Coronavirus

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

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. 

Albert, I really don't care that much. I'm not going to sit here and research for a response that my heart isn't in. Sweden's economy has suffered much less than ours, though, hasn't it? 4% retraction in GDP is much more minor than the one than UK is suffering with. 

 

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

I've not written this off at all, in fact, it's one of the key reasons I'm so critical of the UK's response. They condemned the economy by failing to control the virus. The damage of those decisions will last decades. 

The condemned the economy by locking down too long and too frequently. I won't get into this debate, it'll be a circular one, and as I said above, my heart isn't really in it. You can stay as smug as you like on the other side of the world needlessly debating a country you don't live in, though. 

[Marriot Ram99]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

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 written this off at all, in fact, it's one of the key reasons I'm so critical of the UK's response. They condemned the economy by failing to control the virus. The damage of those decisions will last decades. 

The irony is that they comparatively do have their house in order when it comes to this virus. They, like other countries with strong pandemic preparedness, have been able to resume much of their usual activities. 

I do wonder what things would have been like in the US if their pandemic preparations weren't dismantled by their current government from 2017-19. 

In terms of house in order I meant how the disease was originally spread and created, they covered it up probably because it was lab made (not conspiracy or sure on this) but the alternative that it was their bad market practices is also unforgiveable for a supposedly powerful country, would only be anyway acceptable from a 3rd world country. In addition the fact they are well prepared is no surprise considering this type of outbreak is common with their food production practices and there have even been outbreaks of other varieties reported from China. 

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Albert, I really don't care that much. I'm not going to sit here and research for a response that my heart isn't in. Sweden's economy has suffered much less than ours, though, hasn't it? 4% retraction in GDP is much more minor than the one than UK is suffering with. 

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. 

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The condemned the economy by locking down too long and too frequently. I won't get into this debate, it'll be a circular one, and as I said above, my heart isn't really in it. You can stay as smug as you like on the other side of the world needlessly debating a country you don't live in, though. 

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 a day at this point without the restrictions though. 

2 minutes ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

In terms of house in order I meant how the disease was originally spread and created, they covered it up probably because it was lab made (not conspiracy or sure on this) but the alternative that it was their bad market practices is also unforgiveable for a supposedly powerful country, would only be anyway acceptable from a 3rd world country. In addition the fact they are well prepared is no surprise considering this type of outbreak is common with their food production practices and there have even been outbreaks of other varieties reported from China. 

We don't know how the disease originated, but the idea that it was 'lab made' has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point. That's David Icke level stuff. 

It's interesting to blame a country for a zoonosis happening there though. Given recent data about it's origins, even the idea that it originated in wetmarkets has been challenged. The idea of blaming a country and region for a disease existing in general isn't great, but I'm happy to wait for the outcome of investigations into the origins of the disease for formally. 

All that in mind however, countries have to take responsibility for their own failed responses. It's one thing to try to hide behind claiming China downplayed the risks, but even when the risks were known and well publicised many countries were still downplaying those concerns, the UK included.

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

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. 

But I was talking about Sweden...

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

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 a day at this point without the restrictions though

I don't think I represent anything other than my own viewpoint. I think people shouldn't talk about restrictions they themselves don't have to live through, or the consequences of that. It's fine, it's not going to impact you. Because it's a moot point. And you're an ideologue, you'd never concede a point even it was proven fact.

I'm checking out of this thread, because there is no interesting discussion to be had. 

[Albert]

Just now, Andicis said:

But I was talking about Sweden...

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. 

Just now, Andicis said:

I don't think I represent anything other than my own viewpoint. I think people shouldn't talk about restrictions they themselves don't have to live through, or the consequences of that. It's fine, it's not going to impact you. Because it's a moot point. And you're an ideologue, you'd never concede a point even it was proven fact.

I'm checking out of this thread, because there is no interesting discussion to be had. 

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. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Andicis said:

In. Your. Opinion. Just because you continue to present it as fact, doesn't make it so. It is without question lockdown restrictions have tanked the British economy worse than it would have been without them and the impact will likely be felt long after this virus is gone. 

If there had been no lockdowns and everyone had just gone about their merry way, we would have been looking at upwards of a quarter of a million deaths. 

[Andicis]

Just now, Eddie said:

If there had been no lockdowns and everyone had just gone about their merry way, we would have been looking at upwards of a quarter of a million deaths. 

Not the only alternative option, but nor do I believe that is a correct or close to correct figure. We'd peaked in cases before both lockdowns. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

That borrowing is beyond indecent, they are going to have to hike up taxes or make major austerity measures now or pass the burden on to future generations. All because of a  Chinese virus that was left uncontrolled that the government let in like a friend coming round for a drink. 

It's given the government a great way of burying the effects of leaving the EU.

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Not the only alternative option, but nor do I believe that is a correct or close to correct figure. We'd peaked in cases before both lockdowns. 

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?

 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

The same pattern is seen now. Cases slowed in the weeks following the tiered lockdown system, and have not plateaued with the second lockdown. 

Up to last week, the drop off in cases was due to the tier system, and nothing to do with the lockdown. It was going down anyway with the tiers. 

 

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

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.

So you mean, before lockdown could have even started working cases had plateaued. 

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

What alternative options are you actually proposing, and on what basis do you challenge the figure suggested?

The tier system worked and is more logical. I'd like to see it more targeted, but it's much more palatable. I'd also like parameters for leaving a tier to be clear. Because as I've already said, the cases peaked before lockdowns on both occasions, and therefore I doubt the figure would be particularly different. 

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Not the only alternative option, but nor do I believe that is a correct or close to correct figure. We'd peaked in cases before both lockdowns. 

The first UK lockdown commenced on March 23rd.

By then, we had a total of 6650 cases in total, and a total of 508 deaths since the start of the pandemic. On that day, there were 967 cases and 149 deaths.

[Andicis]

Just now, Eddie said:

The first UK lockdown commenced on March 23rd.

By then, we had a total of 6650 cases in total, and a total of 508 deaths since the start of the pandemic. On that day, there were 967 cases and 149 deaths.

I don't put much credence in the number of cases reported back then due to the absence in testing. The lockdown was on the 23 of March, cases peaked in early April before lockdown could have worked and then from there cases went down which they were bound to have done. 

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Up to last week, the drop off in cases was due to the tier system, and nothing to do with the lockdown. It was going down anyway with the tiers. 

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 lockdown to have an impact within 4-5 days. 

In the case of the first lockdown, which was announced on the 23rd of March and began on the 26th of March, the peak for hospitalisations was on the 1st of April, while taking into account weekly trends, the actual peak was likely from the 1st to 4th. This would be 6-9 days, in line with expectation. 

For the second, we have the second lockdown starting on the 5th of November, while the peak for hospitalisations was the 11th of November. Taking into account weekly trends, the weekly trend would see the peak be between the 10th-13th, so a period of 5-8 days, in line with expectation. 

So no, it had not 'peaked' prior to lockdown in either case. 

16 minutes ago, Andicis said:

So you mean, before lockdown could have even started working cases had plateaued. 

No, this isn't the case. The plateau we're seeing now has come post lockdown, in line with the time you expect it to take, ie within the range of the incubation period, as discussed. 

16 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The tier system worked and is more logical. I'd like to see it more targeted, but it's much more palatable. I'd also like parameters for leaving a tier to be clear. Because as I've already said, the cases peaked before lockdowns on both occasions, and therefore I doubt the figure would be particularly different. 

People whinged on here, including you if I recall right, that it was confusing and poorly managed. Equally, as noted, while cases slowed, the trend didn't fully flatten until the actual lockdown. 

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I don't put much credence in the number of cases reported back then due to the absence in testing. The lockdown was on the 23 of March, cases peaked in early April before lockdown could have worked and then from there cases went down which they were bound to have done. 

See above. 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

This means that you'd expect a lockdown to have an impact within 4-5 days. 

The Government statisticians say differently. I'm happy to go with them on this one. They say it takes lockdowns at least a couple of weeks to have an impact on the number of cases. 

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

People whinged on here, including you if I recall right, that it was confusing and poorly managed. Equally, as noted, while cases slowed, the trend didn't fully flatten until the actual lockdown. 

Correct, it was poorly communicated and the tiers were different in different places. Doesn't mean the idea is entirely flawed, it makes no sense locking down the entire country if the cases are heavily concentrated in one area. The idea of regional lockdowns is sound enough, but they needed to give clear parameters for how to get in/out of a tier, and not change the rules within a tier and hold with them. 

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The Government statisticians say differently. I'm happy to go with them on this one. They say it takes lockdowns at least a couple of weeks to have an impact on the number of cases. 

Which ones, and what did they actually say? 

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Correct, it was poorly communicated and the tiers were different in different places. Doesn't mean the idea is entirely flawed, it makes no sense locking down the entire country if the cases are heavily concentrated in one area. The idea of regional lockdowns is sound enough, but they needed to give clear parameters for how to get in/out of a tier, and not change the rules within a tier and hold with them. 

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. 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

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. 

The actual implementation could have been better, as I said just then and frequently previously. 

 

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Which ones, and what did they actually say? 

Might be talking baalocks on that one, might not be. I'm sure I read it at some point, but I can't come up with a source so it's neither here nor there. 

I will provide this though

The twitter thread underneath it is pretty interesting too. 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The actual implementation could have been better, as I said just then and frequently previously. 

 

Might be talking baalocks on that one, might not be. I'm sure I read it at some point, but I can't come up with a source so it's neither here nor there. 

I will provide this though

The twitter thread underneath it is pretty interesting too. 

...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. 

[Andicis]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

...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. 

Yes, an MP. And yes, I posted somebody posting their talkradio comments. As far as I'm aware, this is a football forum not an academic journal, and I thought Steve Baker's points were worth hearing. If you don't, that's fine. But sneering over a source is pretty pathetic, no? Anyway, for the second and final time I'm leaving it. 

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/11/raghib-ali-the-three-tiered-system-was-working-and-england-didnt-need-this-lockdown.html

Here's the data he cited, since you like to sneer at formats.

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Yes, an MP. And yes, I posted somebody posting their talkradio comments. As far as I'm aware, this is a football forum not an academic journal, and I thought Steve Baker's points were worth hearing. If you don't, that's fine. But sneering over a source is pretty pathetic, no? Anyway, for the second and final time I'm leaving it. 

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. 

Quote

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/11/raghib-ali-the-three-tiered-system-was-working-and-england-didnt-need-this-lockdown.html

Here's the data he cited, since you like to sneer at formats.

"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 claiming that this must imply that infections must have peaked prior to it. The issue, as noted, is that the incubation period has a period time of 4-5 days. They've not justified this position in that article, nor have you. 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

"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. 

I'm just giving the weblink for the basis of the claims. That's all.