Circuit breaker

A1X · Oct 13, 2020

Blue Valkyrie said:
No it isn't. Medical science will beat it - or mitigate it down to the effects of the common cold - but we need to buy the science some time.

Amazing how so many people really seem not to have an patience with the idea of letting professionals do their jobs properly. They'd probably have been demanding we make peace with Germany in February 1940 "because we've been at war for months and Hitler's not been defeated yet so we should call it off and get on with our lives".

portslade seagull · Oct 13, 2020

It will only work if people don't break the rules, trouble is Cummings couldn't help himself and plenty of others now use that as the yardstick. Think we are stuck with it throughout the winter period with varying peaks and troughs

Solid at the back · Oct 13, 2020

Yes, and repeat again if necessary, which it will be.

Kinky Gerbil · Oct 13, 2020

The Merry Prankster said:
Can you list your scientific qualifications?

I want to know if I should listen to you or SAGE

Or Sage and the Who who are saying lockdowns cause more misery than they stop

haardman · Oct 13, 2020

In the first wave we were seeing 20% death rates (i.e. 1000 people were dying per 5000 testing +ve).
The second wave death rate is only 0.5%-2% (compared to positive test results). This is consistent across Spain and France who are ahead of us in the curve.

At some point the focus shifted from minimising deaths and not overwhelming the NHS (flatten the curve) - now all they talk about is infection rates and they hardly mention deaths.
Look at the numbers for Spain and France and compare them to ours:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Also most importantly our working population (the under 64s) really aren't that at risk. Check out the numbers from the ONS: only 5,687 deaths (with +ve Covid result) since December (to 2nd Oct)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ng2october2020#deaths-registered-by-age-group

I regularly check these figures to compare them to the previous results (see below). In the 6 weeks leading up to October 2nd there were only 291 deaths of under 64s.
We should be recommending that over 64s isolate - but allow them to make their own decision (e.g. my parents couldn't give a stuff, they'd rather lead a normal life and die early than hide in their house for 2 years)
We could have had herd immunity in the under 64s by now. Lockdown is economic madness and always was. We need handwashing, elective self isolation, masks and sensible social distancing (in that order). Other than that - crack on.

midnight_rendezvous · Oct 13, 2020

PHP:

Kinky Gerbils said:
Or Sage and the Who who are saying lockdowns cause more misery than they stop

And yet wasn’t it SAGE that proposed the circuit breaker idea several weeks ago?

nicko31 · Oct 13, 2020

Another 17,000 cases today, end of furlough end of Oct, half term coming

Do it from Friday 2 weeks, don't f**k up again Johnson. For once show some leadership

Kinky Gerbil · Oct 13, 2020

NEW: Two of government's scientific advisers tell the FT thousands of deaths - between 3,000 and as many as 107,000 - could be avoided by January if a circuit breaker lockdown is imposed over half term. Scoop by [MENTION=14192]Anna[/MENTION]SophieGross ft.com/content/25edce…

That’s some range

A1X · Oct 13, 2020

Kinky Gerbils said:
Or Sage and the Who who are saying lockdowns cause more misery than they stop

This SAGE?

[TWEET]1316068907778748416[/TWEET]

Kinky Gerbil · Oct 13, 2020

A1X said:
This SAGE?

[TWEET]1316068907778748416[/TWEET]

Those figures are just laughable - really is darts at a dart board

Washie · Oct 13, 2020

Lockdown can work if it is enforced properly. Too many people broke the rules and weren't punished. That's why lockdown didn't work.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Giraffe · Oct 13, 2020

Kinky Gerbils said:
between 3,000 and as many as 107,000

Laughable.

drew · Oct 13, 2020

Sorrel said:
We can use the ONS figures for England and Wales to find out - at the end of the year - what percentage of deaths above expected occurred this year. The current figures show that 52,345 more deaths have occurred than the average 5 year expectation - 14% more deaths than expected.

If we could get the annual Covid deaths lower than the level of normal flu & pneumonia deaths, which these days are between 25,000 and 35,000 a year, then it would be a reasonably good outcome. It depends, though, on whether there is a corresponding drop in the number of flu and pneumonia deaths (as there has been seen somewhat this year).

The number of excess Winter deaths we have had in some previous years (see chart below), which in the least worst years were around 18,000 but usually in the mid 20,000s would be even better to reach.

Beyond that I think we would need to be in entirely wiping out the disease area - at that point we need to start considering the chances of the restrictions causing more deaths in themselves than the prevention saves. It's very hard to determine the level of excess non-Covid deaths, but from what I've read it's up a few thousand, but not a large amount more.

View attachment 129449

https://fullfact.org/health/coronav...lic Health England,mortality rate for the flu.

Perhaps flu deaths aren't anywhere near as high as you think! Average about 15k but in 2018/19, there were as few as 3,966 . Considerably lower than the ONS excess deaths for the year.

In the states, the rangeg of flu deaths per year is 12k to 61k. Considerably lower than the current deaths associated with Covid 19.

Gabbafella · Oct 13, 2020

All the time you have orange slosh pots wanting to get hammered all the time and wanting to bump uglies with any manscaped meathead that looks their way, unfortunately social distancing won't work and unless you close the bars completely then you'll always have said veneered knuckle draggers thinking they're indestructible and spreading Covid quicker than they spread the clap.

Albion Dan · Oct 13, 2020

Kinky Gerbils said:
NEW: Two of government's scientific advisers tell the FT thousands of deaths - between 3,000 and as many as 107,000 - could be avoided by January if a circuit breaker lockdown is imposed over half term. Scoop by [MENTION=14192]Anna[/MENTION]SophieGross ft.com/content/25edce…

That’s some range

Laughable isn’t it. That analysts haven’t got a clue what they’re taking about. Neil Ferguson’s model predicted over 90k people would die in Sweden with their strategy. Daily deaths rolling around 0-1 currently.

Kinky Gerbil · Oct 13, 2020

Albion Dan said:
Laughable isn’t it. That analysts haven’t got a clue what they’re taking about. Neil Ferguson’s model predicted over 90k people would die in Sweden with their strategy. Daily deaths rolling around 0-1 currently.

So we have a semi lockdown atm in the hardest hit areas which are about to increase

However if we don’t have 14 days complete lockdown we will potentially have more than half the deaths the states have had since March in 3 months.

Machiavelli · Oct 13, 2020

Reddleman said:
Absolutely not. Data in no way merits such an approach.

Have you seen:
-- the number of cases
-- the number of hospitalisations
-- the steady, but lagging, rate in the number of deaths?

Machiavelli · Oct 13, 2020

Mustafa said:
As they are less likely to be in work, vulnerable groups should be shielded.

Stopping healthy working people from working is not an option that should be considered again.

It's not about stopping healthy people from working; it's about stopping sending healthy people to work such that they get unhealthy, and continue to spread the virus. Short of a vaccine (on which there are encouraging signs), the only way to stop its virulent spread is to curtail human contact to a minimum.

blue-shifted · Oct 13, 2020

nicko31 said:
Another 17,000 cases today, end of furlough end of Oct, half term coming

Do it from Friday 2 weeks, don't f**k up again Johnson. For once show some leadership

Apparently he's convening a focus group on it now to see how it would play. Just final sign off would then be required from the 1922 committee, the Express and the Mail, then it's full steam ahead

Sorrel · Oct 13, 2020

drew said:
https://fullfact.org/health/coronav...lic Health England,mortality rate for the flu.

Perhaps flu deaths aren't anywhere near as high as you think! Average about 15k but in 2018/19, there were as few as 3,966 . Considerably lower than the ONS excess deaths for the year.

In the states, the rangeg of flu deaths per year is 12k to 61k. Considerably lower than the current deaths associated with Covid 19.

Yes, the figures I was taking described themselves as pneumonia, which I would expect to be more than influenza alone. The only reason I am using these sort of figures is to an understanding of where we haven't - as a nation - had a big campaign in the past to prevent deaths through changing behaviour so considerably.

That doesn't mean we can't take action now to reduce winter deaths and pneumonia and influenza deaths, of course. It's just getting the balance right so that the public are aware and informed and can change their behaviour appropriately as they wish and to ensure that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, which was the main purpose of the lockdown in the Spring.

I am glad that some of our press - like this article - look at the effects of the measures on other aspects of the quality of life and death: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...-deaths-of-those-who-dont-have-covid-12103141

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Circuit breaker

Two week circuit breaker?

Yes

No

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Im The Scatman

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Im The Scatman

Well-known member

Im The Scatman

Well-known member

VERY part time moderator

Drew

Well-known member

Banned

Im The Scatman

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Share this page