Boris Johnson to hold press conference at 4pm

[birthofanorange]

I've just sat and read through this entire thread, and have been pleasantly surprised at how many posters who are usually at loggerheads (particularly in the Bear Pit / Brexit thread), have generally similar views on this and have been pretty decent with their replies and points of view.
Naturally, there has to be one exception, and it really comes as no surprise to me that it's JCFG, who proves himself to be a Grade A twunt.
That said, I'm sure he'll be delighted to know that, such as he is.
For all else on here, thank you for an informative and insightful read, over the last hour or so, and however you are spending your Christmas, I wish you all the best you can possibly have.

 

[vagabond]

Really not sure how you can say that, although I don't know what your success criteria is for determining whether it worked or not.

When it comes down to it, the science of this is pretty bloody simple: minimise social interactions as much as possible.

That's it. Literally no social interactions at all would mean the virus dies out, but that is an extreme that is just not possible, although the measures taken in Wuhan were not too far away.

"Lockdown" is an emotive word, with no commonly understood definition, but if we take it to mean broadly "a harsh restriction on social interactions" then they will always work, where I define "working" as slowing the spread of the virus relative to fewer/looser/no retractions on social interactions at all.

Now, if anyone expects a lockdown to completely drive the virus out of circulation then you will always determine them to be a failure, since social interactions, at a very low level, still continue, which will allow the virus to maintain low background levels, which will then begin to grow once restrictions are lessened in the future.

What we, and pretty much every other country around the world, is trying to do is keep kicking the can down the road until such time as vaccines give us an exit route. Here, in the west, that has meant trying to find a level off economic, educational and social interactions that can take place whilst still maintaining a control, of sorts, on the virus.

Unfortunately we, and pretty much every other country, has found out that this is really, really difficult to achieve, leading to us, and almost every other country, having to make urgent decisions, that often look like policy u-turns, in order to stem the spread.

Lockdowns work. They slow the spread, They come at great cost too.

I was favour much in favour of them at the start, but I’m now starting to question the necessity for national lockdowns. I guess that’s where I’m at.

Not disputing that covid is legit, or infecting people, absolutely not. But if 99% of people will get it and be largely unaffected in their day to day and we have vaccines incoming then I question the necessity of further lockdowns.

 

[vagabond]

Lockdown did work; basic evidence of case and death numbers proves that.

Coming out of lockdown reversed that trend, which is exactly why we're going back into lockdown.

Anyone arguing against this is either a bit simple or has a malevolent agenda.

Actually many experts and people far more qualified than you or I have argued against the necessity for lockdowns. You’d have to be highly arrogant to presume yourself an expert on virology.

Many experts advise that strict lockdown is not the best policy
One of the UK government's chief advisers who provided key input into the decision to lockdown, Physicist Professor Ferguson, has resigned in disgrace after failing to respect the lockdown he recommended as so essential for others. (Daily Telegraph, Neil Ferguson's Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time). Meanwhile numerous epidemiologists and medics continue to question the wisdom of strict lockdowns:

Prof. Moynahan
Prof. Giesecke
Dr Krause
Dr Montgomery
Dr Bhattacharya
Dr Schabas
German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine
Dr Tegnell
Dr Bhakdi
Dr Brownlie

 

[beorhthelm]

I don’t pretend to be an expert on pandemics or the control of viruses, but I do think it’s reasonable to question if lockdowns have worked. Given we’ve had one already.

I do agree with you and hold those who flouted rules in contempt.

But I just wonder if a lockdown now is truly necessary, given there’s vaccinations on the way. I would like to see a bit more reasoning and evidence from the government.

the purpose and extent of lockdowns in the western democracies has always been to "flaten the curve", reduce the impact, lessen the headline hospitalisation and death rates. it has never been intended to end the spread of covid. for that you need to go hardcore authoritarian style, shut people in their homes for 3 months with food parcels delivered by the army.

so once again we have to flaten the curve because the vaccine is still a month or two from wide distribution.

Actually many experts and people far more qualified than you or I have argued against the necessity for lockdowns. You’d have to be highly arrogant to presume yourself an expert on virology.

meanwhile the SAGE and Shadow SAGE experts have been pumping for hard lockdown since March. who's experts are right? if only it were so black and white, here we are stuck in the middle having to deal with the complexities of balancing health, economic, social cohesion. i wouldnt want to make decisions, because none of them are right, as seen from all the other countries doing the same.

 

[Weststander]

I was favour much in favour of them at the start, but I’m now starting to question the necessity for national lockdowns. I guess that’s where I’m at.

Not disputing that covid is legit, or infecting people, absolutely not. But if 99% of people will get it and be largely unaffected in their day to day and we have vaccines incoming then I question the necessity of further lockdowns.

The 99% (but that’s very questionable .... it’s the number used by covid deniers incidentally), would include an awful of people clogging hospital non-covid wards ... they would not all have mild symptoms to be able to recover at home. Then the many millions of over 60’s and/or all those with vulnerable immune systems for example, would face far greater odds of catching the virus with an unfettered epidemic in the general population.

 

[vagabond]

the purpose and extent of lockdowns in the western democracies has always been to "flaten the curve", reduce the impact, lessen the headline hospitalisation and death rates. it has never been intended to end the spread of covid. for that you need to go hardcore authoritarian style, shut people in their homes for 3 months with food parcels delivered by the army.

so once again we have to flaten the curve because the vaccine is still a month or two from wide distribution.



meanwhile the SAGE and Shadow SAGE experts have been pumping for hard lockdown since March. who's experts are right? if only it were so black and white, here we are stuck in the middle having to deal with the complexities of balancing health, economic, social cohesion. i wouldnt want to make decisions, because none of them are right, as seen from all the other countries doing the same.

Well exactly. So if you’re questioning who is right then why not question the current actions rather than blindly accept?

Whereas some act as if they are qualified, I don’t claim to have the answer or to know that i am right. I’m just thinking critically, reading and listening to the scientific community and trying to understand the necessities for the governments current course of action.

The one thing I am understanding is that science is not unilaterally behind the Tories current stance. So for that reason I expect a higher standard of explanation passed to the public to justify their plan of action.

Professor Paul Moynagh, expert immunologist:

https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...he-virus-professor-paul-moynagh-39497663.html

“That may decrease the severity,” he said. “There is talk of building a narrative in terms of lockdowns.
“I look at the trade off of lockdowns, to flatten the curve. Having done that and our lockdown was very severe and we ended it at a glacial pace...
“I see very little evidence that lockdowns work. This narrative that lockdown is the solution - we never in history used lockdowns to eliminate a virus.
“If our long term strategy is lockdown, we don't have a strategy for the virus.”

 

[Mr Banana]

I saw an excellent interview with Peter Hitchens who raised some good points. Do we actually have any proof that a lockdown is working?

We have had lockdowns now. So for whatever reason clearly that didn’t work did it?

I was pro lockdown at the start, and very aggrieved at those flouting the rules. But I would like to see more evidence that a lockdown is what we need to resolve this. If covid is mainly effecting over 75’s, why does that require the entire country to lockdown? To save lives? Well if we stopped car travel that would also save lives.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m feeling quite contemplative about the governments actions right now.

At risk of making too subtle a point, if you agree with Hitchens then you probably are wrong. He's a career contrarian who will do anything to make the most obnoxious point in the haughtiest possible way. No idea why he's talking to Owen Jones - this continuous concept of needing to engage with right-wing bellends is tiringly doomed to failure.

Although I'm sure I saw a screenshot from one of his interviews that was in an office immediately next to one I worked in for a lot of last year the other day, which was a Richter-sized thrill in the scheme of my life

 

[vagabond]

The 99% (but that’s very questionable .... it’s the number used by covid deniers incidentally), would include an awful of people clogging hospital non-covid wards ... they would not all have mild symptoms to be able to recover at home.

Well I’m not a denier. I have no doubt Covid is real, a relative of mine has had it. I’m merely questioning the need for another lockdown.

Then the many millions of over 60’s and/or all those with vulnerable immune systems for example, would face far greater odds of catching the virus with an unfettered epidemic in the general population.

I’m a fan of your posts, but you’re making several leaps here. This is supposition, neither of us are qualified to make this hypothesis.

 

[vagabond]

At risk of making too subtle a point, if you agree with Hitchens then you probably are wrong. He's a career contrarian who will do anything to make the most obnoxious point in the haughtiest possible way. No idea why he's talking to Owen Jones - this continuous concept of needing to engage with right-wing bellends is tiringly doomed to failure.

Although I'm sure I saw a screenshot from one of his interviews that was in an office immediately next to one I worked in for a lot of last year the other day, which was a Richter-sized thrill in the scheme of my life

Well would you care to mention the point he’s wrong about?

Attack the point rather than the man?

And it’s not just Peter Hitchens who’s a lockdown sceptic. A lot of the science community feel the same.

 

[Weststander]

Well I’m not a denier. I have no doubt Covid is real, a relative of mine has had it. I’m merely questioning the need for another lockdown.



I’m a fan of your posts, but you’re making several leaps here. This is supposition, neither of us are qualified to make this hypothesis.

I know you’re not btw.

The 99% is a figure covid or pandemic deniers quote to downplay CV19. It crops up all the time eg on a Nicky Campbell phone in this week .... a guest on for other reasons, quickly got a load of CV denying lies in. He was slow to act, but other listeners and belatedly NC later rowed back from her propaganda. Trump also said that 99% of covid cases are totally harmless.

 

[clapham_gull]

Peter Hitchens.. very interesting points.

https://youtu.be/Jdi_pfVJvbA

The problem with Peter Hitchen is that he only believes what Peter Hitchen believes in.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Actually many experts and people far more qualified than you or I have argued against the necessity for lockdowns. You’d have to be highly arrogant to presume yourself an expert on virology.

On what basis are they arguing against a lockdown though? You don’t need to be an expert to understand that a way to reduce transmission is to reduce exposure and/or contact. That’s quite simple. But I appreciate lockdowns are a blend of sciences with a heavy social science component....so what is their argument ?

 

[vagabond]

On what basis are they arguing against a lockdown though? You don’t need to be an expert to understand that a way to reduce transmission is to reduce exposure and/or contact. That’s quite simple. But I appreciate lockdowns are a blend of sciences with a heavy social science component....so what is their argument ?

Start by looking through my posts above, I gave some links and quotes.

It’s morbid, but you can examine the official death statistics here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/ (note nearly all victims are 80+).

Covid is real. The simple fact is for the vast majority of the population, it will be mild symptoms. So the question is, is a full lockdown required for this again, especially with vaccines incoming. I don’t claim to know the answer.

 

[Mr Banana]

Well would you care to mention the point he’s wrong about?

Attack the point rather than the man?

And it’s not just Peter Hitchens who’s a lockdown sceptic. A lot of the science community feel the same.

I'd put every possible argument through a broken Magic 8 ball and listen intently to the resulting points before I watched/considered the points made by him in a video. I say this as someone who wastes a wildly unjustifiable amount of time on NSC and the football ground guide

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Start by looking through my posts above, I gave some links and quotes.

It’s morbid, but you can examine the official death statistics here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/ (note nearly all victims are 80+).

Covid is real. The simple fact is for the vast majority of the population, it will be mild symptoms. So the question is, is a full lockdown required for this again, especially with vaccines incoming. I don’t claim to know the answer.

I know you gave links. Can you give a summary?

 

[Justice]

Start by looking through my posts above, I gave some links and quotes.

It’s morbid, but you can examine the official death statistics here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/ (note nearly all victims are 80+).

Covid is real. The simple fact is for the vast majority of the population, it will be mild symptoms. So the question is, is a full lockdown required for this again, especially with vaccines incoming. I don’t claim to know the answer.

Heard this argument today, young people’s lives and businesses are being ruined to protect the elderly at the end of their years. One old girl even apologised saying the younger ones have already sacrificed so much they need to live their lives now.

With millions on the breadline no business no income no home in some cases when is enough enough

 

[vagabond]

I'd put every possible argument through a broken Magic 8 ball and listen intently to the resulting points before I watched/considered the points made by him in a video. I say this as someone who wastes a wildly unjustifiable amount of time on NSC and the football ground guide

I’m hardly a fan of Peter Hitchens either.

But there are numerous Scientists and expert medical professionals who share his perspective as well if that’s what you need to override your inherent bias.

 

[vagabond]

I know you gave links. Can you give a summary?

There isn’t “a summary”. Scientists like to see evidence, and for many, there’s a feeling that’s there a distinct lack of hard evidence that a lockdown is required, is necessary and in proportion to the reality of Covid.

 

[clapham_gull]

I’m hardly a fan of Peter Hitchens either.

But there are numerous Scientists and expert medical professionals who share his perspective as well if that’s what you need to override your inherent bias.

But they are in the minority.

If you are open minded I'd try and do better than post the views of a newspaper columnist. Peter Hitchen isn't interested in the views of anybody but his own. He's made a career out of it.

 

[vagabond]

But there are in the minority.

If you are open minded I'd try and do better than post the views of a newspaper columnist. Peter Hitchen isn't interested in the views of anybody but his own. He's made a career out of it.

I have. Above. Listed many names.

Professor Paul Moynagh, immunologist:

https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...he-virus-professor-paul-moynagh-39497663.html

“That may decrease the severity,” he said. “There is talk of building a narrative in terms of lockdowns.
“I look at the trade off of lockdowns, to flatten the curve. Having done that and our lockdown was very severe and we ended it at a glacial pace...
“I see very little evidence that lockdowns work. This narrative that lockdown is the solution - we never in history used lockdowns to eliminate a virus.
“If our long term strategy is lockdown, we don't have a strategy for the virus.”