus, especially during the first wave of the pandemic."
Maybe, just maybe very little was achieved at all by the measures put in place and in effect it created net harm to the population.
It's pretty clear the measures saved many, many lives, esp. in Africa, from Covid. I agree the overall impact won't be known for years but governments had to make rapid decisions and didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
You are, say, the UK government, you have a new virus, you do not yet have accurate data on transmissibility but infections are growing exponentially - doubling every 5-7 days, initial data shows a high mortality rate among the over-60's and initial modelling shows between 30k & 500k deaths within 3-6 months and early action critical.
You are hardly likely to say "hang on, lets wait a few weeks to get more data so we can protect ourselves from hindsight criticism" - you have to make decisions with only the data available at the time.
Which can be used as justification for the first lockdown, which I supported. Can this logic then be used to justify the years of lockdown's afterwards and the vaccine mandates by which time we had gotten much more accurate data on morality and transmission rates?
Lockdowns and mandates that got increasingly draconian over time despite the fact they knowingly had more accurate data showing decreased mortality and decreased transmission rates than the original models used for their predictions. It makes no sense that your original predictions knowingly based off less accurate data then cause you countermeasures to get increasingly draconian in application. The inverse should apply.
The inquiry Sweden commissioned post-Covid found that "more extensive measures should have been taken against the virus, especially during the first wave of the pandemic."
That's because they didn't go out of their way to protect at-risk people - namely the elderly, then again no-one else did either. But at least the elderly in Sweden could have their friends and family visit them in hospital and attend their funerals instead of dying alone and getting buried alone like the rest of the "civilized" world.
It's pretty clear the measures saved many, many lives, esp. in Africa, from Covid. I agree the overall impact won't be known for years but governments had to make rapid decisions and didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
I'm sure the measures saved lives, I can't help but think we hurt (and in some cases killed) Paul to save Peter, then Peter died of covid anyway just at a later date. Your net benefit is worse than zero in that situation.
-
I'm sure the measures saved lives, I can't help but think we hurt (and in some cases killed) Paul to save Peter, then Peter died of covid anyway just at a later date. Your net benefit is worse than zero in that situation.
We may well have done - we still don't know. But governments have to make decisions on what's in front of them at the time and as a species we put preservation of life above all else.
-
Could not have said it better
Inquiry?
Should be on fucking trial the cun*
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
I'm sure the measures saved lives, I can't help but think we hurt (and in some cases killed) Paul to save Peter, then Peter died of covid anyway just at a later date. Your net benefit is worse than zero in that situation.
We may well have done - we still don't know. But governments have to make decisions on what's in front of them at the time and as a species we put preservation of life above all else.
Preservation of life above all else. Are you sure. As we move closer and closer to WW3. Are always fighting wars. Have long waiting lists. And abortions. etc
Govts took away our freedoms and the majority applauded. It was sad to see I couldn't even travel a short distance within the covid rules to see my dentist. Govts now know we are so compliant.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
I'm sure the measures saved lives, I can't help but think we hurt (and in some cases killed) Paul to save Peter, then Peter died of covid anyway just at a later date. Your net benefit is worse than zero in that situation.
We may well have done - we still don't know. But governments have to make decisions on what's in front of them at the time and as a species we put preservation of life above all else.
Preservation of life above all else. Are you sure. As we move closer and closer to WW3. Are always fighting wars. Have long waiting lists. And abortions. etc
Govts took away our freedoms and the majority applauded. It was sad to see I couldn't even travel a short distance within the covid rules to see my dentist. Govts now know we are so compliant.
I was also concerned about how eager people were to dob in others for allegedly breaching Covid restriction rules. And then wanting to see these people punished as much as possible.
-
The UK will have a very difficult time enforcing lockdowns in the future
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
The UK will have a very difficult time enforcing lockdowns in the future
They will have trouble enforcing them in the near future over here too. Not only will people not want to comply, but it will be harder to convince those tasked to enforce to enforce.
But people forget in time.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
The UK will have a very difficult time enforcing lockdowns in the future
They will have trouble enforcing them in the near future over here too. Not only will people not want to comply, but it will be harder to convince those tasked to enforce to enforce.
But people forget in time.
They’re going to have to put some serious shit in our water for us to forget
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
Govts took away our freedoms and the majority applauded. It was sad to see I couldn't even travel a short distance within the covid rules to see my dentist. Govts now know we are so compliant.
Governments were presented with a new, virulent, rapidly-spreading disease that overwhelmed health systems, had a high lethality rate and any vaccines were going to take months if not years to develop.
Putting aside you benefit of hindsight, what did you expect or want them to do in those circumstances? Sit back and count the bodies until they had more data so people could still go to the dentist?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
Govts took away our freedoms and the majority applauded. It was sad to see I couldn't even travel a short distance within the covid rules to see my dentist. Govts now know we are so compliant.
Governments were presented with a new, virulent, rapidly-spreading disease that overwhelmed health systems, had a high lethality rate and any vaccines were going to take months if not years to develop.
Putting aside you benefit of hindsight, what did you expect or want them to do in those circumstances? Sit back and count the bodies until they had more data so people could still go to the dentist?
Act on the 'science' they had which showed that healthy people had nothing to worry about and shouldn't be locked down
-
@MiketheSnow I’ve upvoted because I agree but you must know this is impossible.
One rule for healthy, one rule for unhealthy …. The mind boggles.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow I’ve upvoted because I agree but you must know this is impossible.
One rule for healthy, one rule for unhealthy …. The mind boggles.
That's THE dilemma, there, in a nutshell. Completely un-enforceable.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow I’ve upvoted because I agree but you must know this is impossible.
One rule for healthy, one rule for unhealthy …. The mind boggles.
Don't agee. They could have RECOMMENDED policies for the act risk groups. Like wearing (almost useless) masks for example. Or extra care and money for groups in say nursing homes. Or those who have a compromised immune system. Most of this group would have followed the recomendations
Also focus on the sick not healthy. Have rules about those with a fever or cough etc who must stay at home. It use to piss me of in the UK with the number of people at work or travelling on the train or bus who were sick. In some cases they looked or were really sick Maybe make this illegal. And maybe steps to help them stay at home. If laws were to be introduced focus on this group
But otherwise let healthy people in the not at risk groups go about their normal business.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow I’ve upvoted because I agree but you must know this is impossible.
One rule for healthy, one rule for unhealthy …. The mind boggles.
That's THE dilemma, there, in a nutshell. Completely un-enforceable.
Didn't they do this with positive covid tests.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow I’ve upvoted because I agree but you must know this is impossible.
One rule for healthy, one rule for unhealthy …. The mind boggles.
That's THE dilemma, there, in a nutshell. Completely un-enforceable.
Didn't they do this with positive covid tests.
you mean instances where someone has had an actual test and has been identified as positive and has had specific, personal instructions rather than someone who may be old, obese to x degree, have asthma to x degree, a weakened immune system to x degree etc which are not necessarily identified on a central register that is fit for purpose and the people not having received specific, personalised instructions?
If it was at all possible I'd be in agreement with you, but it wasn't possible and still isn't.
-
Very small sample size I know, but the only people I actually knew who died from/with Covid were in the clearly identified and obvious 'at risk' categories - old; fat as fuck; already taking so many tablets for existing ailments that they rattled
The Government knew that masks were next to useless
The Government knew that the vaccine did not stop transmission
The Government knew the 'at risk' groupsIf a person in the 'at risk' group chose to go about normal life then that's their choice
If that same person chose to minimise contact with other people by shielding and creating their own bubble then that's their choiceJust let the others get on with their lives
That is what should have happened from the start and most certainly after the first round of lockdowns
You don't have to enforce anything then
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
Act on the 'science' they had which showed that healthy people had nothing to worry about and shouldn't be locked down.
But define "Healthy Person" and "Non-Healthy Person" and how the government should have managed that criteria: notification, checking, policIing, appeals etc and set up all the processes. In two weeks.
If a person in the 'at risk' group chose to go about normal life then that's their choice
Is it though? What about the impact their catching Covid would have on the heath system and other ill people?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
Act on the 'science' they had which showed that healthy people had nothing to worry about and shouldn't be locked down.
But define "Healthy Person" and "Non-Healthy Person" and how the government should have managed that criteria: notification, checking, policing, appeals etc and set up all the processes. In two weeks.
Fair enough, that's common sense and hindsight talking
But during and after the 12-weeks of the first lockdown things could have gone back to relative normal for the vast majority of the population
Unfortunately they scared the shit out of far too many healthy people about their own welfare and then really did a number of guilting them to 'obey or you'll kill granny'
Coronavirus - UK