CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)

[GSE]

Oh and it's far from over yet.

The EU cooking up plans for further control...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-rel...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/corona...

[dundarach]

I thought the data now shows excessive deaths were lower in the UK than neighbours.

Suggesting we did indeed do better?

[Challo]

GSE said:

Oh and it's far from over yet.

The EU cooking up plans for further control...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-rel...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/corona...

But we are no in the EU so it doesn't matter.

[Donbot]

dundarach said:

I thought the data now shows excessive deaths were lower in the UK than neighbours.

Suggesting we did indeed do better?

Did we do it better by locking down less hard or harder?

Because if it is the former it just means we did it less worse.

[isaldiri]

poo at Paul's said:

And yet, 178k deaths here in UK, with population of 65million odd. USA, 1 million deaths with population of 330 million odd. Similar death tolls overall both had moments of "draconian" measures, but in reality, they were very limited to short periods or populations.

It wasnt perfect, but I think most people accept that whilst not enjoyable and with a large financial cost, it did serve a purpose to reduce deaths and serious illness overall.

Utter tripe. There's very little evidence outside of rolling out vaccination for the over 60s in high numbers (ie those that would actually benefit who were already going to be very keen on taking the vaccines without coercion) that anything done over the pandemic actually had significantly changed those numbers of people getting infected and dying. The excess death rate is far more a function of population demographics and interconnectedness than severity of restrictions. The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

[anonymous-user]

isaldiri said:

poo at Paul's said:

And yet, 178k deaths here in UK, with population of 65million odd. USA, 1 million deaths with population of 330 million odd. Similar death tolls overall both had moments of "draconian" measures, but in reality, they were very limited to short periods or populations.

It wasnt perfect, but I think most people accept that whilst not enjoyable and with a large financial cost, it did serve a purpose to reduce deaths and serious illness overall.

Utter tripe. There's very little evidence outside of rolling out vaccination for the over 60s in high numbers (ie those that would actually benefit who were already going to be very keen on taking the vaccines without coercion) that anything done over the pandemic actually had significantly changed those numbers of people getting infected and dying. The excess death rate is far more a function of population demographics and interconnectedness than severity of restrictions. The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Exactly.

People are so focused on numbers of deaths from covid that they ignore the huge damage to the overall health of people and the economy.

[Rufus Stone]

isaldiri said:

The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Can you prove that though?

[RemarkLima]

Rufus Stone said:

isaldiri said:

The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Can you prove that though?

*ahem* Sweden.

[Rufus Stone]

RemarkLima said:

*ahem* Sweden.

• ahem* not UK.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Rufus Stone said:

isaldiri said:

The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Can you prove that though?

But ain’t that the thing - one cannot prove either side of the debate.

Yes there are the published figures and the excess death figures (and that’s before the “with” or “from” issue), the amount of money that was spent on all the various schemes in place and the estimates of lost income for business along with the increase NHS waiting lists but unless we can set up a parallel universe where different actions were taken, then we cannot be able to say for sure.

It works for both sides so asking anyone to prove it is pointless in my opinion

[Donbot]

Rufus Stone said:

isaldiri said:

The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Can you prove that though?

You are just lazily asking to prove a negative. Like saying 'prove to me god doesn't exist'.

We experienced the same virus and reacted in different ways. I can't see any evidence that our reaction (and especially China's) has made a positive impact vs the more measured approach of Sweden.

[Rufus Stone]

Donbot said:

You are just lazily asking to prove a negative. Like saying 'prove to me god doesn't exist'.

We experienced the same virus and reacted in different ways. I can't see any evidence that our reaction (and especially China's) has made a positive impact vs the more measured approach of Sweden.

But I'm not asking someone to prove a negative.

I'm asking if they can prove that the restrictions imposed made no difference to the outcome as they claim.

[Rufus Stone]

Boringvolvodriver said:

But ain’t that the thing - one cannot prove either side of the debate.

Yes there are the published figures and the excess death figures (and that’s before the “with” or “from” issue), the amount of money that was spent on all the various schemes in place and the estimates of lost income for business along with the increase NHS waiting lists but unless we can set up a parallel universe where different actions were taken, then we cannot be able to say for sure.

It works for both sides so asking anyone to prove it is pointless in my opinion

I'm inclined to agree. We will never really know whether or not the restrictions made any long term material difference.

[isaldiri]

Boringvolvodriver said:

But ain’t that the thing - one cannot prove either side of the debate.

Yes there are the published figures and the excess death figures (and that’s before the “with” or “from” issue), the amount of money that was spent on all the various schemes in place and the estimates of lost income for business along with the increase NHS waiting lists but unless we can set up a parallel universe where different actions were taken, then we cannot be able to say for sure.

It works for both sides so asking anyone to prove it is pointless in my opinion

Define 'prove'. If it's absolutely clearcut black and white certainty then sure, it can't and won't exist.

However given the comparisons between very similar locations demographics wise with different restrictions, if there was a significant difference in outcomes due to said restrictions (as regularly claimed) it should be very obvious that excess deaths are lower. It isn't...... so... given that there should be reasonable proof that restrictions actually work to have justified them, well..... I'd say that onus of proof lies with implementation of those restrictions rather than not putting those restrictions in place.

[Roderick Spode]

Rufus Stone said:

RemarkLima said:

Rufus Stone said:

isaldiri said:

The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Can you prove that though?

*ahem* Sweden.

*ahem* not UK.

So you are asking someone to prove that the UK would have had a better / worse outcome with / without these restrictions, but only using the UK as a point of reference... how could that be done without the use of time machine to go back and amend the public health directives...

That's like saying "prove to me that Joe Bloggs would not have knackered lungs if he hadn't chosen to smoke 40 Capstans a day..."

"Ah, but Fred Kibblethwaite here didn't smoke, and he's in reet health"

"No no, has to be Joe Bloggs..."

[Rufus Stone]

Roderick Spode said:

So you are asking someone to prove that the UK would have had a better / worse outcome with / without these restrictions, but only using the UK as a point of reference... how could that be done without the use of time machine to go back and amend the public health directives...

That's like saying "prove to me that Joe Bloggs would not have knackered lungs if he hadn't chosen to smoke 40 Capstans a day..."

"Ah, but Fred Kibblethwaite here didn't smoke, and he's in reet health"

"No no, has to be Joe Bloggs..."

There are many variables when comparing to other countries, eg how deaths are measured, density of population, compliance of population. It's an inaccurate measure in my opinion.

[Roderick Spode]

Rufus Stone said:

Roderick Spode said:

So you are asking someone to prove that the UK would have had a better / worse outcome with / without these restrictions, but only using the UK as a point of reference... how could that be done without the use of time machine to go back and amend the public health directives...

That's like saying "prove to me that Joe Bloggs would not have knackered lungs if he hadn't chosen to smoke 40 Capstans a day..."

"Ah, but Fred Kibblethwaite here didn't smoke, and he's in reet health"

"No no, has to be Joe Bloggs..."

There are many variables when comparing to other countries, eg how deaths are measured, density of population, compliance of population. It's an inaccurate measure in my opinion.

How could you make a valid assertion that the UK was doing well / badly? What would you compare the figures to, if not the progress of other countries? Absolutism?

[Donbot]

He can't. He just says ramdom crap he can't back up while expecting everyone else to have a perfect answer.

[Rufus Stone]

Roderick Spode said:

How could you make a valid assertion that the UK was doing well / badly? What would you compare the figures to, if not the progress of other countries? Absolutism?

Okay, does the death rate in New Zealand prove that lockdowns work?

[poo at Paul's]

isaldiri said:

poo at Paul's said:

And yet, 178k deaths here in UK, with population of 65million odd. USA, 1 million deaths with population of 330 million odd. Similar death tolls overall both had moments of "draconian" measures, but in reality, they were very limited to short periods or populations.

It wasnt perfect, but I think most people accept that whilst not enjoyable and with a large financial cost, it did serve a purpose to reduce deaths and serious illness overall.

Utter tripe. There's very little evidence outside of rolling out vaccination for the over 60s in high numbers (ie those that would actually benefit who were already going to be very keen on taking the vaccines without coercion) that anything done over the pandemic actually had significantly changed those numbers of people getting infected and dying. The excess death rate is far more a function of population demographics and interconnectedness than severity of restrictions. The point that has been repeatedly made that despite what you seem to still hang on to that the restrictions 'did serve a purpose' - they bloody well didn't and with a far less severe application of covid restrictions we would have been able to get by with practically the same (unpleasant) outcome wrt to covid related deaths but at least we wouldn't have made things that much worse for everyone else..

Yiu have no evidence for your ‘utter tripe’ comments, but there is plenty to refute it. It’s impossible to debate it with someone so head in the sand, you will be trotting out the normal bullst in a minute about 2 years of no school for kids, two years of lockdowns, pubs shut etc etc. the reality is the lockdowns DID have the desired effect of stemming and reversing exponential growth of cases, easing pressure on health services and other care scenarios. The stats clearly show that, but of course you wont believe them, because you believe bullst off Facebook.
Same with the vaccinations. You’ll claim there’s no evidence they work, but they clearly do and did. But you’ll claim it was immunity from infections, despite less than a third of the country so far having actually caught it, still, but 90 percent odd of adults having been vaccinated.

As I say, no point debating it. You’ll just spout rhetoric and BS with nothing to back it up, except your own perverse interpretation of what are very clear statistics.

And of course, you worn answer the question, where would you have preferred to be, India, Brazil, China or UK?
We all know the answer, so no need to bother.
No country’s plans were perfect, some were awful. But you’re a clown to pretend the UK has not not fared better than most other countries. And whilst you and your deluded ilk may ‘never vote for this lot ever again’ my point is that the majority will not let Covid affect their voting decision making, not least that as I pointed out, there was pretty much universal agreement from all parties as to what policies and regulations to adopt throughout. So, who ARE you going to vote for?