Earlier lockdown could have prevented three-quarters of UK coronavirus deaths

[papasmurf]

This study is from mid March, and even in the article it admits the study was "slammed by experts".



The data in the other thread is from very recently the last few weeks and from a significant amount of random population sampling.

What are you on about? You are replying to someone else.

[Borg Refinery]

I suggest NOT calling the lady a liar to her face

But...but... I had made special arrangements.....

... to travel from e sussex the whole south coast just to do  that.  :cry:

[Javert]

I suggest NOT calling the lady a liar to her face, she is VERY angry about the human sh*t that left behind by the campers.

I am on lock down and can't go outside the confines of my property.

I suspect the campers will get sorted one way or another, given the local anger.

This study is from mid March, and even in the article it admits the study was "slammed by experts".



The data in the other thread is from very recently the last few weeks and from a significant amount of random population sampling.

[papasmurf]

Your link says "the dangers of human waste", she doesn't mention actual stuff around the path.



We want actuarial evidence, with a full dna sample posted or it's not admissible.



And why aren't you going and kneecapping these evil campers? They deserve far worse, they are a clear and present danger and must be eliminated.

I suggest NOT calling the lady a liar to her face, she is VERY angry about the human shit that left behind by the campers.

I am on lock down and can't go outside the confines of my property.

I suspect the campers will get sorted one way or another, given the local anger.

[Borg Refinery]

Local "farce book" page, (I am not a member,) and complaints to local media.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/279752848787914/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/279752848787914/



Also report here:-



https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-police-raids-campers-cornwall-095242221.html">https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coron ... 42221.html">https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-police-raids-campers-cornwall-095242221.html

Your link says "the dangers of human waste", she doesn't mention actual stuff around the path.



We want actuarial evidence, with a full dna sample posted or it's not admissible.



And why aren't you going and kneecapping these evil campers? They deserve far worse, they are a clear and present danger and must be eliminated.

[B0ycey]

If you think the UK wide population infection figure is 50% I suggest you need to let the Health Secretary know as he quoted the estimated figures based on population sampling in the press conference yesterday.  There is a thread discussing it here:

https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?p=25397#p25397">https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?p=25397#p25397

I don't have to. It wasn't my study.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1260301/coronavirus-uk-oxford-university-science-study-covid-19-infection-half-of-uk/amp">//https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1260301/coronavirus-uk-oxford-university-science-study-covid-19-infection-half-of-uk/amp



The point is that as there hasn't been sufficient testing, at the moment all models are guesstimates. But in reality if the percentage of those infected is high, then the usefulness of lockdown loses reason and it will also determine whether we are actually at risk of a second wave.

[B0ycey]

The other point here is that your position doesn't make sense even if the models are all completely wrong and nonsense - you have previously said that you think we should have a partial lockdown "like Sweden".  However, surely if you think all these models are nonsense and rubbish, you should advocate that the entire lockdown is a massive error because we have no clue what is going on whatsoever, so there shouldn't have been any lock down at all?

What was the objective of lockdown? Answer to flatten the curve. That was it. To flatten the curve. We are easing up the lockdown whilst we still have cases because that was the objective.



People seem confused with saving lives and protecting the NHS. And to be fair, that is down to government messaging being confusing as that is actually what they say now in their slogan messages. But at the same time because of the different government approaches from the same data,  it is why you can support the Swedish model and be critical of this government. Because the Swedish model wasn't a Bolsonaro free for all, they actually mitigated the risk and made the public responsible for their own health whilst not overloading their healthcare system and taking huge economic risks. They had the same objective. It wasn't different at all. Only the approach was different.

[papasmurf]

Evidence please.

Local "farce book" page, (I am not a member,) and complaints to local media.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/279752848787914/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/279752848787914/



Also report here:-



https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-police-raids-campers-cornwall-095242221.html">https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coron ... 42221.html">https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-police-raids-campers-cornwall-095242221.html

[Javert]

OK,  and after ten days, after the bank holiday and sunny weather, if the R0 is below 1 then what? All those who "risked their lives" did so for what punishment?



We have two problems here. Firstly we do not know the percentage of those who were initially infected meaning that lockdown may have done f**k all if it was already high (50% like one Oxford study suggested) and two people are understanding very clearly that in reality there is little risk to them and those it does pose a risk stay at home and stay safe. Which means that in all likelihood the fit and young infect themselves and as they are the percentage who are most likely asymptomatic, critical figures won't increase massively and the R0 will appear to reduce.

If you think the UK wide population infection figure is 50% I suggest you need to let the Health Secretary know as he quoted the estimated figures based on population sampling in the press conference yesterday.  There is a thread discussing it here:

https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?p=25397#p25397">https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?p=25397#p25397

[papasmurf]

Well, I'm sure you can get off your rocking horse and push them off the cliff, or kneecap them, or use high voltage shocks, which you've said you 'wished you did' 30 years ago with some others...

I don't need to do anything, given the number of local people VERY angry about it. (I am still on lock-down and will be for a long time, so I personally can't take any action.)

[DeppityDawg]

It is the human poo being left behind that is the problem.

Evidence please.

[Borg Refinery]

It is "wild" campers causing the problem, out on the cliff path.

Well, I'm sure you can get off your rocking horse and push them off the cliff, or kneecap them, or use high voltage shocks, which you've said you 'wished you did' 30 years ago with some others...

[Javert]

FFS



Do you only read the Guardian and the Huff Puff? Both of which are busy now blowing sugar up Ferguson's arse and any other "Doomsday" scientist that supports the message that this virus will destroy life as we know it.



There are numerous articles (which don't focus on his sex life) that are sceptical of his software AND his methodology. Its been said that the modelling which Prof Ferguson based his calculations on was 10 years old and based on a programming language which was 20 years old.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ ... e-mistake/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/coronavirus-uk-modelling-that-forced-lockdown-messy-as-angel-hair-pasta/news-story/c7a5ea882a1a4066333d998e2a206f48">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/ ... 8e2a206f48">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/coronavirus-uk-modelling-that-forced-lockdown-messy-as-angel-hair-pasta/news-story/c7a5ea882a1a4066333d998e2a206f48



But of course, this is just the "climate change denying reactionary right wing press" isn't it  :roll:  



As has been said now...what 83 times? ...time will tell Javert. You seem to think his sh*t doesn't stink, but others are sceptical about his model

Nope - I read quite a few different sources.  However I don't subscribe to the Telegraph as I have found many of their stories to be dubious and extremely biased towards current Conservative party policy, regardless of the current reality.



The age of the programming language is irrelevant and so is the age of the model used - viruses are many millions of years old and humans were around for a good 250,000 years or more, so using a 10 years old model to model their behaviour is neither here nor there.



Both the links you provided are behind paywalls - call me an old cynic, but do you really subscribe to both the Telegraph and the Austalian?  Is so can you please post the actual factual criticism of the modelling methodology?  I hope it's better than the hype stories they published claiming that he had admitted his model was completely wrong, when he had merely updated it for the effects of the existing lock down that was already happening.



It's correct that scientists should be sceptical of his model and all models.  However, I haven't heard any members of the Sage committee for example claim that his model was wrong up to now.  Scientists should always be sceptical of everything - that's how science is supposed to work.



However there is a difference between scepticism and denial due to having head buried in the sand, just because the model doesn't say what we want it to say.



I note you have not responded to my repeated points that the growth of the virus spread in the community before lockdown was imposed was in line with the model he put out.



I also note today that quite a few scientists have backed the broad factual conclusions of my OP - although many of them declined to put a number on it, they said that it's correct to conclude that very large numbers of deaths would have been avoided if an effective lock down was introduced earlier.  This includes a detailed interview with Ian Boyd who is on the Sage Committee.  His interview can be found here:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08dvm0p">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08dvm0p



In it he covers the topic in this thread as well as various other topics.  As usual, and contrary to my mistake in this thread title which is probably too inflamatory, it's important to hear the full interview rather than reading the BBC or newspaper 2 line headline about it.  Headlines are written by editors looking for clicks.



The other point here is that your position doesn't make sense even if the models are all completely wrong and nonsense - you have previously said that you think we should have a partial lockdown "like Sweden".  However, surely if you think all these models are nonsense and rubbish, you should advocate that the entire lockdown is a massive error because we have no clue what is going on whatsoever, so there shouldn't have been any lock down at all?

[papasmurf]

Not sure what folks get up on the beaches over there, but it's rare as rocking horse you-know-what over here and they haven't been consuming things with prussian blue in it... with a spot of blood...

It is "wild" campers causing the problem, out on the cliff path.

[Borg Refinery]

It is the human poo being left behind that is the problem.

Not sure what folks get up on the beaches over there, but it's rare as rocking horse you-know-what over here and they haven't been consuming things with prussian blue in it... with a spot of blood...