CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 9)

[MDMetal]

So once again lockdown has come a few days after a dip in infection rates. This is now 3 times.

Whats happening?

A) The virus has naturally peaked, our tolarance for cases seems to be aligned with when it peaks
B) The whispering of lockdown coming has helpped alter peoples behaviour.
C) The government are very very good at picking their start date.

C is scary, B sounds plausable but I don't believe any data backs it up leaving A?

[Blue62]

bodhi said:

We seem to have a new unwritten rule around COVID - you can criticise the Government for not being strict enough, but if you suggest they might be being too strict - BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!"!"! Cunningly ignoring the fact that the restrictions are costing lives as well, but they aren't COVID deaths, so don't count. Add in a couple of third rate journalists on Twitter going made at anyone who thinks we should row things back a bit (Dan Hodges I'm looking in your direction here), and we are where we are.

The other unwritten rule I've noticed, is that whilst Sweden can only be compared to Norway and Finland, the natural comparison for the UK is New Zealand. Don't think I need to point out how bonkers that is, but again, we are where we are.

I caught the back end of an interview with Dame Joan Bakewell earlier while driving, so forgive me if I don’t have the full story. The gist of it is that she is mounting s legal challenge against HMG to have all COVID data independently verified, sounds eminently sensible to me. She was very diplomatic, but her point is that policy is formed on data that is only scrutinised by one set of gov appointed scientists. Go Joan!

[ant1973]

JagLover said:

blade runner said:

bodhi said:

We seem to have a new unwritten rule around COVID - you can criticise the Government for not being strict enough, but if you suggest they might be being too strict - BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!"!"!

I have thought the same for a while now. The MSM generally hate the Tories and Boris in particular. But the only way they can actually snipe at the government at the moment is to argue that the imposed restrictions aren't harsh enough - as the opposing view (i.e. they are too harsh and having massive knock-on effets for the economy and other, non-covid, health issues) is a no-go area thanks to Offcom. Hence we end up in the current situation where, if you think the MSM reflects and/or drives public opinion, we are stuck in a never-ending race to the bottom for ever more draconian measures.

Which can create the perception that they are pro-government. In fact they are pro a certain ideological position and whenever the government deviates from it they are criticised.

The Sunday Times was at it last week talking about how Boris dithered and "delayed imposing lockdown for too long". For whatever good it does it looks to me that the timing was spot on this time. Hospitals getting close to being uncomfortably busy and infections just about to reach 1 million a week.

Whether it be due to opposition to a "Brexit" government or from an emotion based position to "save every life whatever it takes" most of the media have had the same position throughout. SAGE have also been able to use them to amplify their message on numerous occasions.

No one can explain to me why there was no contingency planning around the possibility that the virus would become more transmissible. It's not that much of an outlier (and yes I say that with the benefit of hindsight - but I am not a scientist).

Their reasonable worst case scenario in October appeared to countenance that, left unmitigated, cases would rise significantly. As soon as they discovered the mutant strain, surely they should have engaged tier 5+ immediately to keep them within capacity constraints.

I think they always knew that winter was going to be a disaster. The focus on blaming the public keeps everyone away from asking whether their planning assumptions were reasonable and well thought out.

I think we also need to face up the fact that the vast majority of people are not remotely interested in scepticism about where we are, far less how we arrived here. This is simply going to be awful until some future unspecified point in time when it is deemed to be over.

In the hard years ahead what we are saying now will become more relevant. Until then, we are all wasting our energy.

[isaldiri]

MDMetal said:

So once again lockdown has come a few days after a dip in infection rates. This is now 3 times.

Whats happening?

A) The virus has naturally peaked, our tolarance for cases seems to be aligned with when it peaks
B) The whispering of lockdown coming has helpped alter peoples behaviour.
C) The government are very very good at picking their start date.

C is scary, B sounds plausable but I don't believe any data backs it up leaving A?

B and a bit of tier4 effect applied on London/SE pre xmas that finally caught up after the big day itself.

[Gadgetmac]

markyb_lcy said:

Gadgetmac said:

Claptonian said:

bodhi said:

The other unwritten rule I've noticed, is that whilst Sweden can only be compared to Norway and Finland, the natural comparison for the UK is New Zealand. Don't think I need to point out how bonkers that is, but again, we are where we are.

Ha, good point.

Why, where and when did NZ become the natural comparison for the UK?

Can you not sense the obvious facetiousness in the comment? Jeez.

No I didn't. Jeez.

[JagLover]

MDMetal said:

So once again lockdown has come a few days after a dip in infection rates. This is now 3 times.

Whats happening?

A) The virus has naturally peaked, our tolarance for cases seems to be aligned with when it peaks
B) The whispering of lockdown coming has helpped alter peoples behaviour.
C) The government are very very good at picking their start date.

C is scary, B sounds plausable but I don't believe any data backs it up leaving A?

The scientific advisors pushed us into lockdown 2 because they knew new infections were about to peak and they didn't want it to happen unless we were in lockdown. Lockdown 3 is not as clear and hospitalisations are a lot more now than there were for Lockdown 2.

[isaldiri]

JagLover said:

The scientific advisors pushed us into lockdown 2 because they knew new infections were about to peak and they didn't want it to happen unless we were in lockdown. Lockdown 3 is not as clear and hospitalisations are a lot more now than there were for Lockdown 2.

Without lockdown 2 we would simply have hit current numbers a month earlier. Was lockdown 2 therefore have been worthwhile? That's impossible to say. Or if the earlier 2 week sep circuit breaker was applied at say tier4 or 3.

[Twinfan]

isaldiri said:

B and a bit of tier4 effect applied on London/SE pre xmas that finally caught up after the big day itself.

my thoughts too.

[JagLover]

isaldiri said:

JagLover said:

The scientific advisors pushed us into lockdown 2 because they knew new infections were about to peak and they didn't want it to happen unless we were in lockdown. Lockdown 3 is not as clear and hospitalisations are a lot more now than there were for Lockdown 2.

Without lockdown 2 we would simply have hit current numbers a month earlier. Was lockdown 2 therefore have been worthwhile? That's impossible to say. Or if the earlier 2 week sep circuit breaker was applied at say tier4 or 3.

Not necessarily as you are ignoring seasonality. What may have happened is a more consistent burn throughout winter without this sudden sharp peak.

[Elysium]

turbobloke said:

Elysium said:

RickSanchez said:

Posted this at end of last thread just as it was being closed


Compliance with coronavirus rules has risen sharply since December and is now at its highest point since the first lockdown, according to a major new survey seen by Sky News.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-compliance-wit...

In other words people are sensible and will limit their interactions voluntarily when they see evidence that there is a real danger to them or their families.

This is one of the main reason the human race has survived. We act in our own best interests.

I agree with the general point made ^ but the above link points to non-compliance over key aspects such as isolation periods and meeting friends.

The key point is that we act in our best interests. So when cases are rising, community prevalence is high and hospitals are filling up the vast majority will act to reduce their contacts.

But we will also bend the rules to see friends and family if we think that is worth the risk.

As an example, my parents have been meeting with another couple, in their garden for a 2m distanced cup of tea and a chat. Good for everyones mental health and 'allowable' because they are all over 70 and arguably providing care for the 'vulnerable'. My mum described it as a bubble, but she knows it doesn't fit the exact description. That would probably be 'non-compliance' but its best for them.

Now that the risk has increased, they have knocked it on the head for a bit.

Human nature.

[markyb_lcy]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Finally received a response to my FOI request.

“Freedom of Information Request Reference FOI-1267803

Thank you for your request dated 1 November 2020 in which you asked the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC):
“Please let me know what the false positive rate is for the PCR tests undertaken in both pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing labs. A breakdown from every lab is required.”

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

For ease of reference, we have separated and numbered the individual elements of your request.
1. “Please let me know what the false positive rate is for the PCR tests undertaken in both pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing labs.”

DHSC does not hold the information you requested for Pillar 1.

DHSC holds the information you requested for Pillar 2. The current tests are very specific and the risk of false positives (where the test is reacting to other viruses) is extremely low in the order of 1 in 100. We do know that there is a risk of detecting residual RNA for many weeks after an initial infection and laboratories look closely at the results of the tests to determine whether this is the case.

2. “A breakdown from every lab is required.”

DHSC does not hold the information you have requested.“

So the information on false positives is not given to the DHSC nor the details from each lab - doesn’t mean the information is not available of course but the DHSC do not know. You would thought that the department that Hancock runs might want the information to help make decisions.

Strange that they have it for Pillar 2 where more tests are undertaken although note the words “in the order of 1 in 100” Not an accurate figure.

So 1% of all results are false positives? If we test 500k on a given day, that’s 5k false positives?

Yes, how “very low”

Perhaps no big deal when we are clocking in at 50k positives a day, but when we get back down to the sunlit uplands of 10k positive new cases (assuming testing levels stay the same), that 1%/5k would represent half of all positives.

[Elysium]

RickSanchez said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks for reposting the link, interesting reading.

With respect, I find this extract the most telling when considering the implications of a survey which relies on people self-confessing as others take the fifth.

"But while the restrictions are being followed by most people, the study confirmed "rule-bending" remains as commonplace as throughout the pandemic, with a large minority adding their own "modifications" to the rules, especially when it comes to meeting other people and self-isolation time."

It only takes a small leak, while a large one could remain camouflaged in a survey depending on the age profile of respondents (even if the replies are honest). Some claim to have seen the gap.
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/more-than-...

I agree, self reporting is always going to be flawed. I have posted this before in fact it seems to have some of the same names attached as the others. Most people think they comply more and others comply less

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/dec/majority-feel-...

Lead author, Dr Daisy Fancourt (UCL Epidemiology & Health Care) said: “It is concerning that people consistently assume they are obeying the rules more than the average person.

This is exactly the same with driving. We all think we are better drivers than everyone else.

[bern]

Elysium said:

turbobloke said:

Elysium said:

RickSanchez said:

Posted this at end of last thread just as it was being closed


Compliance with coronavirus rules has risen sharply since December and is now at its highest point since the first lockdown, according to a major new survey seen by Sky News.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-compliance-wit...

In other words people are sensible and will limit their interactions voluntarily when they see evidence that there is a real danger to them or their families.

This is one of the main reason the human race has survived. We act in our own best interests.

I agree with the general point made ^ but the above link points to non-compliance over key aspects such as isolation periods and meeting friends.

The key point is that we act in our best interests. So when cases are rising, community prevalence is high and hospitals are filling up the vast majority will act to reduce their contacts.

But we will also bend the rules to see friends and family if we think that is worth the risk.

As an example, my parents have been meeting with another couple, in their garden for a 2m distanced cup of tea and a chat. Good for everyones mental health and 'allowable' because they are all over 70 and arguably providing care for the 'vulnerable'. My mum described it as a bubble, but she knows it doesn't fit the exact description. That would probably be 'non-compliance' but its best for them.

Now that the risk has increased, they have knocked it on the head for a bit.

Human nature.

It's amazing isn't it. It's almost like we are capable of making our own judgements and risk assessments based on data and intelligence. Without the need for a dictatorship to hold our hands / criminalise you for going to see your mum.

It will never catch on.

[dave_s13]

JagLover said:

the release of the vaccine changed things as there is now a better case to be made that restrictions will save lives rather than merely delay death for a few months.

Once the vulnerable have been vaccinated expect more dissension.

This is where I am now.

I was trying to keep up some sort of regular opposition by posting the odd thing on social media and signposting various bits of info to friends and family. Totally stopped now, and haven't made myself heard either way for getting on for 6 weeks now.

It's simply a waste of effort and time for me, mainly as I don't have any sort of social media influence, and I don't bloody want one.

One of the best things i've done recently is to stop posting anything on facebook, which backfired as I then started looking at twitter at bit more, and that place is just an echo chamber of utter friggin madness, virtue signalling (in any and all aspects of life) and just full of mainly w@nkers.

I've resigned myself to the fact the vaccine delivery is the only way out now, and this is going to take time. The only way I won't comply at the moment is if they mandate outdoor mask wearing, not doing that.

[Ashfordian]

MDMetal said:

So once again lockdown has come a few days after a dip in infection rates. This is now 3 times.

Whats happening?

A) The virus has naturally peaked, our tolarance for cases seems to be aligned with when it peaks
B) The whispering of lockdown coming has helpped alter peoples behaviour.
C) The government are very very good at picking their start date.

C is scary, B sounds plausable but I don't believe any data backs it up leaving A?

D, which is best answered by Elysium in his earlier post

Elysium said:

In other words people are sensible and will limit their interactions voluntarily when they see evidence that there is a real danger to them or their families.

This is one of the main reason the human race has survived. We act in our own best interests.

[jameswills]

markyb_lcy said:

isaldiri said:

markyb_lcy said:

The govt will tighten the lockdown and restrictions purely for political reason so they can say they “acted when the numbers dictated it” and that they’re “following the science” and “making the right decisions at the right time”.

It's all driven by optics though. More people dying ie more tough talk on restrictions and general stupidity.

Which means unfortunately we are still going to be bombarded by the crap about more measures. ICU numbers continue to increase and so will deaths for a while yet.

The good news though is that we seem to have reduced the incidence of hospital caught infections. 15% ish now from over 20% in mid Dec.....

Yep. Our only option right now as lockdown sceptics is to grin and bear it. Even the small rebellion in parliament has crumbled. “No lockdown” is a very hard sell right now.

Good to know that the NHS has made some progress though.

I too am coming quickly to this conclusion now. The alternative and more pragmatic and positive view of trying to move forward has been out there for so long it is impossible to think it hasn’t been heard. Fighting against the inevitability of another year of restrictions I don’t think will do anyone any good. What I find quite sad though is many people who are not exactly in favour of lockdowns but are happy to “do their bit” really do believe that normality will resume within the next 2 months. They have completely forgotten that they have been sold that pup every month for the last 10. That will not change one bit come April.

[LeighW]

JagLover said:

New treatment being trialled that looks promising.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55639096

Article said:

A course of treatment with the new drug could cost around £2,000, which is not that expensive for a hospital treatment.

"To be viable it will have to represent good value for money," Synairgen's chief executive Richard Marsden said.

Yeah, because every other measure so far has been...

[V1nce Fox]

they can’t stop the sun coming out.

[markyb_lcy]

jameswills said:

markyb_lcy said:

isaldiri said:

markyb_lcy said:

The govt will tighten the lockdown and restrictions purely for political reason so they can say they “acted when the numbers dictated it” and that they’re “following the science” and “making the right decisions at the right time”.

It's all driven by optics though. More people dying ie more tough talk on restrictions and general stupidity.

Which means unfortunately we are still going to be bombarded by the crap about more measures. ICU numbers continue to increase and so will deaths for a while yet.

The good news though is that we seem to have reduced the incidence of hospital caught infections. 15% ish now from over 20% in mid Dec.....

Yep. Our only option right now as lockdown sceptics is to grin and bear it. Even the small rebellion in parliament has crumbled. “No lockdown” is a very hard sell right now.

Good to know that the NHS has made some progress though.

I too am coming quickly to this conclusion now. The alternative and more pragmatic and positive view of trying to move forward has been out there for so long it is impossible to think it hasn’t been heard. Fighting against the inevitability of another year of restrictions I don’t think will do anyone any good. What I find quite sad though is many people who are not exactly in favour of lockdowns but are happy to “do their bit” really do believe that normality will resume within the next 2 months. They have completely forgotten that they have been sold that pup every month for the last 10. That will not change one bit come April.

Agreed, it’s going to be June if we are lucky and even then I think we will be stuck with “rule of six” and other curbs on our liberties. I would be surprised if we see nightclubs, gigs and festivals and other mass events until summer 2022 at the earliest.

[isaldiri]

JagLover said:

Not necessarily as you are ignoring seasonality. What may have happened is a more consistent burn throughout winter without this sudden sharp peak.

Why would it? The seasons is still the same. The NW was getting colder all throughout. Without tier3 whenever before before lockdown2 why would cases have not continued for example? Your consistent burn becomes a big peak with added numbers over time until people get scared enough by numbers dying or media stories to start changing behaviour significantly enough on their own like march last year.

The only real difference is that the huge shopping rush/meeting up post lockdown 2 might have been more spread out. You still ultimately have your big winter problem over the period short of perhaps holding tier3 with more severe shop limits all throughout since November.

And even then perhaps it just simply wouldn't work anyway and you just push it back to early this year.