Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 680 comments are related to the topic:
Have Sweden flattened the curve without trashing the economy?
Have Sweden flattened the curve without trashing the economy?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 680
|
By:
That assumes the NHS would have been over run if we had not had the style of lockdown we chose.
I've seen nothing from yourself or any experts that show otherwise Insider Trader? What are you basing the NHS NOT being overrun according to the data and exponential increases in cases leading up to lockdown and then into lockdown before gradually easing? |
|
By:
It's no good pointing at Sweden or comparing us with other countries that didn't let the situation get so far out of control.
The stage we were at going into lockdown is something that's impossible IMO on logic to refute. But I'm always open to a credible alternative if you have one. |
|
By:
No country on the planet would have locked down if their health service wasn't going to be overwhelmed. It's an inevitable symptom of the disease that is incompetent inaction months ago. You are complaining about the symptom when you should be complaining about the disease. I'm now done explaining this to you.
You are talking about increasing the spread now when it would only make matters worse and result in a longer lockdown within a month. |
|
By:
Sweden didn't go into lockdown and it's health service is not overwhelmed.
|
|
By:
Not what I said.
|
|
By:
Some countries chose to lock down immediately, so I'll qualify that to countries in Europe or countries who didn't clamp down immediately on it.
|
|
By:
And the virus is still killing the same groups that it is killing everywhere in the world . No different in any country , lockdown or not.
|
|
By:
My comment doesn't apply to Sweden because they haven't locked down
|
|
By:
NHS is not overwelved without even using the nightingale hospitals. No where near.
We now have so much spare capacity it seems extremely unlikely. Some suggest Italy was overwhemled in places like Lombardy but not the UK. |
|
By:
'Flattening the curve' is only required if your health service is going to be overrun. Otherwise it just extends the time it takes to build up herd immunity.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
21% of New York people tested at 'stores' had anti-bodies.
These are people fit and well enough right now to go out and go shopping. That means alot of people there have had the virus even with lockdown. |
|
By:
we have spare capacity because we are not doing routine surgery
cant have it all ways |
|
By:
Even without that YHTL. Red zones are not at capacity and Nightingales thankfully barely used.
|
|
By:
It's comning down to one simple point.
Would the exponential rise in cases in the UK have continued without drastic action? The models said yes, the govt listened and took action. With no action would this virus have stopped before a death toll many fold what we have seen so far? Why would it have stopped spreading? |
|
By:
had we not had 10 years trashing the health service we would not have required shutting down routine surgery
had we locked down sooner we would not have to cancel routine surgery tory policy coming home to bite all them lives lost by austerity too ...a tory choice |
|
By:
So, let's get this straight IT. You didn't have any Nightingale hospitals when you locked down. The decision to lockdown was made based on advice that didn't involve your hospitals being overwhelmed. Then you went all over the country frantically building Nightingales in 10 days. Is that what you think?
|
|
By:
Why did they lock down then? Why did you build Nightingales frantically for no good reason then?
|
|
By:
nightingale was built to house the victims of clown boris and cummings shaking hands photo op
|
|
By:
I am not saying you do not need them ever.
But remember Imperial did not even put in the model you could build them. Imperial also had the death rate at an absurd 0.9%. |
|
By:
had to drop test and contact because it would have looked bad for clown boris to have
filled entire wards by his stupidity. |
|
By:
The government took action when they wanted to . They never took any notice previously when forewarned of a pandemic . Now they are listening to same "experts" and treating their findings as gospel .
|
|
By:
Would any scientific model that said ease restrictions completely now not show cases starting to increase again?
Certainly not the ones that have been used. As I have always said I know nothing about diseases as I assume do 99% on here but I know numbers and I'm quite sure that these guys doing modelling on it are correct. The data was pretty straight forward pre lockdown how it was trending exponentially so unless you come up with a goof reason why it would stop then you are just talking pie in the sky. The argument why there are still cases is pretty obvious and has been explained. The science predicted a flattening of the curve to halt the steep rise and it has gone this way, I see no reason to doubt the science as it has been presented. |
|
By:
stridingedge
24 Apr 20 18:43 Joined: 14 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 56,331 | Blogger: stridingedge's blog It's comning down to one simple point. Would the exponential rise in cases in the UK have continued without drastic action? The models said yes, the govt listened and took action. With no action would this virus have stopped before a death toll many fold what we have seen so far? Why would it have stopped spreading? ^ What country in the world (lockdown or no lockdown) has had an exponential growth rate that just keeps going? They cannot because as more people get infected the transmission rate drops. Basic social distancing is enough to slow it down. |
|
By:
Of course it wouldn't keep growing like that indefinitely but it had plenty of fuel to burn to wreck the NHS and kill multiple more people.
If you were happy with that then fair play. |
|
By:
Hardly anyone infected at the time with such exponential growth.
You are mentioning social distancing now, this was progged into the models and obviously wasn't enough on it's own. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
They had several policy strategies and the only one modelled to help the NHS stay afloat was the lockdown taken.
|
|
By:
Having an NHS that had to turn all patients away covid and non covid within a few weeks with not enough ventilators, PPE the rest of it.
Not a pretty sight in any modelling I would presume. |
|
By:
You are talking about people who would have survived with treatment not being able to get into hospital.
I would imagine the modelling would attempt to incorporate this scenario in a failing system. |
|
By:
hospitals refusing admission to care home residents also kept the beds free
4,000, 5000 or more left to die  |
|
By:
If the modelling was way overestimated you'd be well out of a lockdown by now, esp with more capacity. It wasn't and the Nightingales obviously aren't capable of operating at anywhere near capacity.
|
|
By:
I can understand lockdown with an indiscriminate virus that attacked and KILLED everyone . It is not the case with covid 19 . It
kills a selective part of the population . Does anyone care if they caught a virus that made them feel under the weather for a few days . Would you settle having your civil liberties taken away and thrown into poverty for that reason ? |
|
By:
Another thread full of garbage, no not everyone
 Let's get one thing clear THE TORIES CHOSE NOTHING |
|
By:
Not having a functioning NHS would affect more than just the unfortunate who die from it or those extra that could have been saved with treatment like a high percentage are but end up dying because they cannot get treatment.
Think of all the other emergencies that can't be treated, not that aren't being treated now but won't go to hospital but those that want treatment and can't get it. It doesn't bare thinking about. It's completely rational to think the death rate would be significantly higher as a % of cases as it has been and also many fold would die from it but at least it would all be over quicker! |
|
By:
Now where's my transport slide ?......
|
|
By:
stridingedge
24 Apr 20 19:11 Joined: 14 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 56,338 | Blogger: stridingedge's blog Not having a functioning NHS would affect more than just the unfortunate who die from it or those extra that could have been saved with treatment like a high percentage are but end up dying because they cannot get treatment. Think of all the other emergencies that can't be treated, not that aren't being treated now but won't go to hospital but those that want treatment and can't get it. ^ Thats another story. The scaremongering that lockdown has caused means 2700 cancer diagnosis a week is not being done. People are not going in for heart attacks, strokes etc. A&E visits are 40%-60% down as people scared to go and would rather take their chances at home. |
|
By:
You'd still have all what you have seen and more if the NHS was over run.
|
|
By:
What are the numbers for domestic violence Darren? What is the increase? Where are you getting that info?
just google domestic abuse rise uk there are plenty of links which shows an increase, the charity refuge said there was a 25%v increase, hear on Sky today 10% rise in London This is just REPORTED cases. Why pick at this, it's obvious given the fact there is a lockdown there is going to be an increase. just one of many things that is a negative side effect of this. |
|
By:
Child abuse also up. These things effect people for the rest of their lives.
|