Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 May 20
10:03
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Sep 11
PETER HITCHENS: Has our mad mass house arrest during Covid-19 saved even a single life?
This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column
We will not escape from this misery until the Government has been forced to admit that it made a foolish mistake and over-reacted wildly to Covid-19.
The Prime Minister is like a man who sets fire to his own pyjamas, while he is wearing them, to cure himself of hiccups.
Now he stands naked and scorched, as his house burns around him, and exults that his hiccups have indeed gone away. This is what I mean by getting things out of proportion.
Above all, he must stop pretending that his actions saved us from deaths that never happened, and people must stop believing this evidence-free bilge.
Till that moment comes, months and perhaps years of costly, painful stupidity will follow. The belief that the Panic Policy worked means it can never fully end. If, and when, you go back to your job – if you still have a job – you will be compelled to abide by ludicrous, impractical rules. You will be forced to wear pointless muzzles on trains and buses.
Normal life will be virtually impossible. Previously simple actions will be endlessly complicated and expensive. And while this farce continues, businesses will continue to close and jobs continue to vanish, visiting misery and sickness on millions.
I have seen this before in the old Communist world, a mad, fixed idea pursued by dense men relentlessly and without opposition or thought, until the whole thing collapses or explodes. Now I see it here.
Huge, devastating actions, such as the national shutdown, require clear, good justifications. These do not so far exist. I have yet to see any reason to believe that throttling the economy and imposing mass house arrest have saved a single life. Deaths from Covid-19 peaked and began to decline in this country on April 8, a decline far too soon to have been brought about by the Johnson Panic of March 23.
I have seen masses of reasons to believe that the risk from the coronavirus has been gravely exaggerated and that the figures of deaths have been overestimated.
As for the damage done by the wild, almost Maoist measures adopted by the Government, evidence pours in hourly from ruined businesses and people who thought they were secure, discovering the multiple miseries of Universal Credit. And this is only just beginning. The two specific competent actions which might have helped – protecting care homes from the outset, and properly equipping doctors and nurses – were bungled.
But the vast, sweeping, showy policies of mass house arrest and the unprecedented switching off of an entire advanced 21st Century economy were, and are, pursued with relentless enthusiasm. Even now the teenage minds in charge of this cannot admit their mistake or properly call a halt, as we shall learn tonight. But under the rule of this Cabinet of None of the Talents, the country has suffered a total collapse of independent thought and opposition.
The buffoon who got us into this, and now cannot get us out, continues to be lauded and fawned upon as if he were Kim Jong Un. Those who six months ago could not forget his long history of amateurishness, dishonesty and clowning now cannot remember them, and praise him instead.
I used to think he was, at least, amusing. But I see nothing amusing in the landscape of ruin he has now created. Once people begin to realise what he has done, and how needless it was, I doubt that he will ever be forgiven. Even when Professor Neil Ferguson, chief advocate of the Panic Laws, was caught ignoring his own rules, nothing changed. The nation giggled and missed the point. I actually care more about what goes on above Prof Ferguson’s neck than what takes place below his belt.
The significance of his action was that even he doesn’t believe his scare stories enough to obey the rules based on them. Well, I don’t believe those scare stories either and never have.
But thanks to him and his raving prophecies, I now live in a country where the police – the police! – seriously consider prosecuting a free man for canoodling with his married mistress.
This is not because of the multiple betrayals of spouses and children involved. Nobody but me cares about those any more, as I am perhaps the last living puritan, and even I don’t think it’s a police matter. It is because he broke the ludicrous ‘social distancing’ rules.
We are living in a mad country, governed by clowns. Who will save us from this, or must it just go on for ever?
Succession of needless obscenities
Seeking some sort of escape from endless discussion of the virus, I have been watching the TV drama Succession about a wobbling media empire, whose ailing and ancient chieftain, still fearsome, is besieged by would-be successors among his children.
I can’t imagine who this is based on, but can it be really true that these people use the f-word quite so much?
I’m reminded of the story of the soldier who used that word incessantly as greeting, punctuation and adverb, until the day when he dropped a heavy machine gun on his foot and couldn’t think what to say.
A toxic cloud of deceit
More news about the Poison Gas watchdog, the OPCW.
Some months ago I exposed major turmoil inside this valuable organisation, over what some of its senior inspectors regarded as censorship of reports from Syria, in an attempt to alter their meaning and significance.
The OPCW responded by saying that one of these whistleblowers had not been a member of the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) which went to Syria in 2018.
Various toadies and creeps repeated this. Now a radical website, The Grayzone, has published documents which appear to show that he was officially listed as a member of the FFM. I put this to the OPCW on Thursday. So far they have not responded.
I am delighted to say that my call for a court case against the House Arrest policy has now been answered.
The businessman Simon Dolan has begun steps to challenge the legality of the Panic Laws. The Government is dragging its feet but next week will be crucial.
I have posted details of the action, and how to support it, on the Peter Hitchens blog. Here they are:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/details-of-simon-dolans-court-action-against-the-governments-oppressive-and-possibly-unlawful-polici.html
Scary face of hypocrisy...
Police in Norwich have spoken severely to a teenager for going round the suburbs in a 17th Century plague doctor’s mask, like a huge crow’s head, and a long black cloak.
Citizens are said to have claimed he was frightening people. I am thinking of getting one of these outfits if forced to wear a muzzle by the Government, so I was interested to see that our new state militia think it’s a matter for them.
Is it the law that only the Government are allowed to frighten people?
And is the thing they all fear most of all that we might laugh at them?
This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column
We will not escape from this misery until the Government has been forced to admit that it made a foolish mistake and over-reacted wildly to Covid-19.
The Prime Minister is like a man who sets fire to his own pyjamas, while he is wearing them, to cure himself of hiccups.
Now he stands naked and scorched, as his house burns around him, and exults that his hiccups have indeed gone away. This is what I mean by getting things out of proportion.
Above all, he must stop pretending that his actions saved us from deaths that never happened, and people must stop believing this evidence-free bilge.
Till that moment comes, months and perhaps years of costly, painful stupidity will follow. The belief that the Panic Policy worked means it can never fully end. If, and when, you go back to your job – if you still have a job – you will be compelled to abide by ludicrous, impractical rules. You will be forced to wear pointless muzzles on trains and buses.
Normal life will be virtually impossible. Previously simple actions will be endlessly complicated and expensive. And while this farce continues, businesses will continue to close and jobs continue to vanish, visiting misery and sickness on millions.
I have seen this before in the old Communist world, a mad, fixed idea pursued by dense men relentlessly and without opposition or thought, until the whole thing collapses or explodes. Now I see it here.
Huge, devastating actions, such as the national shutdown, require clear, good justifications. These do not so far exist. I have yet to see any reason to believe that throttling the economy and imposing mass house arrest have saved a single life. Deaths from Covid-19 peaked and began to decline in this country on April 8, a decline far too soon to have been brought about by the Johnson Panic of March 23.
I have seen masses of reasons to believe that the risk from the coronavirus has been gravely exaggerated and that the figures of deaths have been overestimated.
As for the damage done by the wild, almost Maoist measures adopted by the Government, evidence pours in hourly from ruined businesses and people who thought they were secure, discovering the multiple miseries of Universal Credit. And this is only just beginning. The two specific competent actions which might have helped – protecting care homes from the outset, and properly equipping doctors and nurses – were bungled.
But the vast, sweeping, showy policies of mass house arrest and the unprecedented switching off of an entire advanced 21st Century economy were, and are, pursued with relentless enthusiasm. Even now the teenage minds in charge of this cannot admit their mistake or properly call a halt, as we shall learn tonight. But under the rule of this Cabinet of None of the Talents, the country has suffered a total collapse of independent thought and opposition.
The buffoon who got us into this, and now cannot get us out, continues to be lauded and fawned upon as if he were Kim Jong Un. Those who six months ago could not forget his long history of amateurishness, dishonesty and clowning now cannot remember them, and praise him instead.
I used to think he was, at least, amusing. But I see nothing amusing in the landscape of ruin he has now created. Once people begin to realise what he has done, and how needless it was, I doubt that he will ever be forgiven. Even when Professor Neil Ferguson, chief advocate of the Panic Laws, was caught ignoring his own rules, nothing changed. The nation giggled and missed the point. I actually care more about what goes on above Prof Ferguson’s neck than what takes place below his belt.
The significance of his action was that even he doesn’t believe his scare stories enough to obey the rules based on them. Well, I don’t believe those scare stories either and never have.
But thanks to him and his raving prophecies, I now live in a country where the police – the police! – seriously consider prosecuting a free man for canoodling with his married mistress.
This is not because of the multiple betrayals of spouses and children involved. Nobody but me cares about those any more, as I am perhaps the last living puritan, and even I don’t think it’s a police matter. It is because he broke the ludicrous ‘social distancing’ rules.
We are living in a mad country, governed by clowns. Who will save us from this, or must it just go on for ever?
Succession of needless obscenities
Seeking some sort of escape from endless discussion of the virus, I have been watching the TV drama Succession about a wobbling media empire, whose ailing and ancient chieftain, still fearsome, is besieged by would-be successors among his children.
I can’t imagine who this is based on, but can it be really true that these people use the f-word quite so much?
I’m reminded of the story of the soldier who used that word incessantly as greeting, punctuation and adverb, until the day when he dropped a heavy machine gun on his foot and couldn’t think what to say.
A toxic cloud of deceit
More news about the Poison Gas watchdog, the OPCW.
Some months ago I exposed major turmoil inside this valuable organisation, over what some of its senior inspectors regarded as censorship of reports from Syria, in an attempt to alter their meaning and significance.
The OPCW responded by saying that one of these whistleblowers had not been a member of the Fact Finding Mission (FFM) which went to Syria in 2018.
Various toadies and creeps repeated this. Now a radical website, The Grayzone, has published documents which appear to show that he was officially listed as a member of the FFM. I put this to the OPCW on Thursday. So far they have not responded.
I am delighted to say that my call for a court case against the House Arrest policy has now been answered.
The businessman Simon Dolan has begun steps to challenge the legality of the Panic Laws. The Government is dragging its feet but next week will be crucial.
I have posted details of the action, and how to support it, on the Peter Hitchens blog. Here they are:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/details-of-simon-dolans-court-action-against-the-governments-oppressive-and-possibly-unlawful-polici.html
Scary face of hypocrisy...
Police in Norwich have spoken severely to a teenager for going round the suburbs in a 17th Century plague doctor’s mask, like a huge crow’s head, and a long black cloak.
Citizens are said to have claimed he was frightening people. I am thinking of getting one of these outfits if forced to wear a muzzle by the Government, so I was interested to see that our new state militia think it’s a matter for them.
Is it the law that only the Government are allowed to frighten people?
And is the thing they all fear most of all that we might laugh at them?
Show More
Lockdown is not about protecting fit youngsters for the nth time.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
A vaccine may never ever come.
Under this Ferguson/Boris plan what happens then?
Under this Ferguson/Boris plan what happens then?
lurka
10 May 20 11:15
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,422 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Lockdown is not about protecting fit youngsters for the nth time.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
^
Name one country in the world where 'it is out of hand'?
Many countries have not down lockdown.
10 May 20 11:15
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,422 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Lockdown is not about protecting fit youngsters for the nth time.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
^
Name one country in the world where 'it is out of hand'?
Many countries have not down lockdown.
lurka 10 May 20 10:54
Note that Hitchens offers no scientific evidence or evidence from any experts that not locking down when the UK did would have avoided catastrophe or that releasing lockdown now wouldn't result in the spread getting out of hand again very quickly.
I've not read everything he's written, but one of his scientific arguments which he has presented from more than one source, is that the peak number of deaths (that is based on the actual dates of death, not when they were reported), occurred on April 8th, and given the time allowed for incubation, infection and decline to death, you would have expected the peak date to have occurred after this date, given the lockdown date of March 23rd.
Now people may try to debunk this, but you said he hadn't offered any scientific evidence when clearly he has.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-24th-april/
Note that Hitchens offers no scientific evidence or evidence from any experts that not locking down when the UK did would have avoided catastrophe or that releasing lockdown now wouldn't result in the spread getting out of hand again very quickly.
I've not read everything he's written, but one of his scientific arguments which he has presented from more than one source, is that the peak number of deaths (that is based on the actual dates of death, not when they were reported), occurred on April 8th, and given the time allowed for incubation, infection and decline to death, you would have expected the peak date to have occurred after this date, given the lockdown date of March 23rd.
Now people may try to debunk this, but you said he hadn't offered any scientific evidence when clearly he has.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-24th-april/
Hitchens is just having a go at the government - easy to do as they have been fairly average . He has failed to give a balance of tge pros & cons of opening up the country so we can decide if that is a price worth paying.
He hasn't mentioned number of deaths we would expect if we "protected" 3 million people & pretty much let other people get on with things as before.
It appears death rate is just under 1.5% of those infected- maybe could get to 1% if we are very careful in screening a few million vulnerable people. That 1% rate does assume everyone who needs hospital treatment gets it.
So if half the UK population are infected (just over 30m) we would expect 300k deaths. Can the NHS cope with this all happening in a 6 month period?
We may decide that is a price worth paying but should be honest rather than just saying Boris is useless & must end lockdown.
He hasn't mentioned number of deaths we would expect if we "protected" 3 million people & pretty much let other people get on with things as before.
It appears death rate is just under 1.5% of those infected- maybe could get to 1% if we are very careful in screening a few million vulnerable people. That 1% rate does assume everyone who needs hospital treatment gets it.
So if half the UK population are infected (just over 30m) we would expect 300k deaths. Can the NHS cope with this all happening in a 6 month period?
We may decide that is a price worth paying but should be honest rather than just saying Boris is useless & must end lockdown.
One? It would be easier to name the ones where it wasn't. How about all the countries who locked down? Again, I am not talking about right now, I am talking about when they locked down.
George, maybe so, but I am talking about what he wrote in that article. He is not a scientist.
George, maybe so, but I am talking about what he wrote in that article. He is not a scientist.
lurka
10 May 20 11:15
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,422 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Lockdown is not about protecting fit youngsters for the nth time.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
^
It is out of hand where the vulnerable live in carehomes anyway.
Almost half carehomes infected.
10 May 20 11:15
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,422 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Lockdown is not about protecting fit youngsters for the nth time.
It is about controlling spread that has been allowed to get out of hand.
^
It is out of hand where the vulnerable live in carehomes anyway.
Almost half carehomes infected.
How long would it take to set up care homes with live-in staff and doctors, and where would the extra bodies live? Assuming you could find many thousands of staff willing to isolate for months)? You cannot create thousands of buildings with laboratory conditions for even the medium term without great planning. We only had a few weeks.
you've got to like the way people who didn't want the lockdown,use the figures brought about by the lockdown as an argument for not having one, and not the figures we would have got without a lockdown,most clearly seen by sweeden and its very near neighbours
Hitchens is yet another person criticising after the fact when it is too late. Lockdown was inevitable from the time Boris was telling people he was shaking hands with people in hospitals and telling people to keep distance while not keeping distance at press conferences and catching the virus along with Hancock and Whitty.
Smart people were saying that was bonkers at the time because it was. And the people criticising lockdowns now are the type of people who didn't think the government were deserving of criticism then.
Smart people were saying that was bonkers at the time because it was. And the people criticising lockdowns now are the type of people who didn't think the government were deserving of criticism then.
lurka 10 May 20 11:21
George, maybe so, but I am talking about what he wrote in that article. He is not a scientist.
lurka, so now you've changed tack from him not having presented any scientific evidence, to him not being a scientist?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be scientist, but he's one of the few journalistic voices calling out the government over their lockdown policy, and he's evidently spent a lot of time studying data and reading what scientists have said. The April 8th peak figure has been one of his main arguments, which evidently you were oblivious to, so not sure why you think you're qualified to judge him?
George, maybe so, but I am talking about what he wrote in that article. He is not a scientist.
lurka, so now you've changed tack from him not having presented any scientific evidence, to him not being a scientist?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be scientist, but he's one of the few journalistic voices calling out the government over their lockdown policy, and he's evidently spent a lot of time studying data and reading what scientists have said. The April 8th peak figure has been one of his main arguments, which evidently you were oblivious to, so not sure why you think you're qualified to judge him?
No George, I haven't. He didn't present any scientific evidence in that article.
Mexico
10 May 20 11:21
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,434 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Hitchens is just having a go at the government - easy to do as they have been fairly average . He has failed to give a balance of tge pros & cons of opening up the country so we can decide if that is a price worth paying.
He hasn't mentioned number of deaths we would expect if we "protected" 3 million people & pretty much let other people get on with things as before.
It appears death rate is just under 1.5% of those infected- maybe could get to 1% if we are very careful in screening a few million vulnerable people. That 1% rate does assume everyone who needs hospital treatment gets it.
So if half the UK population are infected (just over 30m) we would expect 300k deaths. Can the NHS cope with this all happening in a 6 month period?
We may decide that is a price worth paying but should be honest rather than just saying Boris is useless & must end lockdown.
^
It is no where near one percent.
Germany study suggest 0.2%-0.37%.
Iceland numbers where they test many more and have just ten deaths is around 0.2%.
Of course overall rate not that relevant as it is about 0.00001% in young children and 14% in over 90s and 40% for those with bad cardiac issues.
The key to getting the rate down is protect those who have a high chance of dying whilst you build up immunity in those who do not have a high risk.
Alternative is to stop everything until as when vaccine is found (it may never be found).
Eventually the vulnerable will be bored waiting and come out. If there is not herd immunity or vaccine or great drugs by then we will see horrible amounts of death.
10 May 20 11:21
Joined: 25 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 6,434 | Blogger: Mexico's blog
Hitchens is just having a go at the government - easy to do as they have been fairly average . He has failed to give a balance of tge pros & cons of opening up the country so we can decide if that is a price worth paying.
He hasn't mentioned number of deaths we would expect if we "protected" 3 million people & pretty much let other people get on with things as before.
It appears death rate is just under 1.5% of those infected- maybe could get to 1% if we are very careful in screening a few million vulnerable people. That 1% rate does assume everyone who needs hospital treatment gets it.
So if half the UK population are infected (just over 30m) we would expect 300k deaths. Can the NHS cope with this all happening in a 6 month period?
We may decide that is a price worth paying but should be honest rather than just saying Boris is useless & must end lockdown.
^
It is no where near one percent.
Germany study suggest 0.2%-0.37%.
Iceland numbers where they test many more and have just ten deaths is around 0.2%.
Of course overall rate not that relevant as it is about 0.00001% in young children and 14% in over 90s and 40% for those with bad cardiac issues.
The key to getting the rate down is protect those who have a high chance of dying whilst you build up immunity in those who do not have a high risk.
Alternative is to stop everything until as when vaccine is found (it may never be found).
Eventually the vulnerable will be bored waiting and come out. If there is not herd immunity or vaccine or great drugs by then we will see horrible amounts of death.
George
Much of UK was shut before March 23rd. Pubs ordered to shut on 20th & they were a fairly empty for a week. There was that period when "advice" was not to visit pubs/ restaurants but they were not ordered to shut.
Much of UK was shut before March 23rd. Pubs ordered to shut on 20th & they were a fairly empty for a week. There was that period when "advice" was not to visit pubs/ restaurants but they were not ordered to shut.
From the start Hitchens said the Lockdown was a grave error.He has NEVER moved from that stance so don't criticise the man for aftertiming.
The virus is discriminatory and therefore the approach should have been discriminatory.
Ring of steel around hospitals and care homes. Test patients and staff DAILY. Ask older people with health problems to be very careful. The rest - get on with normal life.
Ring of steel around hospitals and care homes. Test patients and staff DAILY. Ask older people with health problems to be very careful. The rest - get on with normal life.
Police in Norwich have spoken severely to a teenager for going round the suburbs in a 17th Century plague doctor’s mask, like a huge crow’s head, and a long black cloak.
Kwality!
I loved that
Kwality!
I loved that
I don't care that some of you may not agree with what he has said, but to say he has presented no evidence to back up his arguments was incorrect and mistakenly belittles the time and effort he was clearly put into covering this issue.
From his blog:
Here are several links on subjects relevant to the matter, which I commend to Melanie Phillips, to her supporters and to all readers:
Getting the figures into proportion.
http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
Do shutdowns have the claimed effect?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
A good, solid general sceptical analysis of the matter
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/lokin-20-the-lockdown-regime-causes-increasing-health-concerns/
The deaths from Covid peaked on April 8th
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-2nd-may/
(See especially table 2)
How long does it take between infection and death in fatal cases of Covid-19
https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-how-quickly-do-covid-19-symptoms-develop-and-how-long-do-they-last
The WHO does not advise the general use of face masks
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
The year 80,000 died from Mao Flu, and the government did not panic
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/02/britain-handled-1968-flu-epidemic-shutdown-avoided-second-wave/
The seven foot rule has no scientific basis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/01/two-metre-rule-reviewed-amid-hope-relaxed-restrictions-could/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8256109/Social-distancing-two-metres-apart-based-figure-says-government-adviser.html
From his blog:
Here are several links on subjects relevant to the matter, which I commend to Melanie Phillips, to her supporters and to all readers:
Getting the figures into proportion.
http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
Do shutdowns have the claimed effect?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
A good, solid general sceptical analysis of the matter
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/lokin-20-the-lockdown-regime-causes-increasing-health-concerns/
The deaths from Covid peaked on April 8th
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-2nd-may/
(See especially table 2)
How long does it take between infection and death in fatal cases of Covid-19
https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-how-quickly-do-covid-19-symptoms-develop-and-how-long-do-they-last
The WHO does not advise the general use of face masks
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
The year 80,000 died from Mao Flu, and the government did not panic
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/02/britain-handled-1968-flu-epidemic-shutdown-avoided-second-wave/
The seven foot rule has no scientific basis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/01/two-metre-rule-reviewed-amid-hope-relaxed-restrictions-could/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8256109/Social-distancing-two-metres-apart-based-figure-says-government-adviser.html
George, I was talking about the article the subject of this thread. He didn't present any scientific evidence in that article.
I didn't say he has never presented any scientific evidence in any article he has ever written, so I don't get what your point is.
In any event he is wrong on that point. On April 29 the UK added over 3,000 deaths to its total and backdated them to the correct date.
The death peak was 1172 on April 21. It didn't peak or start to decline on April 8. It happened 2 weeks later, which completely blows his argument out of the water.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html his own newspaper covered it the following day.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
I didn't say he has never presented any scientific evidence in any article he has ever written, so I don't get what your point is.
In any event he is wrong on that point. On April 29 the UK added over 3,000 deaths to its total and backdated them to the correct date.
The death peak was 1172 on April 21. It didn't peak or start to decline on April 8. It happened 2 weeks later, which completely blows his argument out of the water.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html his own newspaper covered it the following day.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
There were more deaths on 9, 10, 14, 18 and 21 April and this info has been available for 11 days.
Need to be a wee bit careful with that data set lurka, those are the reported dates which as a lag with actual date of death.
How do you mean Angoose? Are you saying that more deaths could be added to April 8?
What is the latest date for which we have full info then?
What is the latest date for which we have full info then?
Not so easy to get a full data set as there are multiple inputs.
However, you can get a reasonable approximation from the NHS England data available from here
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-...
However, you can get a reasonable approximation from the NHS England data available from here
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-...
lurka 10 May 20 10:54
Note that Hitchens offers no scientific evidence or evidence from any experts that not locking down when the UK did would have avoided catastrophe
When he evidently has done previously
lurka 10 May 20 11:55
I didn't say he has never presented any scientific evidence in any article he has ever written, so I don't get what your point is.
As I said in my 11.18 post, I didn't say what he has presented as evidence couldn't be debunked (and if you want to challenge him with those links on twitter, I'm sure you will receive a courteous reply, as many have previously), but you clearly were mistaken with your assumption in your initial post.
Note that Hitchens offers no scientific evidence or evidence from any experts that not locking down when the UK did would have avoided catastrophe
When he evidently has done previously
lurka 10 May 20 11:55
I didn't say he has never presented any scientific evidence in any article he has ever written, so I don't get what your point is.
As I said in my 11.18 post, I didn't say what he has presented as evidence couldn't be debunked (and if you want to challenge him with those links on twitter, I'm sure you will receive a courteous reply, as many have previously), but you clearly were mistaken with your assumption in your initial post.
lurka, here is the NHS England data by date of death which supports the April 8 peak deaths claim
whilst each date remains subject to change, the vast majority will not now change by any significant amount
Your argument regarding controlling spread is, of course, the key one.
whilst each date remains subject to change, the vast majority will not now change by any significant amount
Your argument regarding controlling spread is, of course, the key one.
lurka, this is the link you posted at 11.55
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html
This is a paragraph from that report:
"Of the deaths announced today, 140 happened on Tuesday, April 28, and the rest were spread across the seven weeks between March 12 and yesterday. April 8 remains the outbreak's peak, with 863 people dying.
"
..............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,............................................. .....
...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,..........................................
......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,......................................
..................,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\... ..................................
................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\....................................
................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,................................
.................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...............................
...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)..............................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\.......................... ...
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,........... .........
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.........
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html
This is a paragraph from that report:
"Of the deaths announced today, 140 happened on Tuesday, April 28, and the rest were spread across the seven weeks between March 12 and yesterday. April 8 remains the outbreak's peak, with 863 people dying.
"
..............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,............................................. .....
...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,..........................................
......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,......................................
..................,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\... ..................................
................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\....................................
................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,................................
.................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...............................
...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)..............................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\.......................... ...
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,........... .........
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.........
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......
Correctly stating one matter of fact does not provide validity to the remainder of his utterings …...
The trouble with the peak is you only see it from the other side in terms of policy at the time this would have been impossible to summise.
Hopefully though this suggests as some have theorised recently that the transmission of this virus greatly slows after a much lower percentage of infections to the population (unless another explanation can be offered such as seasonal effect). Again most of the science was not suggesting this at the time of policy.
As for social distancing having little effect this again was not known and was not a theory put forward at the time.
Hopefully though this suggests as some have theorised recently that the transmission of this virus greatly slows after a much lower percentage of infections to the population (unless another explanation can be offered such as seasonal effect). Again most of the science was not suggesting this at the time of policy.
As for social distancing having little effect this again was not known and was not a theory put forward at the time.
Perhaps not Angoose, but if you're going to produce "evidence" to try and rubbish his 'utterings', at least have the decency to read the report yourself, if only to prevent making yourself look an idiot!
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese authorities reported on Sunday what could be the beginning of a new wave of coronavirus cases in northeast China, with one city in Jilin province being reclassified as high-risk, the top of a three-tier zoning system.
Jilin officials raised the risk level of the city of Shulan to high from medium, having hoisted it to medium from low just the day before after one woman tested positive on May 7.
Jilin officials raised the risk level of the city of Shulan to high from medium, having hoisted it to medium from low just the day before after one woman tested positive on May 7.
*after a much lower percentage of infections to the population than initially thought 60% +
Trader...
The data from Australia & New Zealand suggest a death rate far higher than 0.2 to 0.37 - both over 1%
My criticism of the Article was that he didn't bother with any stats, any of the problems of opening up UK.
If he had said - rate is 0.3% quoting xxxxxxxxxx and then said 120,000 deaths is a price worth paying then fair enough. If any government does go down that route they would need to be fairly confident they have the correct rate. Would get ugly if then 120k deaths are acceptable & health service can cope only to find out we get 400k deaths and health service can't cope.
Still feel Hitchins has not been honest by failing to mention the downside of his plan.
The data from Australia & New Zealand suggest a death rate far higher than 0.2 to 0.37 - both over 1%
My criticism of the Article was that he didn't bother with any stats, any of the problems of opening up UK.
If he had said - rate is 0.3% quoting xxxxxxxxxx and then said 120,000 deaths is a price worth paying then fair enough. If any government does go down that route they would need to be fairly confident they have the correct rate. Would get ugly if then 120k deaths are acceptable & health service can cope only to find out we get 400k deaths and health service can't cope.
Still feel Hitchins has not been honest by failing to mention the downside of his plan.
The question needs asking at one of the briefings as to WHY the policy can't be to open up society more with the very low risk chunks.
They obviously know better than anyone which groups are vulnerable so what is stopping them doing what a lot of this forum wants and sees as obvious.
They obviously know better than anyone which groups are vulnerable so what is stopping them doing what a lot of this forum wants and sees as obvious.
Strid
I think that question has been asked (or at least some government/ science published)
Basically said over 100k would die & very difficult/ impossible to keep people separate.
For example a 50 year old teacher is healthy but their husband is in high risk group. NHS staff & care homes staff would pretty much need to leave their families and live in work accommodation.
The government would like to open schools especially for the years taking exams next summer. They are having issues with partially opening just one industry (& education is something they have near total control over).
Don't think it helps that government score on how well performed is average at best, lots of death, testing poor last month, PPE still a mess.
I think that question has been asked (or at least some government/ science published)
Basically said over 100k would die & very difficult/ impossible to keep people separate.
For example a 50 year old teacher is healthy but their husband is in high risk group. NHS staff & care homes staff would pretty much need to leave their families and live in work accommodation.
The government would like to open schools especially for the years taking exams next summer. They are having issues with partially opening just one industry (& education is something they have near total control over).
Don't think it helps that government score on how well performed is average at best, lots of death, testing poor last month, PPE still a mess.
May 10, 2020 -- 10:12AM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
Very unusual to find a MSM journo fielding against the narrative
they're like rocking horse sh1t
Eh the only evidence I've seen of a peak on 8 April is in relation to England, not the UK. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-9th-may/
That is not the whole of the UK. I know Worldometers isn't entirely accurate but that's mainly because of the ridiculous way deaths are reported in about 16 different ways in the UK (4 countries, 4 settings, 2 or 3 different bodies reporting them). But they update their data when the UK does and their figures cover the whole of the UK which the article Hitchens quoted does not. I'm not sure there is accurate data for the whole of the UK anywhere at any time, but I'd be fairly certain Worldometers is more reliable for the whole of the UK than an article that relates to England only.
That is not the whole of the UK. I know Worldometers isn't entirely accurate but that's mainly because of the ridiculous way deaths are reported in about 16 different ways in the UK (4 countries, 4 settings, 2 or 3 different bodies reporting them). But they update their data when the UK does and their figures cover the whole of the UK which the article Hitchens quoted does not. I'm not sure there is accurate data for the whole of the UK anywhere at any time, but I'd be fairly certain Worldometers is more reliable for the whole of the UK than an article that relates to England only.
GEORGE.B • May 10, 2020 1:31 PM BST
lurka, this is the link you posted at 11.55
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html
This is a paragraph from that report:
"Of the deaths announced today, 140 happened on Tuesday, April 28, and the rest were spread across the seven weeks between March 12 and yesterday. April 8 remains the outbreak's peak, with 863 people dying.
863 people is clearly not the amount of deaths on 8 April in the UK, so you, like Hitchens, are quoting figures which don't relate to the point you are making. 863 is the peak of HOSPITAL deaths in ENGLAND.
So your facepalm would appear to apply to you.
lurka, this is the link you posted at 11.55
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273783/UK-announces-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals.html
This is a paragraph from that report:
"Of the deaths announced today, 140 happened on Tuesday, April 28, and the rest were spread across the seven weeks between March 12 and yesterday. April 8 remains the outbreak's peak, with 863 people dying.
863 people is clearly not the amount of deaths on 8 April in the UK, so you, like Hitchens, are quoting figures which don't relate to the point you are making. 863 is the peak of HOSPITAL deaths in ENGLAND.
So your facepalm would appear to apply to you.
For example a 50 year old teacher is healthy but their husband is in high risk group. NHS staff & care homes staff would pretty much need to leave their families and live in work accommodation.
In that example the husband only would need isolating. NHS staff & care homes staff would similarly have to stay away from vulnerable family only. Isolate the vulnerable, it's a smaller task.
In that example the husband only would need isolating. NHS staff & care homes staff would similarly have to stay away from vulnerable family only. Isolate the vulnerable, it's a smaller task.
Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK.
No lockdown required.
People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline.
There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.
May 10, 2020 -- 3:27PM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK.No lockdown required.People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline.There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.
It must be at least 20 times now that it has been explained to you that the lockdown was introduced to control the SPREAD, yet you keep harping on about deaths every time you mention it. Why is this?
lurka
10 May 20 14:35
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,432 | Blogger: lurka's blog
May 10, 2020 -- 2:27PM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK.No lockdown required.People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline.There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.
It must be at least 20 times now that it has been explained to you that the lockdown was introduced to control the SPREAD, yet you keep harping on about deaths every time you mention it. Why is this?
^
It was actually brought in to stop the NHS being overrun.
It never was overrun.
Infact Nightingales barely used.
Sweden never overrun either without lockdown.
We have no mothballed Nightingales so mission accomplished.
There is zero evidence that lockdown stopped the NHS being overrun. Zero.
10 May 20 14:35
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,432 | Blogger: lurka's blog
May 10, 2020 -- 2:27PM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK.No lockdown required.People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline.There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.
It must be at least 20 times now that it has been explained to you that the lockdown was introduced to control the SPREAD, yet you keep harping on about deaths every time you mention it. Why is this?
^
It was actually brought in to stop the NHS being overrun.
It never was overrun.
Infact Nightingales barely used.
Sweden never overrun either without lockdown.
We have no mothballed Nightingales so mission accomplished.
There is zero evidence that lockdown stopped the NHS being overrun. Zero.
IT, without lockdown, would the number of COVID-19 cases in the UK be higher, lower, or the same ?
Please support your answer with evidence.
Please support your answer with evidence.
Define 'lockdown' and tell me how many cases you have in the community before 'lockdown'.
If we had gone with the plan of letting younger people out put a ring of steel around the old and the vulnerable we would have had less deaths.
We may have had more cases in young people but hard to tell. We do not even know how many cases we have had as it stands.
The point is by changing the status quo and locking up young healthy people you need some evidence to support doing that.
There is zero evidence it has help protect the old and vulnerable. Zero.
If we had gone with the plan of letting younger people out put a ring of steel around the old and the vulnerable we would have had less deaths.
We may have had more cases in young people but hard to tell. We do not even know how many cases we have had as it stands.
The point is by changing the status quo and locking up young healthy people you need some evidence to support doing that.
There is zero evidence it has help protect the old and vulnerable. Zero.
How were you defining lockdown when you stated that "there is zero evidence that lockdown stopped the NHS being overrun. Zero." ?
What happened in the UK on 23rd March.
If you go back to that time you can see the measures put in.
We had already made mistake of shutting primary schools before that actually.
No evidence that helps either.
The main thing that helps is social distancing. Never go within 2 metres of someone else and virus would virtually vanish.
If you go back to that time you can see the measures put in.
We had already made mistake of shutting primary schools before that actually.
No evidence that helps either.
The main thing that helps is social distancing. Never go within 2 metres of someone else and virus would virtually vanish.
Every other day they talk about the R0 number being further reduced from a peak of near 4 to well below 1.
A schoolchild could tell you that by massively restricting the number of people each person comes into contact with on a daily basis, you will massively reduce the spread of the virus.
Some, despite all the expert evidence about the reproductive rate of the virus, refuse to give the lockdown any credit for that or else focus on the number of deaths because they know the lockdown has been massively successful in reducing the spread and that they can't argue with that.
It has been explained to you ad nauseam that the UK had let it get out of hand too much to simply have social distancing measures with no lockdown. Sweden did not and it hasn't got out of hand over there to justify a lockdown at any stage. They are not Nazis, they would have locked down if the spread got too out of hand. It didn't. In the UK and most of the rest of Europe it did.
The UK didn't want to lock down, they had no choice. Complain about incompetent inaction months ago if you have a problem with the current policy. Stop harping on about the inevitable consequences of it for the nth time.
A schoolchild could tell you that by massively restricting the number of people each person comes into contact with on a daily basis, you will massively reduce the spread of the virus.
Some, despite all the expert evidence about the reproductive rate of the virus, refuse to give the lockdown any credit for that or else focus on the number of deaths because they know the lockdown has been massively successful in reducing the spread and that they can't argue with that.
It has been explained to you ad nauseam that the UK had let it get out of hand too much to simply have social distancing measures with no lockdown. Sweden did not and it hasn't got out of hand over there to justify a lockdown at any stage. They are not Nazis, they would have locked down if the spread got too out of hand. It didn't. In the UK and most of the rest of Europe it did.
The UK didn't want to lock down, they had no choice. Complain about incompetent inaction months ago if you have a problem with the current policy. Stop harping on about the inevitable consequences of it for the nth time.
It depends in part on whether people getting infected is solely a bad thing. The symptoms for the many are mild or none at all.
If and it’s still if, you can’t get it twice then herd immunity remains a long term plan. To do that you need people mixing.
If and it’s still if, you can’t get it twice then herd immunity remains a long term plan. To do that you need people mixing.
Bad thing : you become critically ill or die
Good thing : you don't become critically ill or die or develop long term damage or infect someone else who goes on to become critically ill or die
Good thing : you don't become critically ill or die or develop long term damage or infect someone else who goes on to become critically ill or die
Angoose the alternative to building up some sort of natural immunity in the population is living as we are for an indefinite period.
It is the child's way out to take that route and will eventually bankrupt the country OR more and more people will break the rules until it happens anyway.
It is the child's way out to take that route and will eventually bankrupt the country OR more and more people will break the rules until it happens anyway.
Tell me about your AI programming.
Is it focused on machine learning, natural language processing, robotics, something else ?
Is it focused on machine learning, natural language processing, robotics, something else ?
As a statto goose, your pessimism is a concern.
Possibly millions have had this thing and recovered, hopefully never to get it again. How do millions get it? Infection...
Possibly millions have had this thing and recovered, hopefully never to get it again. How do millions get it? Infection...
Possibly and hopefully.
As IT might say, "There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.".
As IT might say, "There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.".
All on a day where we have had snow, hailstones, and bright sunshine simulatenaously 
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it.
There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history
We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it.
There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history
spot on, LOL
YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK ITS UP TO THEM, lots of people will put work on the backburner protect,them and their,s for as long as possible,100,s of things which once seemed important to some people are now redundant ,eating out,pubs,leisure,public transport,can all be lived without,meaning the millions who may be desperate to return to work will have no work to return to
YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK ITS UP TO THEM, lots of people will put work on the backburner protect,them and their,s for as long as possible,100,s of things which once seemed important to some people are now redundant ,eating out,pubs,leisure,public transport,can all be lived without,meaning the millions who may be desperate to return to work will have no work to return to
they will force them back when the free money stops and the "stats" look good.
Racingqueen
10 May 20 17:24
Joined: 02 Jul 11
| Topic/replies: 5,352 | Blogger: Racingqueen's blog
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it.
There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history
^
Probably the best post since the start of this Covid scandal.
10 May 20 17:24
Joined: 02 Jul 11
| Topic/replies: 5,352 | Blogger: Racingqueen's blog
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it.
There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history
^
Probably the best post since the start of this Covid scandal.
Recycling Centres to open too.
They need somewhere to get rid of the shoite PPE tbf.
They need somewhere to get rid of the shoite PPE tbf.
i'll buy it off them and sell it back to them next time 
The absolute idiot Boris is quarantining air travellers?
I cannot believe this is the standard of political leadership we have and he is matched right across Europe by even worse leaders.
For 50 years, Britain has welcomed in everyone with their open borders 5hite and now overnight, they shut up shop.
Vast swathes of people no longer no when they can return to their countries of birth to visit families
I cannot believe this is the standard of political leadership we have and he is matched right across Europe by even worse leaders.
For 50 years, Britain has welcomed in everyone with their open borders 5hite and now overnight, they shut up shop.
Vast swathes of people no longer no when they can return to their countries of birth to visit families
Racingqueen 10 May 20 17:24
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
Agree with that. Most of them seem unaware or untroubled that they will bear the cost of doing nowt for months.
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
Agree with that. Most of them seem unaware or untroubled that they will bear the cost of doing nowt for months.
agree with IT excellent post RQ 5.24pm
the "cure" to all virulent diseases is to address the cause
not big pharma's drugs & vaccines
however most people are so far down the allopathic medicine rabbit hole that they cant see the wood for the trees over this
the "cure" to all virulent diseases is to address the cause
not big pharma's drugs & vaccines
however most people are so far down the allopathic medicine rabbit hole that they cant see the wood for the trees over this
1st time poster 10 May 20 18:53
its like Brexit,price worth paying for sum
Its not at all, we've never risked losing the lot since WW2.
its like Brexit,price worth paying for sum
Its not at all, we've never risked losing the lot since WW2.
RQ/IT we don't need a vaccine or cure to have some sort of "normal " without digging 400,000 graves.
If infection come down to a few hundred a day & we have plenty of testing, tracking (maybe apps & human follow up) then we may be able to have some sort of open economy.
We would only need to keep R at 1 rather than trying to eliminate the virus.
At the moment far too many people are being infected each day to be able to track anybody they have had contact with.
If government or Hitchins want to open up UK soon then be honest about number of deaths & explain how health care can be provided.
People wouldn't eat in restaurants/ visit pubs / shops if thought they were dangerous or if think that going for a beer could result in granny getting seriously ill.
Just be honest- if 400,000 are worth it to get UK economy back to "normal " then explain that to UK public.
The government/ opposition in UK (& pretty mush every other country) are worried that opening up country is too dangerous.
If infection come down to a few hundred a day & we have plenty of testing, tracking (maybe apps & human follow up) then we may be able to have some sort of open economy.
We would only need to keep R at 1 rather than trying to eliminate the virus.
At the moment far too many people are being infected each day to be able to track anybody they have had contact with.
If government or Hitchins want to open up UK soon then be honest about number of deaths & explain how health care can be provided.
People wouldn't eat in restaurants/ visit pubs / shops if thought they were dangerous or if think that going for a beer could result in granny getting seriously ill.
Just be honest- if 400,000 are worth it to get UK economy back to "normal " then explain that to UK public.
The government/ opposition in UK (& pretty mush every other country) are worried that opening up country is too dangerous.
'In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it. There is no alternative.'
Nonsense. They have just announced a gradual easing of lockdown restrictions and the virus is still here. There's your alternative and they are not letting the virus run its course. Another alternative was to take it seriously in the beginning instead of sitting on your hands for weeks and letting the spread get out of control.
Letting it run its course is the worst option. Even Belarus has taken some restrictive measures and they haven't had an outbreak anything like the UK. Stop talking absolute drivel.
Nonsense. They have just announced a gradual easing of lockdown restrictions and the virus is still here. There's your alternative and they are not letting the virus run its course. Another alternative was to take it seriously in the beginning instead of sitting on your hands for weeks and letting the spread get out of control.
Letting it run its course is the worst option. Even Belarus has taken some restrictive measures and they haven't had an outbreak anything like the UK. Stop talking absolute drivel.
Don't think there's an epidemiologist on the planet who says we should 'let it run its course' but perhaps you can produce evidence from one who says that?
Letting it 'run its course', ie doing nothing to restrict spread, is what got you into this mess in the first place yet there are still some mugs on here saying we should do exactly that again and people saying it's the best idea they've heard? What do you think will happen then? What's that famous definition of insanity again?
Letting it 'run its course', ie doing nothing to restrict spread, is what got you into this mess in the first place yet there are still some mugs on here saying we should do exactly that again and people saying it's the best idea they've heard? What do you think will happen then? What's that famous definition of insanity again?
lurka
10 May 20 19:37
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,440 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Don't think there's an epidemiologist on the planet who says we should 'let it run its course' but perhaps you can produce evidence from one who says that?
^
If we let it run its course through the younger fitter population whilst the vulnerable isolate and wait for immunity to build you will minimize the level of death and the level economic ruin.
10 May 20 19:37
Joined: 25 Oct 10
| Topic/replies: 15,440 | Blogger: lurka's blog
Don't think there's an epidemiologist on the planet who says we should 'let it run its course' but perhaps you can produce evidence from one who says that?
^
If we let it run its course through the younger fitter population whilst the vulnerable isolate and wait for immunity to build you will minimize the level of death and the level economic ruin.
That is what will happen by default anyway as people slowly go out again.
We just have to hope the vulnerable and old are patient enough to wait for the immunity to build up and the transmissions to be brought to a standstill.
We just have to hope the vulnerable and old are patient enough to wait for the immunity to build up and the transmissions to be brought to a standstill.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2,813,503 registered deaths in the United States in 2017.
Cancer
Deaths in 2017: 599,108
Percentage of total deaths: 21.3%. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#cancer
Conclusion: life comes with risks.
Cancer
Deaths in 2017: 599,108
Percentage of total deaths: 21.3%. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#cancer
Conclusion: life comes with risks.
Mexico,
Why do you say Hitchens does not take into account '400,000 deaths' without lockdown?
Hitchens clearly takes it into account. The only basis to believe in that is Ferguson's paper, which Hitchens believes to be laughable (as do many others)
Similar methodology predicted Sweden would have 40,000 dead by May 1st.
Why do you say Hitchens does not take into account '400,000 deaths' without lockdown?
Hitchens clearly takes it into account. The only basis to believe in that is Ferguson's paper, which Hitchens believes to be laughable (as do many others)
Similar methodology predicted Sweden would have 40,000 dead by May 1st.
How many did the model predict would die in the UK if all recommended measures were put in place ?
Tob
There has been a load of new data in UK and world since Ferguson's estimate that 400k would die. Pretty much nobody has said actually just open the economy, open pubs , will "only" be another 20,000 deaths. The UK has had 30k deaths even though been stuck indoors for almost 2 months.
Hitchins hasn't clearly said - open up, only X will die & it is worth it. All he has done is say they are wrong, he is a idiot, they are rubbish etc.
Just be clear - if he wants pubs to open, schools to open, sports to start in tge next few weeks. Just be clear & honest. Tell us the down side of his plan.
Pretty much no foreign leaders are tempted with the Hitchins plan.
With the 2 months of new data , is there any evidence that if UK opened up (apart from 5 m vulnerable people) there would be fewer than 50,000 deaths. If so publish it & see if UK public like that trade off. I suspect many in UK would be tempted.
There has been a load of new data in UK and world since Ferguson's estimate that 400k would die. Pretty much nobody has said actually just open the economy, open pubs , will "only" be another 20,000 deaths. The UK has had 30k deaths even though been stuck indoors for almost 2 months.
Hitchins hasn't clearly said - open up, only X will die & it is worth it. All he has done is say they are wrong, he is a idiot, they are rubbish etc.
Just be clear - if he wants pubs to open, schools to open, sports to start in tge next few weeks. Just be clear & honest. Tell us the down side of his plan.
Pretty much no foreign leaders are tempted with the Hitchins plan.
With the 2 months of new data , is there any evidence that if UK opened up (apart from 5 m vulnerable people) there would be fewer than 50,000 deaths. If so publish it & see if UK public like that trade off. I suspect many in UK would be tempted.
A goose , can't remember.
I believe 20,000 deaths was considered "good" but don't know if there was ever a , average or bad result published.
UK have had a "soft lockdown " compared to other countries. I am happy with that as have personally taken advantage of going for walks/ runs in the countryside & like having a take away meal once or twice a week. Guess this soft lockdown has resulted in extra deaths .
I believe 20,000 deaths was considered "good" but don't know if there was ever a , average or bad result published.
UK have had a "soft lockdown " compared to other countries. I am happy with that as have personally taken advantage of going for walks/ runs in the countryside & like having a take away meal once or twice a week. Guess this soft lockdown has resulted in extra deaths .
There are a series of ranges based on a number of criteria, but you can take a range of 9k to 39k.
The 20k was a number mentioned by Patrick Valance as a “good outcome”.
I bring it up because most will have not looked at the report, only remembering the scary 500k if no mitigation was put in place.
Something that was never going to be the case.
The most interesting thing for me is that no one appears to ever ask what the discussion in COBRA looked like after someone asked how do we then get out of these measures.
I’d like to think that the question was asked.
Subsequent events make me think that it wasn’t.
The 20k was a number mentioned by Patrick Valance as a “good outcome”.
I bring it up because most will have not looked at the report, only remembering the scary 500k if no mitigation was put in place.
Something that was never going to be the case.
The most interesting thing for me is that no one appears to ever ask what the discussion in COBRA looked like after someone asked how do we then get out of these measures.
I’d like to think that the question was asked.
Subsequent events make me think that it wasn’t.
Mex,
Hitchens says in the article that he does not believe the lockdown has saved a single life.
So he is not saying that 100k or whatever deaths is a price worth paying. He believes the death toll without a lockdown would be much as it is.
Hitchens says in the article that he does not believe the lockdown has saved a single life.
So he is not saying that 100k or whatever deaths is a price worth paying. He believes the death toll without a lockdown would be much as it is.
lurka 10 May 20 11:55
The death peak was 1172 on April 21. It didn't peak or start to decline on April 8. It happened 2 weeks later, which completely blows his argument out of the water.
So even when we add the care home deaths, the 10th April is showing 1152, 20 less than on April 21st. The bar chart shows there WAS then a decline before the total figure started to rise again.
However, lurka, please answer me this, according to that bar chart, there were NO deaths outside of hospital on April 19th and relatively few on April 20th, before a significant increase on April 21st, does this mean that in reality there were more deaths on April 19th and 20th, but they've been added onto the 21st's total?
A similar three day pattern emerges the following week, none or few deaths outside hospital 26 & 27th April before a sizable increase the following day.
That bar chart clearly isn't reflecting the actual dates of death, unless you want to believe there were no deaths outside of hospitals on April 5th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 19th and 27th?
However, what does not seem in doubt, is this peak hospital total on April 8th.
The death peak was 1172 on April 21. It didn't peak or start to decline on April 8. It happened 2 weeks later, which completely blows his argument out of the water.
So even when we add the care home deaths, the 10th April is showing 1152, 20 less than on April 21st. The bar chart shows there WAS then a decline before the total figure started to rise again.
However, lurka, please answer me this, according to that bar chart, there were NO deaths outside of hospital on April 19th and relatively few on April 20th, before a significant increase on April 21st, does this mean that in reality there were more deaths on April 19th and 20th, but they've been added onto the 21st's total?
A similar three day pattern emerges the following week, none or few deaths outside hospital 26 & 27th April before a sizable increase the following day.
That bar chart clearly isn't reflecting the actual dates of death, unless you want to believe there were no deaths outside of hospitals on April 5th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 19th and 27th?
However, what does not seem in doubt, is this peak hospital total on April 8th.
https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/
Nobel prize winner states Virus will "die out" by itself.
A Scottish medical expert previously stated his belief that there was a presumption amongst the medical community that Covid19 would behave like Influenza, become seasonal or continue to grow exponentially. He stated his belief this was likely to be wrong as most viral spreads die out by themselves
Zero proof that locking health people up helps in any way
Nobel prize winner states Virus will "die out" by itself.
A Scottish medical expert previously stated his belief that there was a presumption amongst the medical community that Covid19 would behave like Influenza, become seasonal or continue to grow exponentially. He stated his belief this was likely to be wrong as most viral spreads die out by themselves
Zero proof that locking health people up helps in any way
Very good article that and its hard to disagree with much of what he says. His closing quote is hard to disagree with.
And before you attack the last bit he states that any ''lockdown'' should focus on elderly which is where we have gone badly wrong.
I think this is another foul-up on the part of the baby boomers. I am a real baby boomer — I was born in 1947, I am almost 73 years old — but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people.
And before you attack the last bit he states that any ''lockdown'' should focus on elderly which is where we have gone badly wrong.
I think this is another foul-up on the part of the baby boomers. I am a real baby boomer — I was born in 1947, I am almost 73 years old — but I think we’ve really screwed up. We’ve caused pollution, we’ve allowed the world’s population to increase threefold in my lifetime, we’ve caused the problems of global warming and now we’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people.
Michael Levitt uses data from China to underpin his argument. Enough said.
So the worldometer is wrong and therefore should not be taken at face value?
It reports official government data.
But, as you will already be aware, the data from China has been widely criticised as being a significant under estimate.
But, as you will already be aware, the data from China has been widely criticised as being a significant under estimate.
I see, so treat some with caution but not the ones that suit a given agenda. Levitts article was correct using the data available. Enough said.
Do you believe the information that came out of China in regard to COVID-19 ?
Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant you cant base graphs etc on certain countries as gospel,
then decide others who do the same are not accurate (like Levitts) and therefore bast ignored.
Any country can doctor figures if they so desire.
then decide others who do the same are not accurate (like Levitts) and therefore bast ignored.
Any country can doctor figures if they so desire.
Michael Levitt is clearly a highly intelligent man, he specialises in biophysics and structural biology, winning a Nobel Prize for his work in chemistry.
He is one of many voices on the emerging topic of COVID-19, a disease that emerged less than six months ago.
He has a particular opinion, but there are many other opinions from highly qualified subject matter experts that significantly differ from Levitt's.
I am not a virologist, I have not conducted any scientific studies on COVID-19.
But what I can observe and agree with is that there remains more that is not known about COVID-19 than is presently known.
I can also express an opinion that basing a theory on data that is widely believed to be dubious is unlikely to be considered as strong science.
He is one of many voices on the emerging topic of COVID-19, a disease that emerged less than six months ago.
He has a particular opinion, but there are many other opinions from highly qualified subject matter experts that significantly differ from Levitt's.
I am not a virologist, I have not conducted any scientific studies on COVID-19.
But what I can observe and agree with is that there remains more that is not known about COVID-19 than is presently known.
I can also express an opinion that basing a theory on data that is widely believed to be dubious is unlikely to be considered as strong science.
you can but ''enough said'' comes over as ''listen to me I know best''
the above respone is a much better one so thank you for that
the above respone is a much better one so thank you for that
Economists and scientists are no different to football/racing pundits. We afford them much gravitas and follow their hunches anyway because there is nothing else.
doris has presumably seen the evidence said last night 500,000 was a reasonable number of deaths if nothing was done
May 11, 2020 -- 12:26PM, N-east Correspondent wrote:
you can but ''enough said'' comes over as ''listen to me I know best''the above respone is a much better one so thank you for that
That highlights one of the problem with exchanging views via an internet forum, so much is left open for (mis)interpretation.
It's a clumsy way to exchange views on serious topics.
Ferguson's headline figure of 510k is massively misrepresented.
It was an estimate of deaths if nothing was done what so ever.
No case isolation, no voluntary home quarantine, no social distancing, no closure of schools and universities.
Is that a realistic scenario?
UK society would have continued as if nothing had happened, you would read about thousands of new cases, hundreds of deaths.
Yet society would continue, stiff upper lip, business as usual.
We have evidence that society wouldn't have carried on in this manner, actions were already being taken before the government intervened.
Sporting events were being cancelled despite the governments advice that there was no requirement for this to happen.
As such, you need to look at the other estimates contained within the report.
In scenario 1, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 85-98k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, and social distancing
In scenario 2, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 12-53k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. closure of schools and universities, case isolation, and social distancing
In scenario 3, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 9-39k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. closure of schools and universities, case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, and social distancing
Viewing the report through this lens provides a significantly more balanced approach than you arrive at if you consider the 510k figure as being the inevitable result once the virus had arrived in the UK.
Now, does this mean that I am a raging fan of the report produced by Ferguson and his team?
No, it does not.
It does, however, demonstrate that I am prepared to go behind the headlines and spend some time to actually read the report that created the headline.
It was an estimate of deaths if nothing was done what so ever.
No case isolation, no voluntary home quarantine, no social distancing, no closure of schools and universities.
Is that a realistic scenario?
UK society would have continued as if nothing had happened, you would read about thousands of new cases, hundreds of deaths.
Yet society would continue, stiff upper lip, business as usual.
We have evidence that society wouldn't have carried on in this manner, actions were already being taken before the government intervened.
Sporting events were being cancelled despite the governments advice that there was no requirement for this to happen.
As such, you need to look at the other estimates contained within the report.
In scenario 1, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 85-98k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, and social distancing
In scenario 2, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 12-53k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. closure of schools and universities, case isolation, and social distancing
In scenario 3, an estimate of deaths was provided in a range of 9-39k.
This scenario was dependant on the introduction of three key measures i.e. closure of schools and universities, case isolation, voluntary home quarantine, and social distancing
Viewing the report through this lens provides a significantly more balanced approach than you arrive at if you consider the 510k figure as being the inevitable result once the virus had arrived in the UK.
Now, does this mean that I am a raging fan of the report produced by Ferguson and his team?
No, it does not.
It does, however, demonstrate that I am prepared to go behind the headlines and spend some time to actually read the report that created the headline.
Angoose:
It does, however, demonstrate that I am prepared to go behind the headlines and spend some time to actually read the report that created the headline.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not identified as cases12. This may include asymptomatic infections, mild disease and a level of under-ascertainment. We therefore assume that two-thirds of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate (if required by policy) within 1 day of symptom onset, and a mean delay from onset of symptoms to hospitalisation of 5 days.
Angoose:
Michael Levitt uses data from China to underpin his argument. Enough said.
You read behind the headlines Angoose? You probably read the contents page you clown. Neil Ferguson himself used presumptions based on Chinese data as shown above yet you criticise Levitt for doing similar?
Go buy yourself a clown suit with a big Curley wig and red nose
It does, however, demonstrate that I am prepared to go behind the headlines and spend some time to actually read the report that created the headline.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not identified as cases12. This may include asymptomatic infections, mild disease and a level of under-ascertainment. We therefore assume that two-thirds of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate (if required by policy) within 1 day of symptom onset, and a mean delay from onset of symptoms to hospitalisation of 5 days.
Angoose:
Michael Levitt uses data from China to underpin his argument. Enough said.
You read behind the headlines Angoose? You probably read the contents page you clown. Neil Ferguson himself used presumptions based on Chinese data as shown above yet you criticise Levitt for doing similar?
Go buy yourself a clown suit with a big Curley wig and red nose
Oh dear, in pursuit of a cheap laugh, you've just highlighted your failure to absorb and understand information.
No one disputes that there was an outbreak of COVID-19, no one disputes that there were real cases of the disease and that this resulted in deaths.
What is disputed, however is the numbers of cases and deaths, with a consensus that China significantly under reported the numbers.
Levitt presented an argument that, uncontrolled, COVID-19 infections do not rise in an exponential manner.
To support his argument, Levitt relied on the numbers of cases being reported by the Chinese.
The very same numbers that the world is highly suspicious of.
Can you see the problem here ?
A set of numbers that is widely believed to have been unreported is hardly a strong basis for demonstrating whether or not it grew exponentially.
Can you see that, can you
No
No, you probably can't, can you.
Anyway, on to the Ferguson led model.
The passage that you quoted is the opening statement within a section that discusses disease progression and healthcare demand.
And yes, analysis of Chinese data, widely believed to have been underreported, is used in conjunction with additional data to arrive at an assumed proportion of patients contracting the virus who will require to self isolate.
This assumption forms one of numerous variables in the model, the very stuff that models are made of.
Will the use of the underreported Chinese data in arriving at this particular variable resulted in a significantly erroneous estimate of the proportion of patients contracting the virus who will require to self isolate ?
I have no idea and I am unable to determine if it resulted in an over or under estimate.
Did I make any claims as to the statistical validity of this estimated variable?
No.
Did I make any claims as to the overall validity of the model produced by Ferguson and his team?
Again no.
What I did state, however, is that it is my opinion that Ferguson's headline figure of 510k is massively misrepresented.
I then went on to explain why I hold this opinion.
So there you go.
Plenty for you to get your teeth in to and respond with more of your rapier like wit.
I can hardly wait.
No one disputes that there was an outbreak of COVID-19, no one disputes that there were real cases of the disease and that this resulted in deaths.
What is disputed, however is the numbers of cases and deaths, with a consensus that China significantly under reported the numbers.
Levitt presented an argument that, uncontrolled, COVID-19 infections do not rise in an exponential manner.
To support his argument, Levitt relied on the numbers of cases being reported by the Chinese.
The very same numbers that the world is highly suspicious of.
Can you see the problem here ?
A set of numbers that is widely believed to have been unreported is hardly a strong basis for demonstrating whether or not it grew exponentially.
Can you see that, can you
No
No, you probably can't, can you.
Anyway, on to the Ferguson led model.
The passage that you quoted is the opening statement within a section that discusses disease progression and healthcare demand.
And yes, analysis of Chinese data, widely believed to have been underreported, is used in conjunction with additional data to arrive at an assumed proportion of patients contracting the virus who will require to self isolate.
This assumption forms one of numerous variables in the model, the very stuff that models are made of.
Will the use of the underreported Chinese data in arriving at this particular variable resulted in a significantly erroneous estimate of the proportion of patients contracting the virus who will require to self isolate ?
I have no idea and I am unable to determine if it resulted in an over or under estimate.
Did I make any claims as to the statistical validity of this estimated variable?
No.
Did I make any claims as to the overall validity of the model produced by Ferguson and his team?
Again no.
What I did state, however, is that it is my opinion that Ferguson's headline figure of 510k is massively misrepresented.
I then went on to explain why I hold this opinion.
So there you go.
Plenty for you to get your teeth in to and respond with more of your rapier like wit.
I can hardly wait.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539