Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
6-30 Now.....
But it appears we know what's going to be said as it's been leaked ,an enquiry to find out from who is to take place
It's all happening at number 10
It's all happening at number 10
Answers
NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed 7 months ago but it wasn't could that have been because action was taken? My main criticism of Boris isn't that he does the wrong thing but that he does the right thing weeks too late. He wants to be loved so he dithers about imposing harsh measures and tries to make sure he's got a scapegoat lined up.
20:23 Sat 31st Oct 2020
How have they been doom-mongering? They predicted tens of thousands of excess deaths, and we saw exactly that. Scientists predicted tens of thousands more, into six figures, and there can be little reason to doubt that we would have seen this if no action was taken. So the Government acted. We are now seeing death rates rise again, and the Government is obliged to act, not because of scare-mongering, but because of what we are seeing now. Hospitalisation rates have also been rising significantly in the last month with no sign of slowing.
I do not envy the Government's decision, but they would have been forced into this eventually. How many people have to die, how many hospitals have to be stretched beyond capacity, how many more millions across the world need to catch a disease that ruins their long-term health, for you to start noticing?
I do not envy the Government's decision, but they would have been forced into this eventually. How many people have to die, how many hospitals have to be stretched beyond capacity, how many more millions across the world need to catch a disease that ruins their long-term health, for you to start noticing?
A further point is that any radical intervention like this can only be effective if it comes before it appears to be necessary. Afterwards, it will, by definition, have been too late. If the Government had waited until the NHS was overwhelmed before reacting, then the NHS would have already been overwhelmed. By acting now, they may well appear to have been acting prematurely, but there is no contest between too soon and too late.
Why is Whitty correct but Sunetra Gupta isn’t?
I’ll tell you why, because Whitty fits your narrative, Jim, but Gupta doesn’t.
Gupta fits my narrative, and Whitty doesn’t.
Why is she wrong and he is correct.
I don’t have the benefit of having a scientific mind, but that said, I don’t think you need a scientific mind to know that all locking down for a month will do is possibly reduce the spread for a month, and then when the month is up, the infection will spread again; during that month of pointless lockdown the economy will suffer even more, businesses will go under, people will lose their jobs, mortgages and rent will go unpaid, and so on.
How many times does it have to be said that the virus ain’t going away, so we have to live with it.
I can’t be the only one that is getting thoroughly p155ed off being told that I can’t live my life.
I’ll tell you why, because Whitty fits your narrative, Jim, but Gupta doesn’t.
Gupta fits my narrative, and Whitty doesn’t.
Why is she wrong and he is correct.
I don’t have the benefit of having a scientific mind, but that said, I don’t think you need a scientific mind to know that all locking down for a month will do is possibly reduce the spread for a month, and then when the month is up, the infection will spread again; during that month of pointless lockdown the economy will suffer even more, businesses will go under, people will lose their jobs, mortgages and rent will go unpaid, and so on.
How many times does it have to be said that the virus ain’t going away, so we have to live with it.
I can’t be the only one that is getting thoroughly p155ed off being told that I can’t live my life.
Let me be even more unpopular, as this is a virus that kills the old (it killing the young and healthy being statistically irrelevant), I’d be prepared to sacrifice those at the end of their life to ensure those at the beginning of their life have a future, because let’s face it, they’re going to be the ones that are paying for this folly.
This idea that it "fits my narrative" to see the country screwed by lockdown is complete nonsense. I don't even see the point of trying to refute it: it's an outrageous suggestion with no basis in any fact whatsoever, and I invite you to come up with a better counterargument.
I do know that, earlier in the year, Gupta published a model that suggested well over half the country had already been infected by March -- a model that was certainly flawed in many of its assumptions. In May, she also said that the epidemic was "on its way out". Well, it's back now, with a vengeance.
I do not presume to comment any further beyond that. She is an epidemiologist, and I am not. All I can say is that the weight of medical and scientific consensus is against her, and, as far as I can tell, the weight of the data is too. This alone isn't enough to refute it, I know, but I don't prefer one narrative to the other because it suits me. Nothing about this year has suited me, although I have been somewhat lucky in many ways. I'd like point out that, as a young, healthy person with a history of shaking off most infections with relative ease, the virus probably poses virtually no threat to me personally.
Over the Summer, I was hopeful that the data were supporting the idea that the Government had brought this under control, and hopeful that the easing of measures had been done in the controlled manner required to get the country back on its feet without the risk of a Second Wave. That's been sadly blown out of the water.
I do know that, earlier in the year, Gupta published a model that suggested well over half the country had already been infected by March -- a model that was certainly flawed in many of its assumptions. In May, she also said that the epidemic was "on its way out". Well, it's back now, with a vengeance.
I do not presume to comment any further beyond that. She is an epidemiologist, and I am not. All I can say is that the weight of medical and scientific consensus is against her, and, as far as I can tell, the weight of the data is too. This alone isn't enough to refute it, I know, but I don't prefer one narrative to the other because it suits me. Nothing about this year has suited me, although I have been somewhat lucky in many ways. I'd like point out that, as a young, healthy person with a history of shaking off most infections with relative ease, the virus probably poses virtually no threat to me personally.
Over the Summer, I was hopeful that the data were supporting the idea that the Government had brought this under control, and hopeful that the easing of measures had been done in the controlled manner required to get the country back on its feet without the risk of a Second Wave. That's been sadly blown out of the water.
// I don’t think you need a scientific mind to know that all locking down for a month will do is possibly reduce the spread for a month, and then when the month is up, the infection will spread again... //
Indeed. But this is to vastly understate the effect of such lockdown, whose benefits propagate well beyond a month -- not least because the exit from lockdown will presumably be gradual in similar manner to that we say earlier this year. Time is vital, too, because we can have some hope that more time gives us a chance to improve treatment techniques, perhaps even find a viable vaccine. Much progress has been made, more rapidly I am sure than many with more experience than I in this field would have expected. We can hope to "live with it" more successfully in future.
There is, in short, a huge benefit in kicking the can down the road. Because we are doing useful things in the meantime.
Indeed. But this is to vastly understate the effect of such lockdown, whose benefits propagate well beyond a month -- not least because the exit from lockdown will presumably be gradual in similar manner to that we say earlier this year. Time is vital, too, because we can have some hope that more time gives us a chance to improve treatment techniques, perhaps even find a viable vaccine. Much progress has been made, more rapidly I am sure than many with more experience than I in this field would have expected. We can hope to "live with it" more successfully in future.
There is, in short, a huge benefit in kicking the can down the road. Because we are doing useful things in the meantime.
Good post again Jim. Guptas views are clearly at odds with what most sage scientists and all the doctors interview'd on tv. It seems your clutching at straws using one scientists view to claim the lockdown is wrong. England should of followed wales earlier but am glad they acted now before its to late. May all ready be to late but a hope am wrong.
DD, I don't see anyone as being "sacrificed". It's a virus... and that is nobody's choice or fault. Those who are worried or know they are vulnerable, will be cautious... if they want to. Plus those around them, such as keyworkers.
But this idea of keeping people away from each other, is mostly for those that don't need to. Those that need other people to live normally, still do. The priorities and practicalities seem all wrong. I have just become less and less supportive of this as it has gone on really. It isn't a "lockdown" as there seem to be more exceptions than not.
But this idea of keeping people away from each other, is mostly for those that don't need to. Those that need other people to live normally, still do. The priorities and practicalities seem all wrong. I have just become less and less supportive of this as it has gone on really. It isn't a "lockdown" as there seem to be more exceptions than not.
The can can't be kicked perpetually. That is what seems to be the aim. Meanwhile the economy gets screwed plus other health issues arise or are not given sufficient attention. Plus the unacceptable attempted control of the citizen by government. I don't believe these predictions of more deaths than in the spring, although I'm sure when it proves to be nonsense many will try claiming that it is the impositions put on the public that prevented it. (Unless the public treats the demands with disdain, that is.) This is just more lack of courage by those making the rules. They fail to keep old age and care homes safe, then mess up society as a response, and pay for their mistakes with our public money.
// I don't believe these predictions of more deaths than in the spring, although I'm sure when it proves to be nonsense many will try claiming that it is the impositions put on the public that prevented it. //
I don't get this argument at all. It defies common sense. There's no other way to put it. Serious intervention measures will seriously affect the spread of the disease, and, in turn, the number, or at least the rate, of excess deaths.
The criticism of the approach, the government by diktat, I can accept. The idea that the measures planned will have no impact, that the virus has, in effect, already peaked in this second wave, defies logic.
I don't get this argument at all. It defies common sense. There's no other way to put it. Serious intervention measures will seriously affect the spread of the disease, and, in turn, the number, or at least the rate, of excess deaths.
The criticism of the approach, the government by diktat, I can accept. The idea that the measures planned will have no impact, that the virus has, in effect, already peaked in this second wave, defies logic.
Regarding the slide presentation, who drew them up? Why not get one of the TV companies to produce them?
As was said earlier, some graphs had the tops cut off, others had sides chopped off, and on the BBC, the bottoms of the graphs were obstructed by the BBC own graphics.
I have a reasonably large television but could not read some of the characters displayed, surely someone could do a better job?
As was said earlier, some graphs had the tops cut off, others had sides chopped off, and on the BBC, the bottoms of the graphs were obstructed by the BBC own graphics.
I have a reasonably large television but could not read some of the characters displayed, surely someone could do a better job?
Whether or not "sacrifice" is the right choice of word is a matter for debate. What isn't up for debate is that choosing not to impose severe measures will allow the disease to spread further and kill more people more quickly than might have been the case. Whether the excess is a "sacrifice" or not, there would almost certainly have been an excess had the Government continued its current approach -- and, for that matter, there's almost certainly been an excess as a result of the Government not taking this action sooner.
