CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[Elysium]

MEC said:

What about North vs South Dakota?

They can't possibly be compared. Their differing approaches lead to outcomes that are like 'day and night':

[danllama]

R-t6t6s said:

Surely if 52% of the population want something, then they have to get it and we don't worry about the minority as they are moaners? That's what I heard anyway, or was that another topic....

Have we had a vote on lockdowns and restrictions? I must have missed it.

[Elysium]

bodhi said:

Smollet said:

I think I only registered myself twice. The rest of the time I just waved my phone in the general direction of the sign and went about my business

I still haven't downloaded the app to be honest, we just signed in manually whenever we went anywhere, or if we booked in advance didn't even do that. Spent 3 or 4 nights a week in the pub or eating out over summer, not a peep from TnT.

I never downloaded the app or checked in anywhere. It was all, very obviously, a pointless and expensive waste of time.

[CrutyRammers]

R-t6t6s said:

CrutyRammers said:

Graveworm said:

a) We have polls to show public opinion from several agencies, they all show very strong support for the restrictions at a level that is well outside their margin for error and would need them to be out by an order of magnitude more than they have ever been. None have shown lack of support, despite them also showing low satisfaction in the government themselves. Even within those who don't support the measures, a significant number said they do so because they believe they don't go far enough. So I can say broadly supported by the majority.
b) I agree and history shows us this but they haven't passed laws that change the basis of democracy. Democracy is government by elected representatives in free and fair elections. If they stop you voting them out or standing for parliament then that's undemocratic.
c) They may have but that is what governments do. I don't believe they have passed any laws to limit what the media can say.
d) Bad actions by wicked democratically governments are exactly that. Saying something is democratic doesn't get them a free pass and that's a straw man. They should be held to account, but it's not the same as saying it's undemocratic.

If you want to define "democracy" in some very narrow, pedantic way in order to try to win an argument, that's your perogative. If you really believe that what has happened over the last year is "the definition of democracy" then we have very different ideas about what the important features of a democratic system are.

Surely if 52% of the population want something, then they have to get it and we don't worry about the minority as they are moaners? That's what I heard anyway, or was that another topic....

That's right. A general election which elected a party which promised a public vote on an issue, which was then taken, on the explicit terms that the result would be implemented, which was then voted through by a massive majority in parliament, and which then was confirmed again by voting in a government which promised to implement it, is exactly comparable with what's gone on over the last year.

Edited by CrutyRammers on Thursday 4th March 13:33

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

They can't possibly be compared. Given there differing approaches the outcome is like 'day and night':

So North Dakota going from 15% more cases than South, to half is not significant? Correlation wise that's not a win for the South.

[redrabbit]

Biker 1 said:

Snippet from Telegraph article:

'Four in 10 people aged over 80 have broken lockdown restrictions to meet up with people indoors since being vaccinated in the past three weeks, ONS figures have revealed.

Behavioural scientists have previously warned that compliance to measures was likely to fall once the vaccination programme was in full swing, but this is the first evidence it is actually happening.

According to latest ONS data, around two out of five (43 per cent) over-80s reported they had met someone other than a household member, care worker or member of their support bubble, indoors since the jab'

43% admit breaking lockdown rules: I would hazard a guess that the number is considerably higher as many will be petrified of getting arrested etc. So why the fk continue with lockdown??

I'd guess at least 40%, based on observing significant reduction in oldies wearing masks in the market last Saturday and again today. Seemed to be more marked than in other age groups, although there's less compliance across the board. My own parents (both over 80) love to follow rules and are appalled that most of their mates have decided they are all out and about now they're jabbed.

All very anecdotal and limited observation of course, but no surprise really. And very telling that the very group we're all supposed to making sacrifices to protect seem to have decided they're off the leash now they are 'safe'. On that basis, I also think 'good on them'. They didn't all demand en masse to be protected - the Govt decided that for them.

[TheJimi]

Biker 1 said:

Snippet from Telegraph article:

'Four in 10 people aged over 80 have broken lockdown restrictions to meet up with people indoors since being vaccinated in the past three weeks, ONS figures have revealed.

Behavioural scientists have previously warned that compliance to measures was likely to fall once the vaccination programme was in full swing, but this is the first evidence it is actually happening.

According to latest ONS data, around two out of five (43 per cent) over-80s reported they had met someone other than a household member, care worker or member of their support bubble, indoors since the jab'

43% admit breaking lockdown rules: I would hazard a guess that the number is considerably higher as many will be petrified of getting arrested etc. So why the fk continue with lockdown??

People over 80 in not wishing to spend what is their last years hiding behind a couch, shocker.

[R-t6t6s]

danllama said:

R-t6t6s said:

Surely if 52% of the population want something, then they have to get it and we don't worry about the minority as they are moaners? That's what I heard anyway, or was that another topic....

Have we had a vote on lockdowns and restrictions? I must have missed it.

No, but suggesting they are anti-democratic when evidence suggests the majority support them is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

[Uggers]

redrabbit said:

I'd guess at least 40%, based on observing significant reduction in oldies wearing masks in the market last Saturday and again today. Seemed to be more marked than in other age groups, although there's less compliance across the board. My own parents (both over 80) love to follow rules and are appalled that most of their mates have decided they are all out and about now they're jabbed.

All very anecdotal and limited observation of course, but no surprise really. And very telling that the very group we're all supposed to making sacrifices to protect seem to have decided they're off the leash now they are 'safe'. On that basis, I also think 'good on them'. They didn't all demand en masse to be protected - the Govt decided that for them.

I think it's good on the whole too, unfortunately there will be a significant number who now despite having significantly less chance of catching it. And a massively improved chances of surviving it after vaccination, won't be satisfied.

So will turn on the same section of society who sacrificed or lost so much so far to then get jabbed and fast, so Raymond and Dorothy can get on their Mediterranean cruise this year.

And they'll expect you to get a vaccination booster and modified versions on a rolling basis for an indeterminate period into the future.

This is the divisive nature of the beast that we are dealing with now.

[Ntv]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yeah. Although COVID inherently risks division between the generations (and HMG's fiscal response hasn't helped) ... almost all the older people I've spoken to would far rather have had zero lockdown and made their own minds up.

[Ntv]

Jimmy No Hands said:

bodhi said:

I still haven't downloaded the app to be honest, we just signed in manually whenever we went anywhere, or if we booked in advance didn't even do that. Spent 3 or 4 nights a week in the pub or eating out over summer, not a peep from TnT.

Staff were disinterested in doing it properly (who can blame them?) on at least three separate occasions I overheard them casually joking with customers about false details, "you're all one household, RIGHT? hehe" That one poor bod who was tasked with standing on the door for long periods regurgitating the same scripted nonsense over and over again. Nobody gave a toss. We were told to check in to every single building at university, without fail, they even stood checking we had done on one single occasion then it was forgotten about completely after a fortnight.

Looking back it was just so bizarre. What a complete shambles.

I took two of my kids of McDonald's last night. Walk in takeaway job. No track and trace. Places have given up on it. And this is in a "restaurant" in which you are greeted by someone dressed head to to in hi-viz, with a visor, a mask, gloves, who then directs you to hand sanitiser before you go any further.

[R-t6t6s]

CrutyRammers said:

That's right. A general election which elected a party which promised a public vote on an issue, which was then taken, on the explicit terms that the result would be implemented, which was then voted through by a massive majority in parliament, and which then was confirmed again by voting in a government which promised to implement it, is exactly comparable with what's gone on over the last year.

It was clearly a throw away line, but surely the point is that it appears a majority support lockdown, and the basis of democracy is that the majority rule.

Personally I dont support the lockdown either, but I do support democracy, and so if the majority feel its in their interests it is fair to go along with it.

Clearly they need educating, but then that argument didn't go well for Brexit really either....

[johnboy1975]

redrabbit said:

Biker 1 said:

Snippet from Telegraph article:

'Four in 10 people aged over 80 have broken lockdown restrictions to meet up with people indoors since being vaccinated in the past three weeks, ONS figures have revealed.

Behavioural scientists have previously warned that compliance to measures was likely to fall once the vaccination programme was in full swing, but this is the first evidence it is actually happening.

According to latest ONS data, around two out of five (43 per cent) over-80s reported they had met someone other than a household member, care worker or member of their support bubble, indoors since the jab'

43% admit breaking lockdown rules: I would hazard a guess that the number is considerably higher as many will be petrified of getting arrested etc. So why the fk continue with lockdown??

I'd guess at least 40%, based on observing significant reduction in oldies wearing masks in the market last Saturday and again today. Seemed to be more marked than in other age groups, although there's less compliance across the board. My own parents (both over 80) love to follow rules and are appalled that most of their mates have decided they are all out and about now they're jabbed.

All very anecdotal and limited observation of course, but no surprise really. And very telling that the very group we're all supposed to making sacrifices to protect seem to have decided they're off the leash now they are 'safe'. On that basis, I also think 'good on them'. They didn't all demand en masse to be protected - the Govt decided that for them.

Providing they are post vaccine by 18 days, they are not going to get much safer, even after 2nd dose. Why shouldn't I have a cuppa with my parents? Is it to protect me, or protect them?

Seems the vaccines claims that it "offered 100% guarantee of no serious symptoms " when tested in the <65 group, has translated to 80% in the real world, which is a bit of a bugger, but seems better than they were hoping.

20% of 123k is 24.6k. Hopefully we can live with this figure, because there are no other options, other than permanent rolling lockdowns every winter

Any news on who the vaccine doesn't work for? Ie the current aged >80 deaths from covid? I would expect them to be the most infirm.

[johnboy1975]

oyster said:

The NHS would have collapsed. The death toll would be nearer 250k, mostly younger than those you propose isolating.

And PS - how the hell can you actually isolate people anyway?

You can't isolate people for 1 year plus. Because of hospital visits, care requirements, family visits. It would be barbaric indeed to deny care home residents contact with their loved ones for 12 months. Hang on....

You can isolate pensioners for 2 months. Some of them wouldn't notice. Food from Tesco delivery, or left on doorstep by family/friends

We put DNRs on them anyway at the peak

It could be done. There would still be deaths. I can speculate <123k, and you can speculate >250k.

There should be a way of modelling it. Given they are modelling 6k deaths a day in July 2021 with everyone over 50 jabbed (July 2020 was low double digits per day IIRC with no vaccine) , I would probably treat it with a pinch of salt

I assume your 250k includes non covid denied treatment? PHE got that figure to 1.5m, again I'm sceptical of that

Whose right? Boris. Definately Boris. Just look at his track record

[Elysium]

Graveworm said:

Elysium said:

They can't possibly be compared. Given there differing approaches the outcome is like 'day and night':

So North Dakota going from 15% more cases than South, to half is not significant? Correlation wise that's not a win for the South.

I would say that the area beneath the curve is larger for North Dakota. So much winning.

[Boringvolvodriver]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I find it really hard to understand how come their reporting is so poor that 34 deaths reported occurred more than a week ago and that of the 50 deaths with no test, a few of those were several weeks ago.

If one wanted to be cynical one would be tempted to think that they are trying to keep the numbers up.

[isaldiri]

oyster said:

The NHS would have collapsed. The death toll would be nearer 250k, mostly younger than those you propose isolating.

Define collapse. They would simply have triaged people exactly like what was done in Jan2021 anyway. Hospitalisation rate of under 50s is at minimum half of the over 65 group. You would need infection levels of at least double what we had at end of dec/early jan to merely reach the same hospitalisation numbers.

Mortality of that group is a lot lower than merely half the over 60s as well, you're going to have to be a bit more precise how you manage to magic up 250k dead younger people once you remove or even merely reduce the say over 65/70 group by a decent proportion.

[johnboy1975]

Boringvolvodriver said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I find it really hard to understand how come their reporting is so poor that 34 deaths reported occurred more than a week ago and that of the 50 deaths with no test, a few of those were several weeks ago.

If one wanted to be cynical one would be tempted to think that they are trying to keep the numbers up.

Can you test for covid post death? I would have thought so, blood sample or nasal swab (not to mention the 'Chinese method' )

So you've got a body, you suspect covid, why no test? (Ignoring the fact I thought you got tested on admission to hospital, so presumably these are 'at home' deaths- if you are in a bad way from covid, surely you ring 999?)

[ant1973]

Good news! Sausage fingers is going to start paying people to go on a diet:-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9325509/N...

Why don't we get the test and trace police onto the fatties and monitor their weight instead? That would have made more of a difference to covid than anything else they have done.

But hey, the national debt is headed for £2.8tn at the end of the decade. No biggie. Oh and PS, Rishi's spending plans don't add up apparently....

[Graveworm]

Elysium said:

I would say that the area beneath the curve is larger for North Dakota. So much winning.

Which is not the measure for how interventions work. It's about by how much they reduce transmission. Putting a road safety measure in place that means one countries death rate, that was previously higher than the other fell to half of the other would not be measured by the area under the curve prior to it levelling off.
However if you want to compare directly. Overall North Dakota has a 10% lower death rate than the South.