Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer

[superfrank]

An opposing view from Matt Ridley in the Telegraph:

I was in favour of a national lockdown in the spring. I am not now, for six main reasons.

Covid is not a very dangerous disease for most people. The death rate is probably around 0.2 per cent of those infected, and most who die are elderly and suffering from other medical conditions. The mortality of those in hospital with Covid has almost halved for the over 80s since the start of the epidemic as treatment has improved.

Lockdowns are lethal. They cause more deaths from cancer, heart disease and suicide as well as job losses, bankruptcies, social disintegration and mental illness especially among the young, who are at least risk from the virus. In April sunshine, many people and firms could cope for a short period – once. Today, in November rain, the pain will be far worse. I will be all right, living in a rural area and able to work online, but what of those who started restaurants or live alone in small flats?

There is overwhelming support in the scientific community for national lockdown, say scientists, but the scientific community and the civil service are on secure public-sector salaries and think in top-down ways.

The first lockdown may not have achieved as much as claimed. The death rate peaked on April 8, just 16 days after lockdown began, implying that voluntary social distancing had already worked: deaths lag infection by four weeks on average. Infectivity is highly uneven so depleting the superspreaders, who tend to get infected earlier, slows the spread. Sweden and Norway are seeing much smaller second waves because they did not lock down so harshly, and no, it’s not because they live in huts in the forest or never hug each other: Sweden is a slightly more urbanised society than Britain.

There is an alternative strategy: protect the vulnerable. In the first wave, because of insufficient protective equipment and testing, health workers carried the virus between care homes and between hospital beds. As the entrepreneur Hugh Osmond points out: “Protecting all hospital and care home patients means protecting around 550,000 people in 12,500 known locations. This could prevent 75 per cent of all Covid fatalities. As opposed to trying to stop infections in 67 million people by shutting down society, with untold consequences.”

As Lord Sumption has argued, democracy itself is at risk. The Government has given itself powers to rule by decree, under a Health Protection Act intended for restricting the movements of infected people, not healthy people. Police forces have the power to issue on-the-spot fines of up to an unprecedented £10,000.

Finally, the second wave shows signs of slowing. In Nottingham, Liverpool and Newcastle the surge of infections that came with students has already peaked. “While cases are still rising across the UK, we want to reassure people that cases have not spiralled out of control, as has been recently reported from other surveys,” says Professor Tim Spector of King’s College London, curator of the widely respected ZOE survey.

A four-week lockdown now will hurt Britain more than the virus and achieve little so it would not be the last.

[rik]

your theory is wrong, excess death has been higher in all countries than those registered officially as covid deaths

uk 46700 died with covid on the certificate excess death 58k compared to average the average of the previous 5 years which have all been within a few k
you cant argue that its a coincidence that every year 280k died until nov and this year 340k
america official count is 236k excess mortality over 300k

obviously average life expectancy of those that died quite low but its also a fact if you let it spread freely numbers will be a high multiple of that
i just think the current approach isnt very scientific for example the general 2 week quarantining is stupid

[firlandsfarm]

you maybe correct but, but the pm like most politicians are not qualified or experienced enough in virology, epidemiology, biology, bio chemistry, bio physics, or maths including stats etc, whereas sage are in spades.

no doubt the pm and chancellor have had the stats produced by sage looked at by the statisticians and economists that are sitting next door in the treasury.

and the cabinet have been convinced by the conclusion (possibly erred on the side of caution) of the scientists, the experts.

johnson and co were voted in to govern /run the uk , and hence they should listen the our experts and not what foreign governments chose to do, they will answer to the uk electorate at some point, not the swedish electorate.

Politicians are rarely experts in anything (other than not answering questions!). Your list of skills attributed to Sage is correct but it omitted to include non-Sage areas such as economics, indirect affects, public acceptance etc. The politician's job is to listen to all experts and come up with a collective decision. I must admit I don't see the relevance of the Swedish or any other electorate including the UK's. Yes they were voted to govern the UK not to pander to the fear of losing the next vote.

This virus is unknown. as such all experts in all countries should be learning from other and sharing with others. The stats from Sweden or any other country should not be disregarded just because they are not from the UK.

[firlandsfarm]

your theory is wrong, excess death has been higher in all countries than those registered officially as covid deaths

uk 46700 died with covid on the certificate excess death 58k compared to average the average of the previous 5 years which have all been within a few k
you cant argue that its a coincidence that every year 280k died until nov and this year 340k
america official count is 236k excess mortality over 300k

obviously average life expectancy of those that died quite low but its also a fact if you let it spread freely numbers will be a high multiple of that
i just think the current approach isnt very scientific for example the general 2 week quarantining is stupid

Rik in which way do you see the 14 day quarantine period as "stupid"?

[rik]

I meant from travelling of course if your sick you should quarantine, just blanket 2 weeks even coming from countries with similar infection or often lower infection rate why? even they say its highly unlikely to pass it on after the first week.
they need to work out what has the biggest effect restricting overall life the least, unfortunately clubs, bars, pubs where the whole purpose is to socialise contribute the most, bad luck for them they should be helped out as much as possible with public money
testing should be improved of course, overall they arent going about it systematic/scientific enough just 2-3 days ago government were saying there cant be another national lockdown what kind of planning is that, lot of businesses have no security like that

[firlandsfarm]

I meant from travelling of course if your sick you should quarantine, just blanket 2 weeks even coming from countries with similar infection or often lower infection rate why? even they say its highly unlikely to pass it on after the first week.
they need to work out what has the biggest effect restricting overall life the least, unfortunately clubs, bars, pubs where the whole purpose is to socialise contribute the most, bad luck for them they should be helped out as much as possible with public money
testing should be improved of course, overall they arent going about it systematic/scientific enough just 2-3 days ago government were saying there cant be another national lockdown what kind of planning is that, lot of businesses have no security like that

OK, understand, but the purpose of quarantining is to reduce the chance of spreading it. It doesn't matter if you are 100 yds or 100 miles from your home/base you are still a spreader. I don't know about if it should be the first week or the second week but what I do know is the 'experts' cannot agree on very much to do with the virus so I'm happy to err on the side of caution.

The problem I have had in my experience is having had 2 weekends away recently at hotels (in the south and I'm from the south) and the hotels saying face masks should be worn in all public areas there were people not wearing face masks and when asked to do so they responded with a "I don't want to" type response!

I take your point on timing but as with everything there is always a tipping point and until that is reached expectations have to be managed. Then, when the tipping point is reached, the plan rightly changes in full knowledge that there will be a tidal wave of negative U-turn and "I told you so" comments in the media from people who never had to make the decisions. They would of course stayed completely quiet if things had worked out for Plan A hoping that nobody remembers their criticism and not required Plan B. The world is full of opportunists who will shout when they are right and hope nobody notices when they are wrong ... a government does not have that luxury.

[Korattt]

this is the simple way I see it, the old, the infirm, the vulnerable, those living in HMO’s & those with underlying heath issues (like me with asthma) will adhere as best as possible to the guidelines,

for those that feel that they’re super immune & prepared to take the risks without respecting those above won’t, doesn’t matter the age range of this group, so unless the government takes a hold of what’s going on then things will get right out of hand,

Who is culpable for this, for me it’s the WHO, for not ensuring all countries are not prepared for such an eventuality, taken from their website..

“Our primary role is to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations system”,

so where were you beforehand?, are you saying a pandemic never happens?, Bill Gates predicted it, a bit like the Environment Agency, floods happen every year but never ever seem to know what to do to help prevent them in the first place

[firlandsfarm]

Totally agree Korattt (except for the WHO comment). I can see your point but did the world give them the authority to command the world to do such a thing? I doubt China would kowtow to a WHO instruction. The WHO can lead countries to water but they can't make them drink! And flooding is a good analogy ... the first thing we (in the UK) could do is stop allowing developers from building on a flood plain ... the clue is in the description! And after they have built they walk away with their profit and leave the insurance companies and the Government to tidy up the mess after the first flood ... a little planning would say "you can't build there, that's a flood plain"!

After this disaster another will come along and we will be just as unprepared as we were this time. Part of the problem is that to maintain a react and defend stance costs money and people are not prepared to be taxed to pay for something that may not happen in their lifetime. I can see the headlines on a slow news day ... "Government wastes £X billion of your money on equipment for a pandemic that hasn't happened".

[firlandsfarm]

the reason why the actual total deaths is not much higher is because those that dies from CV19 would probably have died anyway. That the death occurred is constant it's the cause that's changed. I am musing that on Sweden's stats, not the UK's because I believe our deaths are in excess of expected deaths.

Where is the maths to support this conclusion? Are you seriously suggesting that most of the young, fit people and healthy NHS doctor's who were exposed to the virus would have mysteriously died without Covid-19?

Hey, that's not fair! It wasn't a conclusion, the full quote is ...

So let me throw something else into the ring ... the reason why the actual total deaths is not much higher is because those that died from CV19 would probably have died anyway. That the death occurred is constant it's the cause that's changed. I am musing that on Sweden's stats, not the UK's because I believe our deaths are in excess of expected deaths.

I was just putting it forward as a point for consideration! And I was thinking of the more vulnerable groups. I may be wrong as I have not studied any CV19 data (and certainly not Sweden's) but I suspect the number who have died outside of those vulnerable is probably a small percentage of the overall deaths.

[Korattt]

if you ask me, at the end of the day it’s all about money, or lack of it, as someone has already pointed out.. this is gonna cost trillions in the long run, why?, ‘cos everyone was caught with their pants down, Greta Thunberg, remember her?, banging on about climate change?, yes.. she’s right but even she didn’t see this coming,

by the way.. we’ve two weatherspoons here in Pottyborough & they’re selling ale for 99p a pint til lockdown Thursday

[firlandsfarm]

if you ask me, at the end of the day it’s all about money, or lack of it, as someone has already pointed out.. this is gonna cost trillions in the long run, why?, ‘cos everyone was caught with their pants down, Greta Thunberg, remember her?, banging on about climate change?, yes.. she’s right but even she didn’t see this coming,

Greta got caught with her pants down while banging on?!! No wonder she got her 20 mins of fame.

[firlandsfarm]

DontBlameTheGovernment.jpg

I had no idea who Prof. John Dearden is so looked him up and found this biography...

"Professor John Dearden is at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He has worked in the area of QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationships) for over 40 years, using the technique to model and predict drug potency, drug toxicity, ADMET properties, ecotoxicity and adverse health effects, and physico-chemical properties of chemicals. He has published over 250 scientific papers and book chapters, and has edited two books on QSAR. In 2004 he received the International QSAR Award for significant contributions to QSAR in environmental sciences."

So I think he is reasonably well qualified to comment, yes?

[Derek27]

DontBlameTheGovernment.jpg

I had no idea who Prof. John Dearden is so looked him up and found this biography...

"Professor John Dearden is at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He has worked in the area of QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationships) for over 40 years, using the technique to model and predict drug potency, drug toxicity, ADMET properties, ecotoxicity and adverse health effects, and physico-chemical properties of chemicals. He has published over 250 scientific papers and book chapters, and has edited two books on QSAR. In 2004 he received the International QSAR Award for significant contributions to QSAR in environmental sciences."

So I think he is reasonably well qualified to comment, yes?

He sounds qualified to comment, yes, but he hasn't laid out any detail for other scientists to look at. For example, when he says we have the highest level of obesity, does he mean 23.4% compared to an average of 23.2%?

Furthermore, you don't need to be qualified to pass judgement on BJ ignoring the advice of his own scientific advisors and then five weeks and a thousand deaths later deciding to take it.

[sionascaig]

I did like this comment:

‘They are so corrupt,’ a backbench Conservative MP said to me recently of his own party. ‘Which I almost wouldn’t mind if they weren’t so crap at it.’

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21 ... lientelism

Had to re-read the bit about a Tory MP's wife (a venture capitalist) being put in charge of UK Gov vaccine procurement and then holding a venture capitalist conference where she shared the "confidential" UK Gov approach / interest in vaccines - nothing to see here apparently...

[firlandsfarm]

Furthermore, you don't need to be qualified to pass judgement on BJ ignoring the advice of his own scientific advisors and then five weeks and a thousand deaths later deciding to take it.

You do need to be qualified in understanding all parameters of a decision and that science is just one angle. Many are taking the decision of 5 weeks ago, putting it into the conditions of today and not considering (knowing) other advice that contributed to decision of 5 weeks ago. That's not a real world, that's a hindsight world.