Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 246 comments are related to the topic:
Do we need Lockdown?
Do we need Lockdown?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 246
|
By:
We'll soon find out now. All we gotta do is keep our eyes on the figs from Southend.
|
|
By:
ffaith i agree. my big concern is how readily everything was accepted and all the new normal things being trotted out accepted too.there must be some underlying reason to all this
|
|
By:
If you catch Covid-19, your risk of death if you're over 80 is 15%. If you are under 50, it is less than 1%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52783865 Yeah, a lockdown makes perfect sense....  |
|
By:
exactly.we are being treat like morons.its not needed now we know who the vunerable are.
|
|
By:
np - it’s an incredible stat. Even the BBC can’t hide the truth.
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html If I’m reading the above correctly, these are the % chances of dying by age, regardless of covid. 65-75 2.38% 75-84 6.66% 85+ 16.66 % |
|
By:
*for men
|
|
By:
it is without doubt a horrible thing which sadly has took way too many lives.these things come around ,we learn,we adapt and we get on with life.thats how we evolve.the way this government are going about this though,telling us this,that and the other will have to change leads me to think theres more to this.
|
|
By:
Whole thing is a farce.
|
|
By:
defo pointa...and the more that people comply the worse it will get
the best thing that people can do is go out whenever they want, to wherever they want, with whoever they want don't wear a face mask, don't adhere to social distancing, ditch your smartphone eat healthy exercise regularly go out in the fresh air & in direct sunlight have social contact and stimulate the mind no toxins no msm media, government or big pharma solutions it really aint rocket science |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Has this become a danger of being a severe bout of after timing?
Go back to the middle of March (when govt advice first started coming out about not going out to pubs/restaurants etc) and ask how many scientists were saying that a lockdown wasn't necessary for this virus? This pandemic stuff obviously isn't like forecasting the weather where you would expect a high degree of confidence to get decent estimated/actual values. Sweden was a huge outlier at the time even in Sweden they wad a lot of wrangling among their experts about not locking down. A big disadvantage in early march that can't be ignored was that testing was utter sh1te,the virus was too seeded for the sh1te testing to be of any benefit in the early stages. Where were all these scientists shouting that a lockdown wasn't needed, having seen the lockdowns from china and then through Europe I'm not surprised we went down that road. |
|
By:
There were up to 20 scientists in some of these early meetings and all we ever hear about is Neil Ferguson.What were the others thinking?
|
|
By:
I can't speak for others SE but I haven't changed my tune on this throughout the whole debacle
|
|
By:
Very early on the average age of those dying in Italy was 79.5. 99% had 1 or more serious health conditions. The air pollution in the north where most deaths occurred was horrendous. The pattern from China and Italy was clear. The old and ill were at risk.
Precautions yes. Lockdown madness. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I wa stalking about the experts Wonders, there was no consensus and nearly all countries on it's way to us had locked down.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
quite frankly SE I would use these " " when using the E word
|
|
By:
All i'm saying is there was certainly far more science saying lockdown than not, I'm not challenging peoples opinions now that it was not needed.
I'mnot having it that ot was all obvious back in March, it clearly wasn't. |
|
By:
" " needed for the S word too imo
|
|
By:
What?
|
|
By:
science
|
|
By:
After timing is fine by me for this issue.
There were scientists like the Stanford guy, the Swedes, Levitt and a few others arguing in March that a lockdown was a bad move. It's true that most seemed to back the lock down in March and believe that it was necessary to substantially reduce case numbers. That's OK, but to still be arguing that 2 months later and insisting the lockdown must continue when the facts say otherwise is what I have a problem with. |
|
By:
to still be arguing that 2 months later and insisting the lockdown must continue when the facts say otherwise is what I have a problem with
there's a lot of these people about too tobes, fkin dangerous individuals imo |
|
By:
Tobes I was on about from the beginning I'm certainly not arguing whether it was needed or not just that I understand why it was chosen back then.
The Swedes were at loggerheads within their country with their experts, that's a 100% fact. |
|
By:
The real tragedy of all this is locking everyone down and focusing on preparing the NHS for Fergusons tsunami of covid patients has meant more deaths in carehomes.
And yes the nodding dogs that went along with Ferguson are also to blame. |
|
By:
in the UK there was no excess mortality before lockdown was imposed and 4 days prior the government said their scientific advisers informed them that CV19 was no longer a HCID
on that basis there was no justification for a lockdown they tried to justify the lockdown on the back of computer models produced by ICL |
|
By:
its meant more deaths everywhere IT, not just carehomes
|
|
By:
Has this become a danger of being a severe bout of after timing?
Definitely but what was needed at the time was foresight. The scientists had the figures and knowledge before we did. I have a timeline on this as I attended a function in London on 6th March and was due to fly to Rome on 13th March for the Six Nations game the next day. My flight to Rome left without me! It was clear two weeks prior there was a big big problem and the game wasn’t cancelled till a few days before it was due. The FCO didn’t warn us not to go.........no flight refund! This annoyed the hell out of me because we were not following the science even though that phrase had not been concocted at that stage! The Govt abdicated their duty imho. Banning flights was almost unheard of although Chump did it but that was more politics than health. Flights and travel between highly infected areas should have been stopped. Hospitals, Care Homes and old people should have been protected, they were not. Then all hell broke loose and we could not see the woods from the trees fir a shirt while after 24th March Imho political considerations got in the way of good advice I think the figures highlighted by some on here are really stark in hindsight absolutely shocking |
|
By:
I will reiterate my comments were based on the question of whether there was at the time of making the policy decision in March any sort of consensus that a lockdown was not the right path to take.
The thing for me is we all started this blind and If you've seen the science from the start it has often been inconclusive between the 'experts' from the outset. Of course there were some experts that were theorising a lockdown was not necessary but to assume they should have been the ones backed by our govt in March for me is a case of looking back after the event somewhat. Scientists are often conflicting and on this issue I've seen more divergence than anything I can recall among them. Sometimes the answers are not clear, the right thing to do is not obvious at the time. |
|
By:
'Lockdown' of healthy young people has never been done before like this.
It was an idea out of Communist China that the west foolishly adopted. |
|
By:
Communist China, take me to heaven
Somebody wrong We'll throw glass in your face Call it new propaganda Still we've been waiting for so long |
|
By:
Yes by just about every country when it looked like China had stopped it's spread with minimal deaths.
This was logically part of the decision process for other countries? We've not had a pandemic here before in our lifetimes so it was all on the hoof. IT you certainly didn't have the view lockdown was a bad move back in March.We were all in the dark and the science was often disputed among the scientists. Very few scientists were hinting that a lockdown was likely to be the wrong move. |
|
By:
In March there were few scientists again that thought or were openly stating 20% was going to be a likely infection rate that stopped transmission.
|
|
By:
I certainly did not have any answers in March except it was bleedin’ obvious the rugby should have been cancelled and flights refunded!
I had no concept of a blanket travel ban or a lockdown. It happened in other countries not ours! I was furious at the ban at the time because I felt our work could have carried on safely. It was not Bubonic Plague. We knew it affected older people but that I think all that got forgotten when panic set in. The whole thing has been a shambles not just in hindsight but at the time. That much is clear. |
|
By:
I'll obviously add a big * in assuming China's official figures are correct as have been presented to the world.
|
|
By:
The main thing for me has been the failure to protect the most vulnerable, it's very hard for anyone to put a feasible argument to suggest that back in March we were not aware of who was most vulnerable there was plenty of evidence.
|
|
By:
You are right because we did not have full access to the science in mid-March.
My personal view was, and remains, to lockdown with my wife 100% on 16th March after reading papers on how badly Covid gets you if you have a bad heart condition. By early April I was questioning full lockdown. It seemed pointless to have low risk young people locked down most of the time but have them all gather in the same supermarkets when they went out and also to have multiple staff going in and out of carehomes. Once it became clear Ferguson's code was not going to be released in full it became more and more obvious the whole thing was unncessary. It was based on bad science. We were trying something new and destructive that was not evidence based. Then the information of growth flattening in Sweden proved full lockdown was not needed. It should be targeted on at risk people rather than blanket on the whole population. Remember that was the original plan. If we had stuck to the original plan and focused our resources on the vulnerable I am convinced lives would have been saved. Thankfully Boris is finally turning the tanker round. But having scared people it is going to take time and cost more lives and money to do so. Some people are even complaining at schools returning despite only a handful of under 20s dying with the virus. |
|
By:
Absolutely
Also I believed the most important thing to them was not to see the NHS overrun as they would be blamed for it. I am not a scientist so did not and do not know the sums but I knew I and my boys could work safely. I was outraged when the pubs were told to close but they knew almost 3 weeks prior they should have done that. The fact we are still in lockdown shows how much they have got this wrong then and now! I am still not working but comforted by the maximum furlough and bright sun I am happy to fiddle while Rome burns. They are still not addressing the economy! |
|
By:
It certainly wasn't a dig IT it was reasonable in March for most of us blind to this to believe that a lockdown was probably the right thing.It has got harder for anyone to suggest as time has gone on that the lockdown has been effective as the evidence has grown.
|