Chit Chat
LOCKDOWN POINTLESS? most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home
|
By:
That alledged quote? hmmmm.
Ya want to give up on that herd immunity nonsense IT, save lives,get cases down,work from there. |
|
By:
Herd immunity starts to have an effect after 10-20% of the population has had it.
That is why the R rate drops so quickly in any new place gets cases. |
|
By:
The R rate goes down as well if it hasn't a host to go to.
What about if no new cases for a while, new cases come in,easy to track and isolate? Won't that knock out a large amount of death? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
It is a hypothesis supported by the case figures we see.
Unlike lockdown which is an almost religious belief supported by nothing I can see in the figures. |
|
By:
All the scientists that still think 60% is a realistic figure for this variable don't see this in the data?
|
|
By:
The 60% requirement was based on the assumption that everyone was equally likely to be infected.
The guys who did the 10-20% paper theorized that, based on previous viruses, this assumption was likely to be very mistaken. |
|
By:
Why have Australia/New Zealand and other countries not had an issue?
Why do people like to compare Sweden with the UK and not the other Scandinavian countries? There must be a number of drivers going on from country to country, I've seen nothing to suggest anything is black and white. |
|
By:
Tobermory are you suggesting that scientists now that are still talking higher figures for herd immunity aren't aware of that?
 |
|
By:
Why do people say you can only compare Sweden with Scandinavia but UK/New Zealand is a fair comparison
|
|
By:
I think scientists give a worst case scenario due to the precautionary principle, and also the human nature factor of not wanting to admit they may have got it wrong.
|
|
By:
I've always suggested that comparing countries unless you can properly calibrate them is completely pointless.
In my Economics days you just wouldn't do it unless you had tried and trusted assumptions that had been proven. |
|
By:
I've got very little confidence when the variables and estimates are completely all over the place
A place is said to have 50% infected already or 20-25% reaching herd immunity then weeks later it's thought to be nearer 5-7%, some countries locked down some more open. How would you go about with Sweden more open vs Denmark who had a lockdown but appear to have emerged well. ? |
|
By:
cummings was behind herd immunity, killing 50,000 people
lockdown was too late. greeks are starting their holidays today |
|
By:
The only thing I am probably the most confident about is that a function of how well a country fares with Covid is...
The early seeding and the early action taken for initial phase and then what's in place thereafter when trying to start to get back to normal. |
|
By:
I was expecting Sweden at least Stockholm to have 20-25% infected by now going on what Tegnell was saying weeks back but a recent sample is suggesting perhaps nearer 7%.
This is the trouble we have got.We are trying to surmise on key variables where the science and studies are all over the place.What looks great one day is thrown into doubt the next. |
|
By:
The 'lockdown was too late' argument is that, on March 9th, Italy had a big outbreak and went in into lockdown. We had a small outbreak and so if we lockdown same day as them we would remain far behind them in figures.
It made sense in March but now we know that UK areas which locked down on the same day - March 23rd - with wildly varying case numbers, ended up with the same outcome . So if it did not work within the UK why would it had worked between Italy/UK ? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Cummings denies being 'behind herd immunity'.
But herd immunity seems to work anyway whether we like it or not. |
|
By:
Some countries have done the same thing and had massively different outcomes regardless of how many infected.
Cases have tailed off for many far before any herd immunity has kicked in if the estimates of infection are correct. |
|
By:
Interesting that AB study suggests 7.5% of Stockholm have had the disease (no lockdown) and 18% of London have had it (with lockdown) and 21% of New York City have had it (with lockdown).
Surely we would expect the numbers to be the other way round. How is Stockholm get the lowest levels of infect with the lowest level of government intervention? Maybe locking people down, closing shops and pubs etc means actually makes people more likely to catch it? |
|
By:
Why did Denmarks early in and out of lockdown appear to work so well?
There was a quote from their leader "we couldn't wait for the science it was too risky" so we acted early. |
|
By:
I fully agree with that IT it makes no sense if those estimates are anywhere close to their true values.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Yes the early action is all important. I can't see how it isn't with relation to the totally different outcomes we have seen from country to country.
Some countries the disease just never got going of course science would dictate there is a much greater chance of subsequent problems. We haven't really seen it though as yet, Perhaps this is more seasonal than expected? Too early to tell. |
|
By:
Russia seems to be the one that still doesn't look right at all as they have the vast case numbers but not the expected deaths.
|
|
By:
I agree Striding with what you said earlier about the very poor level of analysis we get in the UK.
Media is only interested in 'gotcha!' type crap. The government has introduced the lockdown, at ruinous cost, so ministers have to defend it, while the media's main angle of attack is the lockdown was not strict enough/not soon enough. So the evidence that the lockdown was futile lies in plain sight while being ignored. |
|
By:
There's no way Tobes I'm going to begin to try and say this isn't a major head fcuk for us all with regards the economy it is a truly awful state of affairs.
I can full see why many think it wasn't a trade off that was worth it. And i'm not saying I'm right in my thoughts of the disease, Yourself and IT may well have backed the right horse here. It's just been very difficult week to week with the information to really say it's nailed regards what the most important factor(s) have actually been. |
|
By:
You hear a few references to 'falling case numbers in London', which is then presented as 'the lockdown working', if it is analyzed at all.
But if the lockdown caused that surely London should be the last place to come under control ? I mean Denmark was just mentioned as a place where the virus has been defeated as their case numbers now are so low. In the last week Denmark has double the infection rate of London, despite a much smaller population. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Of course at some point, on a certain date, a lockdown - with borders fully closed - could have kept the virus out. And a lockdown on a certain later date could have isolated and stopped spread.
But we have to be realistic about when those dates were. I think the virus was here in December and was seeded far and wide by early February. Same for Italy/Spain/France/Belgium/Germany, because those are the countries with vastly more international travel than Belarus/Slovenia/Czech...... Locking down in early March would already have been too late in that sense, we were already going to get the case numbers we were going to get. |
|
By:
tobermory • May 25, 2020 8:35 PM BST
You hear a few references to 'falling case numbers in London', which is then presented as 'the lockdown working', if it is analyzed at all. they did the same with china...their figures, their narrative you only have to look at the likes of sweden & belarus to see the "lockdown works" narrative is complete and utter fkin bollox |
|
By:
Wonders whether right or wrong to do so.
Do you think Sweden would probably have a much lower death rate akin to it's neighbours if it had locked down in the same way early? |
|
By:
Lockdowns only make sense if you either have a vaccine nearly ready or theres a reason to think the virus wont hang round.
If this virus is going to continue to circulate and theres no working vaccine whats the point because it will come back as soon as you lift the lockdown and you cant have lockdown after lockdown. |
|
By:
SE I have only looked at the UK in significant detail but the only evidence I see here is that lockdown has caused excess mortality, not prevented it
|
|
By:
Most Swedish deaths are in care homes. A Swedish scientist said that they have big care homes with scores of residents while Norway typically has only 5 or 6 people per home.
|
|
By:
A lot of people still think the disease is similar to flu too in terms of potency. Of course we all know who the vulnerable groups are and they represent a huge chunk of the deaths.
If these estimates of infections are anywhere near right though the IFR has to be a lot higher than for flu. There's been a lot of argument on several different things throughout. is it the same as flu lockdown vs social distancing, of course no one said do nowt is it worth ruining the next however many years for the deaths |
|
By:
Yes of course I should have mentioned the in direct deaths above too as of course another important factor.
Well you get the gold star wonders  I'm still struggling to make sense of plenty of it. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
besides I consider flu a seasonal detox based on bodily intake & terrain ie living surroundings
|