Laurence Fox - New Political Party
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It says exactly the opposite of what the enthusiasts claim. Lockdowns and a high score on the Global Health Security Index were associated with faster recovery times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that having a sufficient and robust health system, which will boost your GHSI score) probably aids faster recovery more than harassing dog walkers, but I'm no expert.
I thought it might be too much to ask, for you to read the full article, rather than stop on the first piece of text that you felt would justify your belief.Do yourself a favour, read the whole article, and come back when you have done so.
It categorically states that lockdown has a positive role on reducing the load on healthcare systems, and improving chances of recovery.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
That study also finds that populations with a higher prevalence of smoking tend to have lower mortality. Will we follow the science there too? I'll donate the catchy "20 a day keeps the covid away" to this great effort.
Follow what you like.You asked for data, to show correlation between lockdown and improved Covid outcomes.
I provided a single link, amongst many, and you didn’t even comprehend that correctly.
Read. Comprehend. Pause. Review.
NOT
Read the first few lines. Stop.
Pat yourself on the back for being right.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 18th January 20:09
I'm reading it, settle down.
And yes indeed it finds an association between full lockdowns and a reduced peak which would take the load off hospitals, though not overall mortality.
Being published in July 2020 it obviously only looks at the first wave.
It still leaves the question of whether the same could be achieved with less draconian measures, and the question of how we end this cycle of lockdown and partial release?
And yes indeed it finds an association between full lockdowns and a reduced peak which would take the load off hospitals, though not overall mortality.
Being published in July 2020 it obviously only looks at the first wave.
It still leaves the question of whether the same could be achieved with less draconian measures, and the question of how we end this cycle of lockdown and partial release?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm reading it, settle down.
And yes indeed it finds an association between full lockdowns and a reduced peak which would take the load off hospitals, though not overall mortality.
Being published in July 2020 it obviously only looks at the first wave.
It still leaves the question of whether the same could be achieved with less draconian measures, and the question of how we end this cycle of lockdown and partial release?
I’m settled.And yes indeed it finds an association between full lockdowns and a reduced peak which would take the load off hospitals, though not overall mortality.
Being published in July 2020 it obviously only looks at the first wave.
It still leaves the question of whether the same could be achieved with less draconian measures, and the question of how we end this cycle of lockdown and partial release?
Yes, maybe less draconian measures may achieve similar, but that wasn’t the original question.
In the absence of a comparison to less draconian measures, I personally support current measures, that have a demonstrably positive effect on Covid outcomes.
andyeds1234 said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It says exactly the opposite of what the enthusiasts claim. Lockdowns and a high score on the Global Health Security Index were associated with faster recovery times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that having a sufficient and robust health system, which will boost your GHSI score) probably aids faster recovery more than harassing dog walkers, but I'm no expert.
I thought it might be too much to ask, for you to read the full article, rather than stop on the first piece of text that you felt would justify your belief.Do yourself a favour, read the whole article, and come back when you have done so.
It categorically states that lockdown has a positive role on reducing the load on healthcare systems, and improving chances of recovery.
andyeds1234 said:
There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality
yeah but no but... 
Vanden Saab said:
andyeds1234 said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It says exactly the opposite of what the enthusiasts claim. Lockdowns and a high score on the Global Health Security Index were associated with faster recovery times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that having a sufficient and robust health system, which will boost your GHSI score) probably aids faster recovery more than harassing dog walkers, but I'm no expert.
I thought it might be too much to ask, for you to read the full article, rather than stop on the first piece of text that you felt would justify your belief.Do yourself a favour, read the whole article, and come back when you have done so.
It categorically states that lockdown has a positive role on reducing the load on healthcare systems, and improving chances of recovery.
Which is not what you claimed...
andyeds1234 said:
There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality
yeah but no but... andyeds1234 said:
I’m settled.
Yes, maybe less draconian measures may achieve similar, but that wasn’t the original question.
In the absence of a comparison to less draconian measures, I personally support current measures, that have a demonstrably positive effect on Covid outcomes.
I asked for evidence, I didn't actually say there wasn't any. You showed me some and it supports what you say. Fair enough.Yes, maybe less draconian measures may achieve similar, but that wasn’t the original question.
In the absence of a comparison to less draconian measures, I personally support current measures, that have a demonstrably positive effect on Covid outcomes.
I wouldn't quite go as far as saying it categorically proves that lockdowns work - they state in typically circumspect academic language that they are associated with a reduced peak and thus less of a strain on healthcare resources. It seems logical to ask if there are less damaging ways of achieving the same - i.e. targeting restrictions and assistance to the most vulnerable, travel restrictions only etc.
It also seems reasonable to question whether we have an exit strategy from this. A one off lockdown of a few weeks while we got to grips with exactly what we had to deal with was something I think the vast majority of people accepted and supported. A year of stop start chaos, families kept apart, a severe recession and long term delays to other treatments are all things which will do lasting damage that ought to be weighed against the benefits of lockdowns.
All this angry fanaticism and ritual is not helpful to that or anything else.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It also seems reasonable to question whether we have an exit strategy from this. A one off lockdown of a few weeks while we got to grips with exactly what we had to deal with was something I think the vast majority of people accepted and supported. A year of stop start chaos, families kept apart, a severe recession and long term delays to other treatments are all things which will do lasting damage that ought to be weighed against the benefits of lockdowns.
All this angry fanaticism and ritual is not helpful to that or anything else.
Agreed.All this angry fanaticism and ritual is not helpful to that or anything else.
However, sometimes there is simply a “less worse” scenario. In this case, locking down, is hopefully better than the alternative of “wait and see”.
Time may tell us that we could have done a better job, but statistics currently confirm the positive effects of lockdown, in relation to containment of Covid.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 18th January 21:20
Vanden Saab said:
andyeds1234 said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It says exactly the opposite of what the enthusiasts claim. Lockdowns and a high score on the Global Health Security Index were associated with faster recovery times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that having a sufficient and robust health system, which will boost your GHSI score) probably aids faster recovery more than harassing dog walkers, but I'm no expert.
I thought it might be too much to ask, for you to read the full article, rather than stop on the first piece of text that you felt would justify your belief.Do yourself a favour, read the whole article, and come back when you have done so.
It categorically states that lockdown has a positive role on reducing the load on healthcare systems, and improving chances of recovery.
andyeds1234 said:
There is plenty of independent analysis, confirming a positive effect of lockdown on mortality
yeah but no but... 
ked it up the last time!
If, as has been reported , 30% of covid cases are of people who have caught it in hospital while being treated for something unrelated, isn't the load on the NHS self-perpetuating?
Heaveho said:
I'll try this again seeing as I fked it up the last time!
If, as has been reported , 30% of covid cases are of people who have caught it in hospital while being treated for something unrelated, isn't the load on the NHS self-perpetuating?
If that figure is accurate, then that would certainly seem to be the case, and all the more reason to keep people out of the hospital wherever possible. ked it up the last time!If, as has been reported , 30% of covid cases are of people who have caught it in hospital while being treated for something unrelated, isn't the load on the NHS self-perpetuating?
andyeds1234 said:
Agreed.
However, sometimes there is simply a “less worse” scenario. In this case, locking down, is hopefully better than the alternative of “wait and see”.
Time may tell us that we could have done a better job, but statistics currently confirm the positive effects of lockdown, in relation to containment of Covid.
I'm sure time will tell us we could have done a better job. I think that's expected. What would be unforgivable is if it turns out that we have made catastrophic mistakes not because of the necessity of making decisions based on incomplete and imperfect data, which is natural, but because of following a fashionable dogma. And the damage we have done elsewhere is catastrophic.However, sometimes there is simply a “less worse” scenario. In this case, locking down, is hopefully better than the alternative of “wait and see”.
Time may tell us that we could have done a better job, but statistics currently confirm the positive effects of lockdown, in relation to containment of Covid.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Monday 18th January 21:20
JuanCarlosFandango said:
kevinon said:
Superstitious primitives are the ones saying that Covid will just go away. Or that sunlight stops Covid transmission. Or bleach internally kills it. Or Jesus cures it.
The people who want consistent use of masks indoor are the opposite of superstitious.
Why do you think that?The people who want consistent use of masks indoor are the opposite of superstitious.
kevinon said:
Because wearing string of garlic round your neck is superstitious. Masks, particularly the N95 and N99 versions stop 95 % or 99% aerosol transmission, and lesser ones do a good job of stopping the bigger droplets from entering one's respiratory system. Taking such measures is the opposite of superstition.It's based on experiments that can be replicated - i.s the scientific method.
Did you find any evidence to support this assertion though? JuanCarlosFandango said:
Did you find any evidence to support this assertion though?
I reviewed lots of evidence in March 2020 before deciding to buy FFP3 / N99 masks for myself. I had an open mind as I looked at the data, because that's how I roll.But some people start with an opinion and then seek data to support it; I don't really understand it, but they must get something out of it.
kevinon said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Did you find any evidence to support this assertion though?
I reviewed lots of evidence in March 2020 before deciding to buy FFP3 / N99 masks for myself. I had an open mind as I looked at the data, because that's how I roll.But some people start with an opinion and then seek data to support it; I don't really understand it, but they must get something out of it.
kevinon said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
kevinon said:
Superstitious primitives are the ones saying that Covid will just go away. Or that sunlight stops Covid transmission. Or bleach internally kills it. Or Jesus cures it.
The people who want consistent use of masks indoor are the opposite of superstitious.
Why do you think that?The people who want consistent use of masks indoor are the opposite of superstitious.
TX.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
kevinon said:
Because wearing string of garlic round your neck is superstitious. Masks, particularly the N95 and N99 versions stop 95 % or 99% aerosol transmission, and lesser ones do a good job of stopping the bigger droplets from entering one's respiratory system. Taking such measures is the opposite of superstition.It's based on experiments that can be replicated - i.s the scientific method.
Did you find any evidence to support this assertion though? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIa4Wdy0CdY&li...
Vanden Saab said:
kevinon said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Did you find any evidence to support this assertion though?
I reviewed lots of evidence in March 2020 before deciding to buy FFP3 / N99 masks for myself. I had an open mind as I looked at the data, because that's how I roll.But some people start with an opinion and then seek data to support it; I don't really understand it, but they must get something out of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff