-
@MiketheSnow why would you take them out?
Everybody has care homes, they are a legitimate count.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow why would you take them out?
Everybody has care homes, they are a legitimate count.
So when the next one comes around they can do better in care homes and replicate what they did for the general populace
Unlike our retards who given all the evidence to show our methodology didn’t work have already concluded (before the enquiry has finished) that we’ll go earlier, harder, and longer next time.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Thanks interesting article. It would be good to see updated data given the Economist article is over 2 years old.
Many of those that argue against lockdowns base their arguments on the fact that it only gave the old and infirm a short stay of execution and they will all have died by now anyway so it was all pointless. Although the World in Data figures show this is wrong in NZ's case.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew Thanks interesting article. It would be good to see updated data given the Economist article is over 2 years old.
The dataset in the article is updated weekly - last update 29 Nov 2023 - just below the 3rd paragraph (should have made that clearer)
Many of those that argue against lockdowns base their arguments on the fact that it only gave the old and infirm a short stay of execution and they will all have died by now anyway so it was all pointless. Although the World in Data figures show this is wrong in NZ's case.
Each country made it's own choices based on what was thought to be good for them and individual factors - demographics, pop. density etc. Loads of mistakes made in hindsight. Many correct decisions in hindsight,
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - UK:
@dogmeat Based on that graph, Sweden didn't do that well.
Particularly when compared to their Nordic neighbours who have much in common, pertinently a similar climate and population density.
They (Sweden) admitted they fucked up in care homes
Take those number out and looking a lot better
Yeah I’ve heard that argument trotted out a good number of times and I don’t feel that it holds water. For two reasons. Firstly, for the numbers involved there would have to be a significant percentage of the populace not only living in care homes but also dying in care homes to skew the figures that much. Secondly, we are talking about excess deaths over what is expected. In general people in care homes are expected to die very shortly. Take the two together and I do not see that as a valid argument.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow why would you take them out?
Everybody has care homes, they are a legitimate count.
So when the next one comes around they can do better in care homes and replicate what they did for the general populace
True yes, but not my point.
Unlike our retards who given all the evidence to show our methodology didn’t work have already concluded (before the enquiry has finished) that we’ll go earlier, harder, and longer next time.
And nobody will listen.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - UK:
@dogmeat Based on that graph, Sweden didn't do that well.
Particularly when compared to their Nordic neighbours who have much in common, pertinently a similar climate and population density.
They (Sweden) admitted they fucked up in care homes
Take those number out and looking a lot better
Yeah I’ve heard that argument trotted out a good number of times and I don’t feel that it holds water. For two reasons. Firstly, for the numbers involved there would have to be a significant percentage of the populace not only living in care homes but also dying in care homes to skew the figures that much. Secondly, we are talking about excess deaths over what is expected. In general people in care homes are expected to die very shortly. Take the two together and I do not see that as a valid argument.
Firstly: The Corona Commission found 'almost 90% of those who had died with COVID in Sweden were 70 or older. Half of these people were living in a care home, and just under 30% were receiving home help services.' (https://theconversation.com/did-swedens-controversial-covid-strategy-pay-off-in-many-ways-it-did-but-it-let-the-elderly-down-188338)
Secondly: Despite the impact of the first wave on care homes, Sweden recorded one of the lowest total excess deaths in Europe over the first two years of the pandemic. (https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021)
It's worth keeping in mind that a lot of judgements were made early on in Covid, and people have held fast to beliefs they formed during that initial period. For the majority of the participants in this enormous social experiment, I get the feeling it's a bad memory and they just want to move on with their lives. If we're to have an honest discussion about what to do next time, it should be on the basis of holistic, wide ranging long term data sets. Because I bet sweet fuck all people advocating lockdowns are pointing to the excess deaths now. E.g. 'In September 2023, excess mortality continued to vary across the EU. Nine EU Member States recorded no excess deaths. Among the eighteen EU Member States that recorded excess deaths, the highest rates were in Cyprus (13.9%), Finland (13.4%), the Netherlands (12.7%) and Ireland (12.5%). '(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics)
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
So when the next one comes around they can do better in care homes and replicate what they did for the general populace
It's hard to know what decisions should have been made about care homes. Total isolation wasn't an option as it creates huge problems and would have meant exactly that if it was to work - care staff would have to be locked into the care home with the residents and family visits effectively banned to stop Covid getting in. No protection measures for Care homes would have been a bigger disaster.
From personal experience of elderly people and care homes during COVID-19, politicians and policy makers were between a rock and a hard place. There is/was no perfect solution - not even in hindsight.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
So when the next one comes around they can do better in care homes and replicate what they did for the general populace
From personal experience of elderly people and care homes during COVID-19, politicians and policy makers were between a rock and a hard place. There is/was no perfect solution - not even in hindsight.
Even more reason for the decision making to be taken away from policy makers. Present the facts, no fear, and let people make their own decisions. Whoever thought Government has the mortgage of sound decision making?
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Present the facts, no fear, and let people make their own decisions.
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
Whoever thought Government has the mortgage of sound decision making?
The decision and policy makers were dealing with constantly updated & changing facts/information. On balance, I'd rather have flawed government decision-making than that by social media likes.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Present the facts, no fear, and let people make their own decisions.
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
No it is not anarchy. It is placing the responsibility of ones health where it always should have been. On the individual. So if you were worried about the virus killing you then it is up to you to protect yourself or those responsible for you health. If you thought you were going to run into a potentially infected person outside of you home, stay at home or wear a mask or order in. But you side were content to make a healthy person tip toe around the frailties of others.
Sick people in nursing homes obviously needed to be protected because they are sick. Thats common sense.
Whoever thought Government has the mortgage of sound decision making?
The decision and policy makers were dealing with constantly updated & changing facts/information. On balance, I'd rather have flawed government decision-making than that by social media likes.
It they were constantly updating based on fact lockdowns would have ended pretty quickly and most of their stupid policies would have ended quickly. I don't think they adapted to the changing facts on the ground at all. There were many falsehoods they continued to promote.
Often social media types have more independent thought than group think promoted by government and media.
It is sad you have so much faith in government. I assume you would prefer to manage you finances rather than some bureaucrat.
-
Good response and thanks for providing those links, in particular the first one which I thought overall was a pretty cogent and balanced piece, although I will nitpick a little around the data. Firstly on the covid deaths in the elderly figures, I would like to have seen a source quoted for those figures. I’m not saying they’re wrong but just baldly stating something doesn’t make it fact. Secondly overall deaths from COVID (so not entirely representative of the time they were talking about) was 25,590. That equates to a hell of a lot of old people that died in a care home of COVID in a population of just over 12M. Thirdly they state that they key metric is excess mortality but then fall back on actual mortality to make their point. As I stated before, old people in care homes are expected to die.
All in all though I would have been happier living under the Swedish response than the UK one had I been living in Sweden. I would have been very uncomfortable having that response in the UK where we are much less compliant and trusting in authority.
Here I am reminded of a meme I saw early on in the pandemic. It was two headlines in The Star (I think). First one was Boris spouting on about trusting in the good common sense of the average British person. The second headline was “I stuffed 8 Cadbury Crème Eggs up my arse” - UK record holder.
I’ll have a deeper look at the other two links when I can. I’m enjoying the debate though and am trying not to be too entrenched in my views but I am a bit of a doubting Thomas and need to see the marks of the nails.
-
No it is not anarchy. It is placing the responsibility of ones health where it always should have been. So if you were worried about the virus killing you then it is up to you to protect yourself or those responsible for you health.
When you have a dangerous, infectious disease, to allow other people to ignore and endanger the health and life of others and restrict their lives and employment is anarchy.
Sick people in nursing homes obviously needed to be protected because they are sick. Thats common sense.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is a nurse with Covid could happily decide to work in a care home as she alone was responsible for her health.
It they were constantly updating based on fact lockdowns would have ended pretty quickly and most of their stupid policies would have ended quickly.
In the UK they did. Plenty of debate at the time on ending lockdown as information came available - as shown by the official inquiry
But you side were content to make a healthy person tip toe around the frailties of others.
I'd call that a civilised society. And "your side"? I'm simply making the point governments made difficult decisions based on what they knew at the time.
It is sad you have so much faith in government. I assume you would prefer to manage you finances rather than some bureaucrat.
Huge leap in logic there. My finances are managed by an IFA - regulated and regularly assessed by a government bureaucrat. Much safer than taking share tips from TikTok.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
No it is not anarchy. It is placing the responsibility of ones health where it always should have been. So if you were worried about the virus killing you then it is up to you to protect yourself or those responsible for you health.
When you have a dangerous, infectious disease, to allow other people to ignore and endanger the health and life of others and restrict their lives and employment is anarchy.
You would only be endangering someone if you were infected. The assumption that everyone was infected based on no symptoms is illogical and fear driven.
Sick people in nursing homes obviously needed to be protected because they are sick. Thats common sense.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is a nurse with Covid could happily decide to work in a care home as she alone was responsible for her health.
An irresponsible nurse with Covid would do this, but most of us healthcare workers stay at home when we're sick, Covid or not. This is being responsible. You are not responsible for what you don't have.
It they were constantly updating based on fact lockdowns would have ended pretty quickly and most of their stupid policies would have ended quickly.
In the UK they did. Plenty of debate at the time on ending lockdown as information came available - as shown by the official inquiry
Well I had to drive to Chicago from LA Dec 2021 to say my last goodbyes to my Dad because of restrictions on travel, which I consider part of lockdown. It was still an issue in the States and walked back quicker because of sane Governors in red states heeding the advice of healthcare experts outside of the established narrative.
But you side were content to make a healthy person tip toe around the frailties of others.
I'd call that a civilised society. And "your side"? I'm simply making the point governments made difficult decisions based on what they knew at the time.
You refer to Anarchy. I think it was government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people. And I don't think your position is virtuous or civilized.
It is sad you have so much faith in government. I assume you would prefer to manage you finances rather than some bureaucrat.
Huge leap in logic there. My finances are managed by an IFA - regulated and regularly assessed by a government bureaucrat. Much safer than taking share tips from TikTok.
I'm too old for TikTok. John Howson was still on the radio when I was a kid. Based on your posts about Rugby history possibly your point of view is slighted because you were in that risk category.
-
Your first argument was vulnerable people should lock themselves away to allow healthy people not impacted by Covid to do whatever they want - even if infected - as healthy people weren't endangered. This is a good thing, you argue, as it avoids "government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people".
Then you argue it would be irresponsible for healthy people to do whatever they want, e.g nurses working with vulnerable people, if they were infected - even though in reality they might not even know they were infected.
Finally, you have no idea of my views on lockdowns whatsoever as I actually don't have any. The only point I've made is governments made decisions based on what they knew at the time and were relevant to their particular country.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
Your first argument was vulnerable people should lock themselves away to allow healthy people not impacted by Covid to do whatever they want - even if infected - as healthy people weren't endangered. This is a good thing, you argue, as it avoids "government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people".
This is rubbish Victor. Obviously if you are symptomatic you would responsibly withdraw from socializing. This is what responsible people do, including health care workers, and even more so health care workers as we work with unhealthy people.
Then you argue it would be irresponsible for healthy people to do whatever they want, e.g nurses working with vulnerable people, if they were infected - even though in reality they might not even know they were infected.
My point is we shouldn't have to act like you are infected if you are not symptomatic. There were obviously different rules for health care workers going into the risk population just like there are different rules on the battlefield. We had masks, properly fitted N95, space suits when patients were dx with covid, were symptomatic, had pneumonia or on O2 (whether or not infected), temperature checks and questionnaires on symptoms, potential exposure etc etc. Different environment with different rules.
Finally, you have no idea of my views on lockdowns whatsoever as I actually don't have any. The only point I've made is governments made decisions based on what they knew at the time and were relevant to their particular country.
Fair enough. I do know you supported the government response and I just think the response was heavy handed. Thats our difference possibly. I really don't like that dissenting views were silenced which is not the scientific approach and have less confidence that "inquiries" will sort things out because politicians hate responsibility.
Thank God this mess is over although the other day I had a knee patient ask me to wear booties and a mask entering his home. His home, his rules but a hangover over of fear.
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
This is rubbish Victor. Obviously if you are symptomatic you would responsibly withdraw from socializing.
My point is we shouldn't have to act like you are infected if you are not symptomatic.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Same with the flu. You and I may have been responsible for the death of someone prior to covid without knowing it. Are we responsible for this?
I was just listening to a podcast of Tiktok and apparently there was group of sailors in Argentina that had isolated prior to heading out to sea and 6 weeks later at sea they contracted covid and it went through the group. How did they get it? The details might not be exactly right but the fact is it is a virus that we don't know how to contain. Assuming same is flawed.
This is a fun debate about focus protection that I believe in. Wish this would have happened earlier:
https://reason.com/podcast/2022/11/18/never-lock-down-again-jay-bhattacharya-vs-sten-vermund/
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Same with the flu.
No, it really isn't
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-omicron-carries-4-times-risk-death-flu-new-data-show
We had Flu vaccine programmes to protect vulnerable groups people long before Covid and lockdowns. We didn't have a Covid-19 vaccine until 9 months after any lockdown.
Coronavirus - UK