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

[Borg Refinery]

Maybe if China had reported this in Dec, we could've had no infections in the west or outside of China at all.



Just a thought, of course.

[Javert]

So...a "climate change" scientist then? That's what he is, isn't it? Here's a different view...



https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-difference-would-an-earlier-shutdown-have-made/">https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-dif ... have-made/">https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-difference-would-an-earlier-shutdown-have-made/











Here's his website. Who would have thought that a climate scientist is also Coronavirus researcher now too? The two of them are apparently having a discussion on "Twatter" about it.



https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/james/">https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/james/











Yawn. You know, you're so fecking boring, Javert. No one said "the opposite is the truth" - they pointed out exactly what someone else says above - namely, that a model is just that. A model. And an estimate is just that. An estimate. Its not "proof" that 27,000 "lives would have been saved". You are talking about as it it were fact, and it isn't a FACT, Javert.

No idea what you are on about - the article I listened to on the BBC mentioned several sources who were qualified to work on that stuff and were virologists, immunologists etc, all working together.



I suppose your position is that anyone who has worked on modelling climate science is not qualified to input into modelling on anything else?  Modellers work with virologists and epidemiologists to put models together, in the same way that soldiers need experts in phsyics to input into the design of the guns they use.



This is another one of those weird attacks "I don't like what this person worked on once so everything they say is wrong.

[DeppityDawg]

If that had been done, we would be in a much better position now both from a lives saved point of view, and economically as we would have few enough cases for track and trace to be 100% effective.



Of course, if many of those countries that did the lockdown earlier in their cycle, have a second wave and we don't (unlikely but possible), this could change the long term conclusion.  However, nothing I've seen indicates that we have anything like enough immunity to avoid a second wave.



This will be a major part of the eventual Public Inquiry - why wasn't the lockdown introduced a week earlier.  In any honourable country, the PM should take 100% responsibility for that regardless of the details, however, no doubt they will all try to blame each other.



The key question will be - was this avoidable at the time, or only in hindsight.  From what I've seen so far, I believe it's the former but we will see.



This is not even being talked about much yet, but that's 27,000 avoidable deaths because a decision that obviously needed to be taken was delayed ane prevaricated for a week.

So...a "climate change" scientist then? That's what he is, isn't it? Here's a different view...



https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-difference-would-an-earlier-shutdown-have-made/">https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-dif ... have-made/">https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-difference-would-an-earlier-shutdown-have-made/

The word 'model' can describe many things, from an all-singing, all-dancing climate model which simulates the action of the entire atmosphere and ocean system down to cubic-kilometre units, to a simple statistical curve which says 'if X goes up by 1, Y will go up by 2'. The Annan model is very much at the latter end.

Its model is amazingly simple: Covid-19 infections were doubling about every 3.5 days in March; that means you get two doublings in a week. So, if lockdown had happened a week earlier, it would have prevented two doublings, so you'd have got a quarter as many infections and therefore a quarter as many deaths.



You barely even need to call it a model: it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Here's his website. Who would have thought that a climate scientist is also Coronavirus researcher now too? The two of them are apparently having a discussion on "Twatter" about it.



https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/james/">https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/james/

My main focus is future climate change, and I've developed and used a range of methods for investigating this, including creating and using ensembles of climate models, with a strong emphasis on the use of paleoclimate simulations for model evaluation.

Of course, for balance, all statistical models are rubbish and the opposite is the truth....  :fpigs:

Yawn. You know, you're so fecking boring, Javert. No one said "the opposite is the truth" - they pointed out exactly what someone else says above - namely, that a model is just that. A model. And an estimate is just that. An estimate. Its not "proof" that 27,000 "lives would have been saved". You are talking about as it it were fact, and it isn't a FACT, Javert.

[papasmurf]

That is why I voted for them  

I don't doubt that for one minute. The number of nasty people on this forum does not surprise me at all.

[Borchester]

Laugh away, there are some very nasty far right people in the Tory government.

That is why I voted for them  



A couple of points about the lock down



(a) Over 90% of the death have been among the 70+ age group. I can understand the country shutting down for the benefit of a saintly old gentleman such as myself, but for Pappy....?



(b) Before you can have a effective lockdown you need a method of enforcing it and we don't have one. A hundred thousand coppers  can't sit on a population of 67 millions. The lockdown has to be by consent and that is politely declining.



According to my calculations this nonsense should be over by 14 June. I am probably wrong but then so is most everyone else.

[papasmurf]

:: , the tory's far right  ::  ::  ::

Laugh away, there are some very nasty far right people in the Tory government.

[Streetwalker]

If you are to the right of an already far right party like the Tories I have to assume you are a Fascist.

 :: , the tory's far right  ::  ::  ::

[papasmurf]

What do you think ?

If you are to the right of an already far right party like the Tories I have to assume you are a Fascist.

[Streetwalker]

Are you a Fascist?

What do you think ?

[papasmurf]

You don't have to make insults . I am terribly offended that you would suggest I am influenced by the quality of my ganja   :crzy



But yes from where Im sitting any newspaper published in support of the Tories is  to the left  of my position on many issues

Are you a Fascist?

[Streetwalker]

The Torygraph left wing? What are you smoking?

You don't have to make insults . I am terribly offended that you would suggest I am influenced by the quality of my ganja   :crzy



But yes from where Im sitting any newspaper published in support of the Tories is  to the left  of my position on many issues

[Streetwalker]

From my understanding of the science, with all due respect what you are saying is flat out wrong.  i am talking about an earlier full lockdown as was done here on 23rd March

From my understanding of the science we never had a full lockdown .The thousands of construction workers we saw turning up on site on that very Monday morning and increasingly as the message of yes you can go to work if you cant work from home  made it a very loose lockdown to say the least .

[Borg Refinery]

I was thinking of posting this, but since the original claim came from the BBC "More or Less" program, I was also considering to let sleeping dogs lie.



However the Telegraph, that left wing liberal news source, has also run with the story too.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/earlier-lockdown-could-have-prevented-three-quarters-uk-coronavirus/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ronavirus/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/earlier-lockdown-could-have-prevented-three-quarters-uk-coronavirus/



Basically - this is one of the same models that's been used to model the pandemic (there are many), and one which reasonably accurately predicted the 35k or so deaths we have up to now when plugged with the best known assumptions.



If you plug the same model with the lockdown starting just one week earlier, the number of deaths in the UK so far would be similar to Germany at about 8000.  So just a one week difference would move us from the worst in Europe to on a par with the best.



This might sound odd for just one week, but it's because of the exponential growth of the virus and the doubling rate of about 3 days that was happening.  If you assume that only one lockdown will be necessary and you will ease it off in parts after introducing a proper track and trace mechanism, you should and must introduce the lockdown early - in fact, you should introduce it at a time when a lot of people will think "isn't this a bit of an overreaction".



If that had been done, we would be in a much better position now both from a lives saved point of view, and economically as we would have few enough cases for track and trace to be 100% effective.



Of course, if many of those countries that did the lockdown earlier in their cycle, have a second wave and we don't (unlikely but possible), this could change the long term conclusion.  However, nothing I've seen indicates that we have anything like enough immunity to avoid a second wave.



This will be a major part of the eventual Public Inquiry - why wasn't the lockdown introduced a week earlier.  In any honourable country, the PM should take 100% responsibility for that regardless of the details, however, no doubt they will all try to blame each other.



The key question will be - was this avoidable at the time, or only in hindsight.  From what I've seen so far, I believe it's the former but we will see.



This is not even being talked about much yet, but that's 27,000 avoidable deaths because a decision that obviously needed to be taken was delayed ane prevaricated for a week.



Of course, for balance, all statistical models are rubbish and the opposite is the truth....  :fpigs:

👍



Again, this will be ignored or downplayed.



And no you shouldn't try to placate people by keeping schtum; create a big noise about it. Thanks for posting it; and it's from the right-wing rag of choice for sweaty city types on the central line..



Whatever method you choose, put it into practice ASAP and stick with it, gently altering it so it works best. This is the problem with politicians and their fat java the hut complacent attitude, along with their lackey street dogs walking around trying to excuse everything they're doing..

[patman post]

The problem with all these predictions in hindsight is that there will likely be experts with letters after their name putting forward different views, and anything critical of any government will probably stick.

The difficulty for the current UK leadership is that it consists mainly of the liars who promoted Brexit giving out current incomplete information and instructions. An alternative leadership would also be struggling with credibility as it would be saddled with the reputation of running "project fear".

Is it any wonder that large numbers of "the herd" are ignoring the instructions not to invade popular recreational spots...?

[Javert]

We will never know if an earlier semi lockdown would have prevented deaths any more than closing the borders or indeed having a full lockdown . Looking at what other countries have done or not done in hindsight does give some indication of where we got it right or wrong but doesn't give the whole picture . We will only get that when its all done and dusted and pandemic 'experts' from left wing news outlets guessing scenarios doesn't help .



The dogs should have been left to lie

From my understanding of the science, with all due respect what you are saying is flat out wrong.  i am talking about an earlier full lockdown as was done here on 23rd March, and was done in countries like New Zealand when they had pretty much zero deaths, and in Germany when they had only 89 deaths and were running more tests every day than we were running in a week.



The effect of the lockdown measures from 23rd March it totally clear already.



There is enough science known about virus spread, human behaviour etc to know this.



Once you combine this with the measured reaction when the lockdown was introduced, and the known R0 of the virus before that, it's very clear that four fifths of the deaths would have been avoided if the full lockdown was introduced a week or more earlier.



We will be able to say this with the same certainty that we were able to say that making people wear seatbelts in cars saved lives i.e. 100% certain.



It's news to me that the Telegraph is a left wing news outlet, and the models quoted in the BBC show were from scientists who are working on the pandemic - maybe you think like some others here that all scientists are by definition left wing and should be ignored or suchlike?