Jump to content

Albert

Member
  • Content Count

    4,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Albert

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,343 profile views
  1. I'd say it's worse than the trolley bus problem, it's the trolley bus problem where you have a lever, hear people screaming, but have to listen to someone else to know what it's going to do. The issue is that a lot of people like to see it as a binary choice, when it absolutely isn't. The economy, deaths, and rate of cases, are linked in several ways. The virus being uncontrolled will tank the economy further, and do a lot of long term damage. Damage to the economy also links to factors that can impact risk of death as well, particularly long terms. That's before even thinking about the
  2. Why do you keep calling yourself a granny killer. Nobody on here has ever used that phrase, let alone called you one. Posting a laughing reaction to posts about people suffering is just bizarre, however you want to distance yourself from your choices.
  3. Yikes, I really don't know why @Archied keeps posting laughing reactions at discussions of people dying, suffering and losing their livelihoods. Seems pretty cruel to me.
  4. The risks for most people are far more than just the immediate risk of them dying when they have the virus. We are still learning about how the long term complications can be. Emerging evidence suggests young, healthy people, even asymptomatic, can suffer some level of organ damage, that alone should be concerning, and not worth the risk at this point in time. More than that, the NHS being under pressure prevents a lot of elective and preventative medicine, which will have long term ramifications, even for young people. Then there's the costs associated with cleaning up the d
  5. @Andicis noted their risk of death, that figure is about infection fatality ratio, hence people started discussing it. Yes, as does asthma. Wow, raw figures without context or comparison of other restrictions. How enlightening.
  6. They didn't. They were using an estimate based on how the death rate changed with previous lockdowns. The same can be applied to the current lockdown too. Based on the trends seen after first the tier system, then the lockdown, as many as 15k deaths may have been averted already just from the current restrictions, this being from the trend seen in September and October. Well, the trend has been turned, and cases are indeed going down now. That surely is a positive. Things were already slowing with the tier system, and properly managed they may be able to keep that going and use this a
  7. Fair enough, but again, that point about response time is the point of contention.
  8. Well, the headline claim is literally wrong, as shown on the previous page. The question of whether the lag seen is enough is the question, not the order of events. We know that the peak came after lockdown started in both cases. "Conservativehome.com"... ...also, their article notes the same peaks as I did, but just claims 'it must take two weeks for lockdowns to have an effect' without evidence or explanation. So there's our point of contention. Edit: To clarify their argument, they're agreeing with my position that the peaks were indeed after the lockdown, but are claim
  9. ...did you just cite someone posting their talkradio comments as a source? As noted, the peak in infections was definitely after the lockdowns started, that is not up for debate. A conservative MP who is willing to talk nonsense on talkradio is not a better source than the actual figures.
  10. Which ones, and what did they actually say? So, you concede the system was flawed and poorly implemented? While I disagree that a national lockdown was the best method to go with, it at the very least has worked.
  11. The rate of new cases had decreased, but has only started to drop a few weeks after the lockdown came into effect. Due to concerns around the lack of testing, metrics like hospitalisations are useful for this purpose. We can use this to compare the actual peak to when the lockdowns were brought in. The expectation is that a lockdown would start having an effect by the median incubation period, and would have a peak effect after a few of them. The median incubation period is reported at around 4-5 days, while some people can not show symptoms for up to 14 days. This means that you'd expect a lo
  12. The claim that 'cases peaked' before lockdowns isn't true in either case. The first lockdown started in late March, and the peak for cases was in early April. Cases had been beginning to slow, but this was a result of the restrictions that were already implemented. The same pattern is seen now. Cases slowed in the weeks following the tiered lockdown system, and have not plateaued with the second lockdown. What alternative options are you actually proposing, and on what basis do you challenge the figure suggested?
  13. Whoops, mind wandered as I read that, my mistake. In Sweden's case, the point is similar, and the fourth quarter results should be interesting given what they're current going through. It's interesting that you claim that I'm an 'ideologue' that would 'never concede a point even it [sic] was proven a fact', given you have no examples by which to claim this.
  14. So you don't care that much? Hmmm... Anyhow, the changing economic picture is still not clear the USA's case however, as they opened up against advice across much of the country. The prediction from that is short term gains, with longer term pain. It's not surprising that short term things look better, the question in their case is what the impacts of this current wave will be from that. I'm not 'debating a country' mate, don't be so conceited to think that you represent the entire UK. I do find it funny that you just sidestepped the point about the risk of it hitting 5000 cases
  15. So none at all, cool. Sweden went for a strategy of avoiding lockdowns, more personal freedoms etc, and that's fallen flat on its face in virtually every metric. The USA's case is an interesting one, as while they have seen some recovery in the last quarter, they are now also facing high case loads, despite each state having responsibility for their own controls. Each state has handled it differently, so looking at it state by state is usually better. For them, it'll be interesting to see the economic figures over the next few quarters with this latest wave. I've not writt
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.