Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)

[don'tbesilly]

El stovey said:

don'tbesilly said:

It didn't take long, and this is just one example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavir...

From your article



Not sure they’re looking at the U.K. and thinking they wished they’d followed us.

Did you think that was what I was suggesting?.

If you did, you spectacularly missed the point I highlighted in the post VS made and responded to.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

El stovey said:

don'tbesilly said:

It didn't take long, and this is just one example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavir...

From your article



Not sure they’re looking at the U.K. and thinking they wished they’d followed us.

Did you think that was what I was suggesting?.

If you did, you spectacularly missed the point I highlighted in the post VS made and responded to.

don'tbesilly said:

Vanden Saab said:

El stovey said:

Perhaps as an alternative to the negative narrative towards the UKs pandemic decisions, you could tell us what Boris and the government did well regarding the handling of the pandemic?

I don’t see or read anyone holding the U.K. up as an example of success regarding the pandemic, in fact it’s the complete opposite.

It’s hardly just iforb saying the U.K. has done badly. It’s not exactly a controversial statement to make looking at the decisions made and the resulting high death counts because of them.

Most experts now acknowledge that the late lockdowns cost tens of thousands of extra deaths. The care home protection was woefully inadequate, we had infected people arriving from China and Italy well into the pandemic all over the U.K. the decision to stop testing and contact tracing.

I’m struggling to see how the U.K. could have actually done any worse.

If you think the pandemic is now over and the virus will disappear or a vaccine is just around the corner then I would agree with your supposition. Personally I think the opposite and those countries that suppressed the virus have just set themselves up for a whole world of pain later in the year when winter comes. IMHO it is far too early to call game over and decide we have done all the wrong things. Time will tell in the long run.

It didn't take long, and this is just one example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavir...

You’re saying it’s going badly in Australia but it isn’t.

Vs said “ Personally I think the opposite and those countries that suppressed the virus have just set themselves up for a whole world of pain later in the year when winter comes. and . . .. Time will tell in the long run”

Then you said it was happening already. Which it isn’t.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 4th July 13:34

[Red 4]

JagLover said:

The reason why I mention Sweden is that was the country to see the Imperial model vs reality clearly.

Coronavirus has got into a majority of British care homes I believe so there is no larger pool of vulnerable elderly the virus has not yet reached. To therefore extrapolate to that many deaths is ludicrous.

The only ludicrous thing here is your assertion that care homes no longer present a risk.

Are you saying all the residents now have antibodies or are asymptomatic ?
Maybe we should go and harvest all of that lovely OAP plasma.

Oh, and let's not forget the imaginary "protective ring" that government immediately threw around the most vulnerable in society.
One thing is for certain though, if you want excellent examples of what not to do during a pandemic then look no further than Boris and co.

Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 4th July 13:41

[W12GT]

Slagathore said:

Do you think, now, that it is as deadly as was made out back in Jan/Feb/Mar? I appreciate it's only with hindsight that we can now see it wasn't, but my point here is about the lessons learned bit and not repeating the mistakes if a 2nd wave comes.

I think given the death toll (and losing my dad to it) that yes it is indeed very deadly - what are we at now circa 45k dead but that is definitely and under count and a lot of stats are pointing to in excess of 65k.

I think the very fact that we have levelled out even though we have been locked down for so long speaks volumes as to it’s ability to spread and survive.

From friends of ours who are doctors we have been told that they expect to see numbers climb mid October. The thinking behind this is that it will tick over whilst everyone is outside socially but as soon as the weather changes and people move inside then it will explode again.

I personally expect to see some increases this month; I always though late June to late July but this may be wrong because ALOT of people are still working from home and not using public transport.

[don'tbesilly]

El stovey said:

don'tbesilly said:

El stovey said:

don'tbesilly said:

It didn't take long, and this is just one example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavir...

From your article



Not sure they’re looking at the U.K. and thinking they wished they’d followed us.

Did you think that was what I was suggesting?.

If you did, you spectacularly missed the point I highlighted in the post VS made and responded to.

don'tbesilly said:

Vanden Saab said:

El stovey said:

Perhaps as an alternative to the negative narrative towards the UKs pandemic decisions, you could tell us what Boris and the government did well regarding the handling of the pandemic?

I don’t see or read anyone holding the U.K. up as an example of success regarding the pandemic, in fact it’s the complete opposite.

It’s hardly just iforb saying the U.K. has done badly. It’s not exactly a controversial statement to make looking at the decisions made and the resulting high death counts because of them.

Most experts now acknowledge that the late lockdowns cost tens of thousands of extra deaths. The care home protection was woefully inadequate, we had infected people arriving from China and Italy well into the pandemic all over the U.K. the decision to stop testing and contact tracing.

I’m struggling to see how the U.K. could have actually done any worse.

If you think the pandemic is now over and the virus will disappear or a vaccine is just around the corner then I would agree with your supposition. Personally I think the opposite and those countries that suppressed the virus have just set themselves up for a whole world of pain later in the year when winter comes. IMHO it is far too early to call game over and decide we have done all the wrong things. Time will tell in the long run.

It didn't take long, and this is just one example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavir...

You’re saying it’s going badly in Australia but it isn’t.

Vs said “ Personally I think the opposite and those countries that suppressed the virus have just set themselves up for a whole world of pain later in the year when winter comes. and . . .. Time will tell in the long run”

Then you said it was happening already. Which it isn’t.

Edited by El stovey on Saturday 4th July 13:34

I didn't say it was going badly in Australia, the article I linked to stated that.

The fact that the article was written and published would suggest that further outbreaks/spikes are happening already, I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise unless you don't believe what was published?

[JagLover]

Derek Smith said:

On the plus side for me, the next one is unlikely to target the old again.

Virtually any virus usually has most impact on those with weaker immune systems and carries off in disproportionate number the frail and immune compromised. Look at those recommended to take the seasonal Flu vaccine

NHS said:

The flu vaccine is routinely given on the NHS to:
adults 65 and over
people with certain medical conditions (including children in at-risk groups from 6 months of age)
pregnant women
children aged 2 and 3 on 31 August 2019
children in primary school
frontline health or social care workers

Coronavirus is fairly unique in that young children are not also at risk. In fact there is almost no risk whatsoever in the under tens. Also in the degree of the contrast in terms of elderly IFR versus the general population.

Other than that it is not unique at all and many of those killed by it in the UK, if not the majority, would have been carried off by a bad seasonal Flu season instead.

A few decades ago this would have all been just an article in the Lancet. "The Flu season of 2019/20 unusually deadly and extended into April and May".

[JagLover]

Slagathore said:

Until someone can explain how high risk and unhealthy old people have survived it and how a tiny amount of, supposedly, healthy and young people have died, then it's anyone's guess really why some people are dying and others aren't, and the answer certainly isn't down to government policy. The main variables I can see there are their own genetics and the treatment received.

That and prior exposure to other coronaviruses.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

I didn't say it was going badly in Australia, the article I linked to stated that.

The fact that the article was written and published would suggest that further outbreaks/spikes are happening already, I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise unless you don't believe what was published?

What point were you making by highlighting it didn’t take long and posting an article saying there’s some out breaks in Australia.

VS thinks Australia and NZ are storing up problems for later.

You agreed and said it didn’t take long.

But now you’re saying Australia isn’t doing badly.

What’s your point?

[JagLover]

Red 4 said:

JagLover said:

The reason why I mention Sweden is that was the country to see the Imperial model vs reality clearly.

Coronavirus has got into a majority of British care homes I believe so there is no larger pool of vulnerable elderly the virus has not yet reached. To therefore extrapolate to that many deaths is ludicrous.

The only ludicrous thing here is your assertion that care homes no longer present a risk.

Are you saying all the residents now have antibodies or are asymptomatic ?
Maybe we should go and harvest all of that lovely OAP plasma.

I am saying it has hit over half of care homes and it also hit the vulnerable who happened to be in hospitals when it hit. This was mainly a disease of institutions and it has been carrying off the vulnerable while the healthy have been sat in their gardens locked down on 80%/100% pay.

If therefore is completely ludicrous to say you can get to 500K fatalities from the current 50K. Most of those it will kill it has reached and killed and yes many elderly will have got it and survived.

Some of the elderly age groups had a 10% IFR. That still means 90% in that age group who caught it had it, survived, and now have the anti-bodies.

I'm sorry but so called "experts" like the one you cited make me angry as they spout obvious falsehoods that they know will not be challenged by our moronic and biased media. We are then locked in a path of overreaction at the cost of massive economic damage and massive social damage as well.

Not forgetting there the impact on children's education, the impact on mental health, medical treatment for the rest of the population not being carried out, or carried out in time. The deaths and the damage to people's lives from lockdown mounts up every day and that affects the whole population not just the very elderly.

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

I am saying it has hit over half of care homes and it also hit the vulnerable who happened to be in hospitals when it hit. This was mainly a disease of institutions and it has been carrying off the vulnerable while the healthy have been sat in their gardens locked down on 80%/100% pay.

If therefore is completely ludicrous to say you can get to 500K fatalities from the current 50K. Most of those it will kill it has reached and killed and yes many elderly will have got it and survived.

Some of the elderly age groups had a 10% IFR. That still means 90% in that age group have had it, survived, and now have the anti-bodies.

I'm sorry but so called "experts" like the one you cited make me angry as they spout obvious falsehoods that they know will not be challenged by our moronic and biased media. We are then locked in a path of overreaction at the cost of massive economic damage and massive social damage as well.

Not forgetting there the impact on children's education, the impact on mental health, medical treatment for the rest of the population not being carried out, or carried out in time. The deaths and the damage to people's lives from lockdown mounts up every day and that affects the whole population not just the very elderly.

So you’re saying the government have handled it really badly but by overreacting and causing massive economic damage?

Or you’re saying the government have handled it badly by being led into an overreaction by the “moronic and biased media”?

[rjg48]

JagLover said:

Red 4 said:

JagLover said:

The reason why I mention Sweden is that was the country to see the Imperial model vs reality clearly.

Coronavirus has got into a majority of British care homes I believe so there is no larger pool of vulnerable elderly the virus has not yet reached. To therefore extrapolate to that many deaths is ludicrous.

The only ludicrous thing here is your assertion that care homes no longer present a risk.

Are you saying all the residents now have antibodies or are asymptomatic ?
Maybe we should go and harvest all of that lovely OAP plasma.

I am saying it has hit over half of care homes and it also hit the vulnerable who happened to be in hospitals when it hit. This was mainly a disease of institutions and it has been carrying off the vulnerable while the healthy have been sat in their gardens locked down on 80%/100% pay.

If therefore is completely ludicrous to say you can get to 500K fatalities from the current 50K. Most of those it will kill it has reached and killed and yes many elderly will have got it and survived.

Some of the elderly age groups had a 10% IFR. That still means 90% in that age group who caught it had it, survived, and now have the anti-bodies.

I'm sorry but so called "experts" like the one you cited make me angry as they spout obvious falsehoods that they know will not be challenged by our moronic and biased media. We are then locked in a path of overreaction at the cost of massive economic damage and massive social damage as well.

Not forgetting there the impact on children's education, the impact on mental health, medical treatment for the rest of the population not being carried out, or carried out in time. The deaths and the damage to people's lives from lockdown mounts up every day and that affects the whole population not just the very elderly.

Turd immunity, duh.

[JagLover]

El stovey said:

JagLover said:

I am saying it has hit over half of care homes and it also hit the vulnerable who happened to be in hospitals when it hit. This was mainly a disease of institutions and it has been carrying off the vulnerable while the healthy have been sat in their gardens locked down on 80%/100% pay.

If therefore is completely ludicrous to say you can get to 500K fatalities from the current 50K. Most of those it will kill it has reached and killed and yes many elderly will have got it and survived.

Some of the elderly age groups had a 10% IFR. That still means 90% in that age group have had it, survived, and now have the anti-bodies.

I'm sorry but so called "experts" like the one you cited make me angry as they spout obvious falsehoods that they know will not be challenged by our moronic and biased media. We are then locked in a path of overreaction at the cost of massive economic damage and massive social damage as well.

Not forgetting there the impact on children's education, the impact on mental health, medical treatment for the rest of the population not being carried out, or carried out in time. The deaths and the damage to people's lives from lockdown mounts up every day and that affects the whole population not just the very elderly.

So you’re saying the government have handled it really badly but by overreacting and causing massive economic damage?

Or you’re saying the government have handled it badly by being led into an overreaction by the “moronic and biased media”?

Plenty of blame to go around. Including incompetent epidemiologists, and their models that bear no resemblance to reality but must be followed completely, and in the media and the amplification of scares by social media.

I have made no secret of the fact that I think the government has significantly overreacted and said so many times. Lockdown was initially justified when we didn't know what we were dealing with and for the stated purpose of not overwhelming NHS capacity (if you watch the initial briefings that was the justification). Using eagle eyed hindsight it was never needed. Using the information known at the time it should have ended in late April.

[Slagathore]

W12GT said:

Slagathore said:

Do you think, now, that it is as deadly as was made out back in Jan/Feb/Mar? I appreciate it's only with hindsight that we can now see it wasn't, but my point here is about the lessons learned bit and not repeating the mistakes if a 2nd wave comes.

I think given the death toll (and losing my dad to it) that yes it is indeed very deadly - what are we at now circa 45k dead but that is definitely and under count and a lot of stats are pointing to in excess of 65k.

I think the very fact that we have levelled out even though we have been locked down for so long speaks volumes as to it’s ability to spread and survive.

From friends of ours who are doctors we have been told that they expect to see numbers climb mid October. The thinking behind this is that it will tick over whilst everyone is outside socially but as soon as the weather changes and people move inside then it will explode again.

I personally expect to see some increases this month; I always though late June to late July but this may be wrong because ALOT of people are still working from home and not using public transport.

Sorry to hear about your dad.

As I said in my previous post, it is deadly to a very small minority of the public. I also think, if you look at how deaths are recorded, the deaths attributed to coronavirus have been over counted, but at this point, excess deaths will tell the bigger picture. It seems at the moment, those excess deaths may have just been people who would have passed from seasonal flu or other health complications over the year, so what we really need is to see how the excess deaths look next year to see if it just averaged out by the vulnerable passing from Coronavirus instead of seasonal flu or other complications related to their illnesses later in the year.

I read on the BBC 2/3 of deaths are disabled people. It is quite evidently doing the most damage to those that are already vulnerable.

It's becoming more and more clear that for most, it is not as deadly as first thought.

Seasonal Flue is still going to be about later in the year, but will it have as much of an impact now a lot of the vulnerable have passed from coronoavirus?

Based on exponential growth in the imperial model, they thought the NHS would be overwhelmed, hence all the unused Nightingales. Now Prof Levitt is saying it has followed the same pattern in just about every country, regardless of government intervention and there was no prolonged exponential growth as predicted by the imperial model.

People will continue to be infected until there is a vaccine, that in itself is not a huge problem now we know only a small amount of people will need hospitalisation and the spread has slowed down considerably. So those that aren't vulnerable spreading it to others that aren't vulnerable might lead to spikes in infections, but I don't think that is such a bad thing as long as the vulnerable are protected. Herd immunity still seems to be the way to go until a vaccine is found.

I think we'll continue to see increases in infection, but that will be more down to fact more tests are being done. I had a quick Google, but couldn't find anything on number of infected requiring hospitalisation.

Due to the amount of asymptomatic spread, it would seem hard to get any solid numbers on infection. That and the fact that some people who have tested postive for corona then negative on an antibody tests means we really have no idea how many people have actually had it. if it is significantly more than we realise, then the numbers around infections needing hospitalisation, deaths per infection etc will all change.




ETA - I knew I'd seen an article on it somewhere - infection rates falling before lockdown - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new-study-show...

Ties in with what Prof Levitts was saying.

Edited by Slagathore on Saturday 4th July 14:53

[don'tbesilly]

El stovey said:

don'tbesilly said:

I didn't say it was going badly in Australia, the article I linked to stated that.

The fact that the article was written and published would suggest that further outbreaks/spikes are happening already, I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise unless you don't believe what was published?

What point were you making by highlighting it didn’t take long and posting an article saying there’s some out breaks in Australia.

VS thinks Australia and NZ are storing up problems for later.

You agreed and said it didn’t take long.

But now you’re saying Australia isn’t doing badly.

What’s your point?

What are you on about now?

Twice now you've stated I've written something that I haven't, where did I write Australia isn't doing badly?

You've highlighted the point I was making in your first sentence!

Where in the post VS made does he even mention Australia or New Zealand?

Vanden Saab said:

If you think the pandemic is now over and the virus will disappear or a vaccine is just around the corner then I would agree with your supposition. Personally I think the opposite and those countries that suppressed the virus have just set themselves up for a whole world of pain later in the year when winter comes. IMHO it is far too early to call game over and decide we have done all the wrong things. Time will tell in the long run.

I posted an article about Australia (as an example) to highlight the fact that outbreaks/spikes are already happening, and earlier to that which he (VS) had suggested, the article I linked to confirmed such.

You stated I had said Australia was doing badly, I didn't say it, the Article posted suggested it was.
You're now saying I said Australia wasn't doing badly, I didn't say anything of the sort.

[hidetheelephants]

El stovey said:

I’m struggling to see how the U.K. could have actually done any worse.

It's pretty clear how the UK could have done worse; see California, Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Florida etc for details. This emergency has a long way to go yet, it may be the opening of pubs etc will cause a similar rise in infection as it has in the US, we will see in a week or two.

El stovey said:

<three scientists giving us the benefit of hindsight>

Thanks for that, not very useful except for the coming public inquiry.

[Red 4]

JagLover said:

Red 4 said:

JagLover said:

The reason why I mention Sweden is that was the country to see the Imperial model vs reality clearly.

Coronavirus has got into a majority of British care homes I believe so there is no larger pool of vulnerable elderly the virus has not yet reached. To therefore extrapolate to that many deaths is ludicrous.

The only ludicrous thing here is your assertion that care homes no longer present a risk.

Are you saying all the residents now have antibodies or are asymptomatic ?
Maybe we should go and harvest all of that lovely OAP plasma.

I am saying it has hit over half of care homes and it also hit the vulnerable who happened to be in hospitals when it hit. This was mainly a disease of institutions and it has been carrying off the vulnerable while the healthy have been sat in their gardens locked down on 80%/100% pay.

If therefore is completely ludicrous to say you can get to 500K fatalities from the current 50K. Most of those it will kill it has reached and killed and yes many elderly will have got it and survived.

Some of the elderly age groups had a 10% IFR. That still means 90% in that age group who caught it had it, survived, and now have the anti-bodies.

I'm sorry but so called "experts" like the one you cited make me angry as they spout obvious falsehoods that they know will not be challenged by our moronic and biased media. We are then locked in a path of overreaction at the cost of massive economic damage and massive social damage as well.

Not forgetting there the impact on children's education, the impact on mental health, medical treatment for the rest of the population not being carried out, or carried out in time. The deaths and the damage to people's lives from lockdown mounts up every day and that affects the whole population not just the very elderly.

A disease of institutions ? Really ?

So all those people over a certain age and people who have underlying health conditions locked themselves away from civilisation for months when they had no need to ?

Not everyone who was/ is gravely susceptible to the disease was in a care home or hospital and lockdown has undoubtedly saved many lives.
If you think otherwise then you massively underestimate this disease.

Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 4th July 15:27

[Condi]

Red 4 said:

A disease of institutions ? Really ?

So all those people over a certain age and people who have underlying health conditions locked themselves away from civilisation for months when they had no need to ?

Not everyone who was/ is gravely susceptible to the disease was in a care home or hospital and lockdown has undoubtedly saved many lives.
If you think otherwise then you massively underestimate this disease.

It has saved many lives, how many is open to debate and scientific investigation.

It has also cost the country many billions of pounds.

The question is should there have been a more intelligent lockdown, which protected those who needed to be protected, and yet allowed the country to operate as normally as possible.

Look at the virus in Leicester for example, and while cases are rising those cases are all being seen in the community, with very few, if any, of those infected requiring hospitalisation. If huge numbers of under 50 year olds are infected, yet only need a couple of days to recover - which is the case for 99%+ of people in that age bracket, does that justify the huge economic and social costs of closing businesses, reducing capacity on public transport, and keeping loved ones apart?

[JagLover]

Red 4 said:

A disease of institutions ? Really ?

So all those people over a certain age and people who have underlying health conditions locked themselves away from civilisation for months when they had no need to ?

Not everyone who was/ is gravely susceptible to the disease was in a care home or hospital and lockdown has undoubtedly saved many lives.
If you think otherwise then you massively underestimate this disease.

Many lives, well that defends on your definition of many. A few hundred could be considered many.

This would never have killed 500,000 people in this country. Never. The CDC in America believe this has a 0.26 IFR. That may be an underestimate but even if we double it to 0.52 IFR then times it by the percentage of the population thought needed to catch it to arrive at HI, now believed to be 43%, we get 145,000. So where does 500,000 come from?, when without any measures whatsoever we are looking at a death toll far lower.

And of course we would have introduced some measures, even without lockdown. The vulnerable would be advised to self isolate and get food delivered and care homes and hospitals protected as best as possible and large gatherings banned. Even without lockdown therefore we struggle to reach even one fifth of the 500,000 claimed. It is a nonsense figure repeated by epidemiologists desperate to defend their discredited profession.

As for it being a disease of institutions

20% of patients diagnosed in hospital caught it in hospital

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/17/hosp...

We have also seen how it has swept through care homes.

Lockdown has addressed entirely the wrong problem and it has done so because it was based on flawed modelling unable to model any other scenario.

Well the economic damage is going to become very clear over the next year and there are going to be lots of angry people demanding answers and they will see the foundations of sand on which the case for lockdown was built.

Edited by JagLover on Saturday 4th July 16:49

[JagLover]

Further on the subject of Coronavirus being mainly a Nosocomial Viral disease.

The Sage Minutes themselves, dated 20 March say

Sage said:

If the current ICU demand is being driven largely by nosocomial transmission and increased transmission to vulnerable patients and this process is separate from transmission in the general population then it will not be influenced in the short-term by current measures

We are also far from unique in Europe for having many deaths in care homes

FT said:

As the report notes, in the UK care home deaths represent 21 per cent of total deaths. Compare and contrast that with Sweden, which saw care home deaths represent 45 per cent of total deaths, and Spain, which saw care homes represent 66 per cent (the worst in Europe), Belgium 51 per cent and Norway with 61 per cent.

Full report
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/doc...

[ant1973]

Having just listened to Dodds on Marr, I don't think Boris has anything to worry about. If that's the best they have, Labour are in is much trouble as the Tories.