CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 2)
Discussion
Guess nobody will go back to the Vol 1 thread, so it's important to re-iterate the answer for this volume:
Yes. The cure is categorically worse than the disease. And it always was, right from the beginning when the idea was originally conceived of bulldozing the house to put out a chip pan fire in the kitchen.
Yes. The cure is categorically worse than the disease. And it always was, right from the beginning when the idea was originally conceived of bulldozing the house to put out a chip pan fire in the kitchen.
CoolHands said:
Neil Ferguson what an absolute 
nobbing some married posh left wing tooth and allowing her to flout all the rules to get some
What a wker. I really think these people in power all of them are just a bunch of utter wkers, let, right or liberal.
Not sure who I feel worse for - Neil or the Mrs who's Hubby probably has only just found out when it was front-page news! nobbing some married posh left wing tooth and allowing her to flout all the rules to get someWhat a w
ker. I really think these people in power all of them are just a bunch of utter wkers, let, right or liberal. 
CoolHands said:
Neil Ferguson what an absolute nobbing some married posh left wing tooth and allowing her to flout all the rules to get some
What a wker. I really think these people in power all of them are just a bunch of utter wkers, let, right or liberal.
But, but, but, but Neil is an 'expert'. nobbing some married posh left wing tooth and allowing her to flout all the rules to get someWhat a w
ker. I really think these people in power all of them are just a bunch of utter wkers, let, right or liberal. Another one... (god save me from 'experts')
without an ounce of f
king common sense in his tiny, tiny, tiny bonking bonce!Are some 'experts' really that dim?
In a word. Yes.
Jonesy23 said:
while ignoring the much more recent ones about the virus apparently weakening as it replicates, which is claimed to be a big part of what originally stopped SARS-1.
Sars1 did ultimately disappear but that was more from successful containment given it was much much less transmissible than covid19 than the virus mutating into something harmless? Still reading through the additional SAGE docs. This is a shocker:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.
Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
SPI-M said:
It was agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity. These would need to be in place for at least most of a year. Under such as policy, at least half of the year would be spent under the stricter social distancing measures.
16th March was the date the 500k death imperial model was published. That day a SAGE subgroup was debating a full year of restrictions, with strict social distancing for 6 months. Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.
Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.
hyphen said:
BBC doesn't give any details strangely. Silly Ferguson was banging a married woman whilst stressing the importance of lockdown 
BBC Newsnight stated that a woman visited his home twice, what more details would you expect? I think the issue was breaking rules on isolation, ‘banging a married woman’ is still within the rules, unless Mrs Hyphen has been having you on for the last 6 weeks and who could blame her. hyphen said:
V8fan said:
Ferguson has resigned. Not following his own guidelines.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52553229
BBC doesn't give any details strangely. Silly Ferguson was banging a married woman whilst stressing the importance of lockdown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52553229
Fubar1977 said:
Well, a reduction in Furlough payments should certainly help change the tide.
A little less easy to sit at home and virtue signal if you're only on 60% wages or less...
I`m a glutton for punishment so I sometimes read the reader comments on Daily Fail/Mirror/Sun etc. "news" articles and it's been interesting to see the change of tune on them when the reduction of furlough payments is the subject.
Strangely enough people seem MUCH keener to go back to work if you don't pay them most of their wages to sit at home.
It makes no odds to me immediately as I'm not furloughed.
I just get to sit at home helplessly watching a 50 year old family business evaporate before my eyes while the whole fking world goes mad around me.
This thread is (mostly) a little oasis of sanity in a world that seems to have totally lost the plot and decided that Covid 19 is literally the ONLY thing that matters and the ONLY thing that ever kills anyone. Even though mounting evidence points to it being far less of a threat to life than first thought.
Covid 19 isn't a non-event, it does have serious implications for quite a number of people. These people should be protected as far as practically possible, without infringing the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority who pay the taxes to fund all this in the first place.
Covid 19 is not, however, an existential threat to humanity and should not be treated as such, especially when the cost of doing so both in future lives lost through delayed/cancelled treatments etc. and a huge drop in living standards is so high.
Clueless.A little less easy to sit at home and virtue signal if you're only on 60% wages or less...
I`m a glutton for punishment so I sometimes read the reader comments on Daily Fail/Mirror/Sun etc. "news" articles and it's been interesting to see the change of tune on them when the reduction of furlough payments is the subject.
Strangely enough people seem MUCH keener to go back to work if you don't pay them most of their wages to sit at home.
It makes no odds to me immediately as I'm not furloughed.
I just get to sit at home helplessly watching a 50 year old family business evaporate before my eyes while the whole f
king world goes mad around me.This thread is (mostly) a little oasis of sanity in a world that seems to have totally lost the plot and decided that Covid 19 is literally the ONLY thing that matters and the ONLY thing that ever kills anyone. Even though mounting evidence points to it being far less of a threat to life than first thought.
Covid 19 isn't a non-event, it does have serious implications for quite a number of people. These people should be protected as far as practically possible, without infringing the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority who pay the taxes to fund all this in the first place.
Covid 19 is not, however, an existential threat to humanity and should not be treated as such, especially when the cost of doing so both in future lives lost through delayed/cancelled treatments etc. and a huge drop in living standards is so high.
andy_s said:
But, but, Ferguson said that was not allowed... Oh wait.With it being more contagious but less deadly, I am firmly in the open back up camp. Protect the vulnerables, open with safety restrictions in place and get on with it. Hoping a treatment comes along fairly quickly that will allow said restrictions to ease and allow an even more free opening. Otherwise we will crumble our society and many more will die. I believe most all see that by now. Here in the states, the Governors are doing so now at various levels. We shall see how it goes.
Elysium said:
Still reading through the additional SAGE docs. This is a shocker:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.
Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.
That is disgraceful. Even Ferguson said it was impractical. I must go back and check what Bojo actually said on the 23rd.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
SPI-M said:
It was agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity. These would need to be in place for at least most of a year. Under such as policy, at least half of the year would be spent under the stricter social distancing measures.
16th March was the date the 500k death imperial model was published. That day a SAGE subgroup was debating a full year of restrictions, with strict social distancing for 6 months. Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.
Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.
Edit: BJ on 23rd March
"And I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to.
But at present there are just no easy options. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost.
And yet it is also true that there is a clear way through."
Yah. Difficult to reconcile that with what the SAGE stuff.
Edited by ant1973 on Tuesday 5th May 23:44
This is the big one:
18th March - London only lockdown discussed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
20th March - concern that ICU capacity would be breached by the end of the month. R thought to be running at 2 or 3
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
1st April - realisation that R was already below 1 and that it had begun to reduce Mid March. This document is also heavily redacted:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
So they locked down because they thought the infection was out of control in London, then realised by 1st April that it was well under control and that pre-lockdown measures had been working.
Johnson was in hospital from the 6th to the 13th April. The first lockdown review was 16th April. At that point the Govt knew that the restrictions were no longer necessary to protect the NHS, but they had no plan to exit lockdown and no political will to act whilst Johnson was in hospital.
So they evaded and extended lockdown by 3 weeks.
18th March - London only lockdown discussed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
20th March - concern that ICU capacity would be breached by the end of the month. R thought to be running at 2 or 3
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
1st April - realisation that R was already below 1 and that it had begun to reduce Mid March. This document is also heavily redacted:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
So they locked down because they thought the infection was out of control in London, then realised by 1st April that it was well under control and that pre-lockdown measures had been working.
Johnson was in hospital from the 6th to the 13th April. The first lockdown review was 16th April. At that point the Govt knew that the restrictions were no longer necessary to protect the NHS, but they had no plan to exit lockdown and no political will to act whilst Johnson was in hospital.
So they evaded and extended lockdown by 3 weeks.
andy_s said:
Ffs, anyone with half a brain could have worked that out 6 weeks ago.The Scientists appear to be clueless TBH
Elysium said:
This is the big one:
18th March - London only lockdown discussed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
20th March - concern that ICU capacity would be breached by the end of the month. R thought to be running at 2 or 3
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
1st April - realisation that R was already below 1 and that it had begun to reduce Mid March. This document is also heavily redacted:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
So they locked down because they thought the infection was out of control in London, then realised by 1st April that it was well under control and that pre-lockdown measures had been working.
Johnson was in hospital from the 6th to the 13th April. The first lockdown review was 16th April. At that point the Govt knew that the restrictions were no longer necessary to protect the NHS, but they had no plan to exit lockdown and no political will to act whilst Johnson was in hospital.
So they evaded and extended lockdown by 3 weeks.
You are doing some good work sifting through these documents. Might be worth tweeting/emailing that info to a few sympathetic journalists and see if they pick it up.18th March - London only lockdown discussed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
20th March - concern that ICU capacity would be breached by the end of the month. R thought to be running at 2 or 3
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
1st April - realisation that R was already below 1 and that it had begun to reduce Mid March. This document is also heavily redacted:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
So they locked down because they thought the infection was out of control in London, then realised by 1st April that it was well under control and that pre-lockdown measures had been working.
Johnson was in hospital from the 6th to the 13th April. The first lockdown review was 16th April. At that point the Govt knew that the restrictions were no longer necessary to protect the NHS, but they had no plan to exit lockdown and no political will to act whilst Johnson was in hospital.
So they evaded and extended lockdown by 3 weeks.
ant1973 said:
That is disgraceful. Even Ferguson said it was impractical. I must go back and check what Bojo actually said on the 23rd.
Edit: BJ on 23rd March
"And I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to.
But at present there are just no easy options. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost.
And yet it is also true that there is a clear way through."
Yah. Difficult to reconcile that with what the SAGE stuff.
Even more difficult to reconcile with the reality that the Govt knew R was < 1 on the 1st April and that it had started to decline pre lockdown. Edit: BJ on 23rd March
"And I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to.
But at present there are just no easy options. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost.
And yet it is also true that there is a clear way through."
Yah. Difficult to reconcile that with what the SAGE stuff.
So they had plunged us into a year long restriction with no exit plan. There was no ‘constant review’ and the evidence was there to support relaxation within the first week.
Elysium said:
ant1973 said:
That is disgraceful. Even Ferguson said it was impractical. I must go back and check what Bojo actually said on the 23rd.
Edit: BJ on 23rd March
"And I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to.
But at present there are just no easy options. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost.
And yet it is also true that there is a clear way through."
Yah. Difficult to reconcile that with what the SAGE stuff.
Even more difficult to reconcile with the reality that the Govt knew R was < 1 on the 1st April and that it had started to decline pre lockdown. Edit: BJ on 23rd March
"And I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to.
But at present there are just no easy options. The way ahead is hard, and it is still true that many lives will sadly be lost.
And yet it is also true that there is a clear way through."
Yah. Difficult to reconcile that with what the SAGE stuff.
So they had plunged us into a year long restriction with no exit plan. There was no ‘constant review’ and the evidence was there to support relaxation within the first week.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff