Coronavirus

[Gone]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Maybe Sweden didn't have the Kent variant that made our cases, hospitalisations and deaths increase rapidly?

How many Countries have? How many other countries have these “other” variants that have made hospitalisation and deaths increase so rapidly? It seems strange other than the odd snippet of a case or two of X variant has been found in X country that they don’t suffer the same alleged consequences (scaremongering  of the British MSM and mass hysteria public spring to mind) 

Maybe in Sweden the general public are not so stupid to believe everything they hear and are told on the TV by loud mouth hypocrites and read in the rags we call newspapers............

[Gone]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

If the UK followed the advice when they could have acted effectively, lives and livelihoods would have been saved. 

Maybe, possibly 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, 1of4 said:

I have to agree with various posters, that the three lockdowns that the government have implemented has failed in the controlling of the spread of the virus. 

But if the first of the lockdowns had been carried out correctly and more vigorously. Had it not been prematurely ended while also encouraging the country to return to normal by offering discounts for a night out. Then the effectiveness of the lockdown would have produced a very different outcome.

How much longer would it have taken to get the cases down far enough to control?

What would the impact have been on the economy?

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

How much longer would it have taken to get the cases down far enough to control?

What would the impact have been on the economy?

The countries that are performing best economically are the ones that went down the control route. Even in Victoria, which had to lockdown for months due to allowing things to get out of control, are now doing excellently in terms of economic recovery. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

There is also the possibility that after the tragic death toll from the 1st wave that the Swedish authorities apologised for, many of the population did not rush back to the pubs just because they remained open.

I would guess that people needing to self-isolate in Sweden would be looked after too, unlike here where people who couldn't attend work could be left with no income for 2 weeks, perhaps with a family to feed.

Maybe Swedish leaders are better at communicating the risks of an invisible pandemic than other more freedom loving countries? So many people I know seem to think that a social bubble or support bubble is some sort of safety bubble, as opposed to a clearly extended household that are just then exposed to each others risk.

Maybe Sweden have put rules in place to prevent people travelling from a high risk area to a low risk area that people actually follow? If Stockholm were to be placed in lockdown due to a new variant, perhaps 1000s of it's residents would not escape round the country on crowded trains? Or if an isolated island off the coast of Sweden was almost Covid free, then people from the high risk mainland wouldn't all head over there to enjoy their lack of restrictions? (Both these examples seemed broadly acceptable to lockdown sceptics on here).

Maybe Sweden didn't have the Kent variant that made our cases, hospitalisations and deaths increase rapidly?

Maybe all these factors need to be considered before we decide that lockdowns aren't necessary? As the original tweet days, "many things are open with restrictions". Perhaps you need a negative test within 24 hours of going to a restaurant or pub with only your household? Perhaps you need proof of address to ensure you haven't travelled from a high risk area where things are shut?

Even in this lockdown, where deaths have been worse than the first one, more non-essential places of work are open. The closed venue my brother manages still need him to go in 3 times a week to ensure everything is ok there. They are using the opportunity to do some required building work and he's been meeting contractors travelling in from different parts of the country. All this is within the rules apparently.

There were more stupid restrictions about what food they could serve beer with before the lockdown (large bowl of chips: no, a cheaper cheese toasted sandwich: yes). How much time did our hopeless government waste on "what food is a meal" whilst cases were rapidly increasing. Probably a lot more than Sweden's did.

Has this paper been peer reviewed? ?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

The countries that are performing best economically are the ones that went down the control route. Even in Victoria, which had to lockdown for months due to allowing things to get out of control, are now doing excellently in terms of economic recovery. 

Thats not an answer though. 

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Has this paper been peer reviewed? ?

Of course not, I was peer reviewing the tweet! Who peer reviews the peer reviews?

They are just the sort of questions people need to ask themselves when disputing the view of a majority of experts.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Of course not, I was peer reviewing the tweet! Who peer reviews the peer reviews?

They are just the sort of questions people need to ask themselves when disputing the view of a majority of experts.

Can you quantify this 'majority of experts' please.

You keep on saying it and as far as I can tell you actually have no basis for saying it.

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thats not an answer though. 

It is an answer in a sense, just not the kind you want. The reality is that countries that went down the control route, short term pain and all, have performed drastically better overall. Ultimately, if it took the UK 3 more months to achieve control, whether it took all the way up to New Year, the UK would be better off overall. 

The lowest rate of positive tests as the first wave was around 630 per day, or around 0.94 cases per 100,000 per day. We can compare this with the Victorian second wave, which from being at 0.94 cases per 100,000 per day (60 cases per day) to coming out of lockdown was about 6 weeks. 

6 weeks... the UK has been in lockdown longer since, orders of magnitude more deaths, lives and livelihoods ruined. I think most would take that option if offered now. The issue is we had all the 'lives v the economy' talking heads on alternative media demanding everything open up. Ultimately, those decisions did indeed cost lives and livelihoods, exactly as was predicted at the time. 

[ariotofmyown]

17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

How much longer would it have taken to get the cases down far enough to control?

What would the impact have been on the economy?

We did get the cases down far enough to control. We just then opened up before we were ready to keep that control, hence lockdown was ended prematurely. 

Johnson and Hancock themselves told us that the key to ending lockdown was the world beating app and the track and trace system. Neither were in place, but they opened up anyway.

Obviously kept the borders open with basically zero quarantine.

We then had months of columnists telling us there would be no 2nd wave, that the high case numbers were just because of more testing, that hospital admissions were normal, that death tolls were normal, that...oh, I deleted all my tweets.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

It is an answer in a sense, just not the kind you want. The reality is that countries that went down the control route, short term pain and all, have performed drastically better overall. Ultimately, if it took the UK 3 more months to achieve control, whether it took all the way up to New Year, the UK would be better off overall. 

Yes you are most likely right, when we come out of this lockdown it will be 6 months in total across 3 lockdowns.

Had we just had a 6 month first lockdown we would be in a better position to control the virus.

The economy would have been completely trashed though. Its bad enough as it is and that was with a pretty normal summer.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

We did get the cases down far enough to control. We just then opened up before we were ready to keep that control, hence lockdown was ended prematurely. 

Johnson and Hancock themselves told us that the key to ending lockdown was the world beating app and the track and trace system. Neither were in place, but they opened up anyway.

Obviously kept the borders open with basically zero quarantine.

We then had months of columnists telling us there would be no 2nd wave, that the high case numbers were just because of more testing, that hospital admissions were normal, that death tolls were normal, that...oh, I deleted all my tweets.

Did we have the cases down far enough to control though?

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can you quantify this 'majority of experts' please.

You keep on saying it and as far as I can tell you actually have no basis for saying it.

My basis for saying it is that, to my knowledge, there exists no peer reviewed scientific opinion that we shouldn't have implemented lockdowns.

Most of the scientific opinion I've read (although not peer reviewed as far as I know) suggests lockdowns should have been implemented earlier.

You were suggesting the other day that there were probably loads of scientists who agreed with you. Why are they so silent? And why aren't they producing papers and getting then peer reviewed?

Could it be that it's totally obvious that lockdowns reduce infections, and hence deaths? If people are not mixing, they can't spread a virus that kills about 3% of those who get it?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

My basis for saying it is that, to my knowledge, there exists no peer reviewed scientific opinion that we shouldn't have implemented lockdowns.

Most of the scientific opinion I've read (although not peer reviewed as far as I know) suggests lockdowns should have been implemented earlier.

You were suggesting the other day that there were probably loads of scientists who agreed with you. Why are they so silent? And why aren't they producing papers and getting then peer reviewed?

Could it be that it's totally obvious that lockdowns reduce infections, and hence deaths? If people are not mixing, they can't spread a virus that kills about 3% of those who get it?

The World Health Organisation don't seem to support the idea of lockdowns, do they have any expertise in this field?

Ive never suggested load of scientists agree with me. I've suggested there are some but any time that they speak out, they instantly have people such as yourself and the MSM, with absolutely no expertise in the field that you are commenting on (as far as I know) jumping straight on them and setting about ruining their careers. Maybe many have concluded its just not worth the risk.

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Did we have the cases down far enough to control though?

Probably...as the number of deaths shrank to almost none by the summer, it suggests we did.

By not mixing with people for 3 months, a large chunk of the UK could not really have had the virus anyway.

Those who had to mix for work could still be carriers, so we needed robust testing systems in place, plus a tracing system in place to quickly isolate any outbreaks.

What we actually did was pretend it was February again. We knew there was a dangerous virus about, but no one seems to be dying from it currently in the UK, so everything must be fine.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

Probably...as the number of deaths shrank to almost none by the summer, it suggests we did.

By not mixing with people for 3 months, a large chunk of the UK could not really have had the virus anyway.

Those who had to mix for work could still be carriers, so we needed robust testing systems in place, plus a tracing system in place to quickly isolate any outbreaks.

What we actually did was pretend it was February again. We knew there was a dangerous virus about, but no one seems to be dying from it currently in the UK, so everything must be fine.

Maybe the deaths were lower because it was summer?

Did anyones deaths peak during the summer or do all countries have the same graphs?

[ariotofmyown]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The World Health Organisation don't seem to support the idea of lockdowns, do they have any expertise in this field?

I think you have made this point about 10 times previously and hence already know what they actually said.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

I think you have made this point about 10 times previously and hence already know what they actually said.

Yep that they only think lockdowns should be used in the most extreme circumstances.

The winter one was probably justified, the one in the spring who knows.

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The World Health Organisation don't seem to support the idea of lockdowns, do they have any expertise in this field?

Ive never suggested load of scientists agree with me. I've suggested there are some but any time that they speak out, they instantly have people such as yourself and the MSM, with absolutely no expertise in the field that you are commenting on (as far as I know) jumping straight on them and setting about ruining their careers. Maybe many have concluded its just not worth the risk.

Covid fantasist Toby Young spent the last year vommiting his theories into the mainsteam media.

Have any actual scientists had their careers ruined?

[ariotofmyown]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yep that they only think lockdowns should be used in the most extreme circumstances.

The winter one was probably justified, the one in the spring who knows.

50k Covid deaths in about 8 weeks (twice) seems fairly extreme.