Coronavirus - UK
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
There'll always be outliers unfortunately, but the vast majority of those affected / who passed away with Covid were either in the vulnerable demographic and/or had co-morbidities
This is true.
The politicians underestimated how many fell in to that category
Arguably locking down 'fatties' has made the situation worse going forward
The guilting and sacking people had for not having the vaccine - 'kill Granny' - made 'fact' by MSM drowned out any messages coming from Big Pharma and Whitty et al
Absolutely. Which is why I hold the media significantly more accountable than the government. I feel the pandemic 'opened my eyes' to the colossal bullshit that is MSM
Viewer fatigue contributed massively
Indeed.
Shame on Labour too then
Yeah, but that's my point. Government were damned either way. You simply can't govern a pandemic in the UK. It's not possible.
-
End of term report is in
F
Key words
negligent and negligible
To summarise, a negligent UK Government basing their strategies on spurious Neil Ferguson led modelling resulted in a negligible reduction in death during the lockdown phases
I'm very grateful for the internet during this time because a very quick search of Neil Ferguson showed that he'd been shown to be inept on so many previous occasions that I felt very comfortable and safe ignoring practically every 'decree' from the UK Government
How he keeps getting gigs is beyond me
Neil obviously knows where the bodies are buried, although unsurprisingly there are not as many as he first thought
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Most of the justification was based on predictive models that turned out to be hopelessly inaccurate and seemingly never updated with real data to determine the accuracy there-of, or if the responses based off these increasingly inaccurate models were proportionate.
Statistically you simply cannot compare a prediction that says if we do nothing this will be the outcome with a result that is based on a different set of factors.
So, without getting into an argument about who was right or wrong, or by how much with regard to the pandemic, as it is 3 years later and I'm over it, but purely from a logical argument perspective...
It is false reasoning to argue that the experts were wrong in saying "if we do nothing we will have x many deaths" because we had only had y; because we didn't do nothing.
That's not quite my argument.
In order for any statistical model to work there are assumptions you need to feed into it. I know this from working with predictive statistical models as my day job (albeit a long time ago).
You work with assumptions because you don't have real data - these assumptions can by updated as more accurate data is discovered. A few basic ones would be death rate, infection rate, duration of infectious period etc. off the top of my head.
For clarity and transparency you also release your "bad" scenario and also the key factors (more assumptions) that could lead to a significant decrease from that "bad" scenario (vaccination, lockdowns etc.)
So basically it's put forward an "if we do these things we can expect a reduction from this to that".
You can then fairly easily measure your prediction from "this to that".
You can then also update the assumptions in your model with increasingly accurate data as time goes on.
However the above requires honesty and transparency and also an admission that your going to be wrong - your dealing with data and assumptions that are never going to be correct.
So I'm not arguing the method - I'm arguing the transparency of how the information was passed on. We only ever seemed to get the "worst case scenario" given to us with not much else behind it.
For some real life examples we were originally told that covid could survive on surfaces for days and be transmitted (my mate used to leave his delivered groceries out for a 2 days on the kitchen bench before touching them). If the model is built assuming this transmission is possible, when it is not, this will have a significant effect on the the end result. When you write a model assuming masks will have an effect - and they do not, this will have a significant effect on the end result. When you write a model assuming that vaccinations will have a significant net benefit and they do not - this will have a significant effect on the end result.
In short it's more than possible to test the accuracy of your predictive models "after the fact" - was this ever done?
However I'm also cogniscient of the fact that the data may be so politically compromised that we may never know the truth - and that doesn't particularly sit well with me either.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
Covid killed almost 7 million people (so far) and continues to kill - even with the vaccines & measures that people called draconian and unnecessary. I shudder to think what that total might be if people's rights hadn't been temporarily restricted.
People in power had to make rapid decisions to save lives with minimal data and the need to manage public behaviors. They got some things wrong (and many right) and overall have nothing to apologise for.
Well I guess that the people who lost their business, their jobs, watched their grandparents die without being able to visit them, died alone in hospital because people weren't allowed to visit them (and the majority of the people that died were the most vulnerable in our population), couldn't go to funeral's, birthdays, weddings and watched their kids grades and social skills disappear into the toilet, those that got lauded for being "hero's" during the outbreak of covid and then ostracized and forced form their jobs over vaccine mandates might disagree with you.
-
I'm not sure what you are saying.
Are you saying governments should have carried on as normal with no restrictions, let the virus rip and to heck with the consequences like collapsed health systems and all the normal health care that goes with them (check the early COVID impact in Italy) and mass graves and cremations?
Or are you saying governments should have rapidly (and repeatedly) changed advice, rules and approach on social interaction, vaccine impact and transmissibility as we learned more about the virus?
Because it's fair to argue the first approach would have caused panic and poss. societal breakdown in Western countries and the second the possibility of a confused public and a loss of confidence in the science and data.
I would recommend Kate Bingham's book - The Long Shot - which sets out how the vaccinnes were developed. The sort of real-word data like infectiousness and how it was transmitted just wasn't known or was changing constantly and health systems had no way of getting it in the timescales authorities were working with when making decisions.
-
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.
The responses should have been based off a risk profile - which would have been very easily calculated or known early on.
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.
Covid is still alive and well across the entire world and the only thing to stop it is a hopelessly inefficient vaccine and the mass graves and collapsing healthcare systems have yet to appear.
You could say the measures bought time - time we spent in NZ doing absolutely (&$^# nothing to increase our healthcare facilities and while our healthcare system is creaking it hasn't fallen apart and I've yet to see plague carts trawling the streets loading the bodies onto it.
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.
I'm picking in time this will be proven to be true - in which case the public confidence in science and data will be even more in the toilet than what it is now.
-
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
I'm picking in time this will be proven to be true - in which case the public confidence in science and data will be even more in the toilet than what it is now.
Would this be a bad outcome?
I
-
If you are unfortunate enough to know someone who watches youtube videos from retired nurse and grifter, "Dr. John Campbell", then you may want to watch this video from an actual scientist from a reputable institution (UNSW Nanomedicine), which points out many of the straight forward fallacies and omissions over excess deaths that are typical of his bullshit.
-
@Tim The problem,Tim, is that it is hard to find the truth these days as it sure is not coming from government, MSM or the CDC. Those morons are still advocating vaccines for kids, at least in the US. She was a hard listen though and her comfort dog seemed to be hiding his/her face. She came across as a bit of an arrogant bitch, much like the government officials who were so cock sure that they were doing no harm by their covid restrictions. I think my main question is did you support the policies implemented. If so, I don't listen to you.
-
@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?