Quizzes & Puzzles19 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
It depends what you count as "overly pessimistic". This wave hasn't peaked yet, so there are worse figures to come.
The part that defies sense is to argue that the claim is disproved after action was taken to avoid the worst excesses. I shouldn't need to explain why this argument is clearly flawed -- not, perhaps, because the lockdown was definitely successful (there's also the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, that I need to be careful not to make myself), but because the fact of the lockdown removes the possibility of discovering what would have happened without imposing it.
The part that defies sense is to argue that the claim is disproved after action was taken to avoid the worst excesses. I shouldn't need to explain why this argument is clearly flawed -- not, perhaps, because the lockdown was definitely successful (there's also the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, that I need to be careful not to make myself), but because the fact of the lockdown removes the possibility of discovering what would have happened without imposing it.
For me that is it. No more will I vote Tory until I see a peoper Tory Party. I have had to endure the liberals Cameron and May and no the yellow bellied philandering baffon Boris.
There is no reason to 'lock down'. All it will do it trash the economy and cause more deaths, of younger people than die of covid, in addition it will plunge many into poverty not just in the UK but as charity donations dry up around the world. But it seems some of our liberals on here dont seem to care about that - yes jim that includes you.
There is no reason to 'lock down'. All it will do it trash the economy and cause more deaths, of younger people than die of covid, in addition it will plunge many into poverty not just in the UK but as charity donations dry up around the world. But it seems some of our liberals on here dont seem to care about that - yes jim that includes you.
I'm sorry you feel that way, ymb, although you are wrong that I don't care. The question I asked earlier to others remains the same, though: how do you address the risk that the NHS will be overwhelmed in a month, without waiting to see if it is? It is difficult for me to see how anyone can make the argument that you should take this risk, given the current data, the future projections, what we are seeing in other countries in Europe (most notably Belgium and France), etc. If you take this risk and are wrong, the excess non-Covid deaths would also undoubtedly balloon beyond the fears of a lockdown -- for what else can the consequences be of a health service that is stretched beyond capacity?
If you can find evidence within the data that suggests that, in fact, we are already at, or soon to be at, the peak of this wave, then, fair enough, you are right and the Government is wrong, and I am wrong. I would dearly love it if you could find this evidence.
As an aside, and I realise this is an unusual request, but I don't see how the decision to lockdown per se counts against Johnson and the Tories. In my opinion it has come too late, but, even if not, then it is difficult to see how any leader could have refused to respond to the latest trends. As far as I can see, from your point of view it should be a more reasonable position to commend Johnson for delaying as long as he has, hoping that less severe measures would do the job. Unless I've misunderstood, and your argument is that he should have let nature do its worst from the get-go.
If you can find evidence within the data that suggests that, in fact, we are already at, or soon to be at, the peak of this wave, then, fair enough, you are right and the Government is wrong, and I am wrong. I would dearly love it if you could find this evidence.
As an aside, and I realise this is an unusual request, but I don't see how the decision to lockdown per se counts against Johnson and the Tories. In my opinion it has come too late, but, even if not, then it is difficult to see how any leader could have refused to respond to the latest trends. As far as I can see, from your point of view it should be a more reasonable position to commend Johnson for delaying as long as he has, hoping that less severe measures would do the job. Unless I've misunderstood, and your argument is that he should have let nature do its worst from the get-go.
//how do you address the risk that the NHS will be overwhelmed in a month, without waiting to see if it is? //
OK, a valid point but isnt this why the Government commissioned the 'nightingale wards' that were not really used in the last one? Using these should give you the cushion, that is to say if you start using these then maybe stronger action is required.
//If you can find evidence within the data that suggests that, in fact, we are already at, or soon to be at, the peak of this wave,//
Firstly I would argue this is still the first wave, it never went away and was simply delayed by the first lockdown. The same as will happen now. The real second wave is still to come.
However, it is now being reported (ok MSM so not reliable) that the cases are dropping in Liverpool so would look like we should ride it out for another week at least.
//As an aside, and I realise this is an unusual request, but I don't see how the decision to lockdown per se counts against Johnson and the Tories. //
That is a good question. For me the Tories are about buoyancy of the economy. If they came clean and produces accurate (as possible) figures and clear reasons why (not ridiculous SAGE modelling) then I could buy into it. However they have not. Johnson campaigned on a transparent Government, to date he has been anything but. Johnson also promotes himself as a new Churchill. Churchill had to make some real agonising and difficult decisions on who dies and who didnt, admittedly something I could not do. Johnson seems to favour saving the old over the young (Covid avg death 82 other illnesses much lower). And this leads to the other problem, listening to only one side of the scientific debate.
On top of this he seems to lack morals. OK I dont want someone whiter than white but he is too far the other way. Difficult to ge tbehind a leader like that.
Sorry for the long post, I hate those! But hopefully gives you some insight to my feelings Jim?
OK, a valid point but isnt this why the Government commissioned the 'nightingale wards' that were not really used in the last one? Using these should give you the cushion, that is to say if you start using these then maybe stronger action is required.
//If you can find evidence within the data that suggests that, in fact, we are already at, or soon to be at, the peak of this wave,//
Firstly I would argue this is still the first wave, it never went away and was simply delayed by the first lockdown. The same as will happen now. The real second wave is still to come.
However, it is now being reported (ok MSM so not reliable) that the cases are dropping in Liverpool so would look like we should ride it out for another week at least.
//As an aside, and I realise this is an unusual request, but I don't see how the decision to lockdown per se counts against Johnson and the Tories. //
That is a good question. For me the Tories are about buoyancy of the economy. If they came clean and produces accurate (as possible) figures and clear reasons why (not ridiculous SAGE modelling) then I could buy into it. However they have not. Johnson campaigned on a transparent Government, to date he has been anything but. Johnson also promotes himself as a new Churchill. Churchill had to make some real agonising and difficult decisions on who dies and who didnt, admittedly something I could not do. Johnson seems to favour saving the old over the young (Covid avg death 82 other illnesses much lower). And this leads to the other problem, listening to only one side of the scientific debate.
On top of this he seems to lack morals. OK I dont want someone whiter than white but he is too far the other way. Difficult to ge tbehind a leader like that.
Sorry for the long post, I hate those! But hopefully gives you some insight to my feelings Jim?
//The nightingales are only useful if there are staff to service them. Hospitals are struggling to cope as it is, especially with staff going off ‘sick’ through track and trace.//
A valid point. However the Government have had eight months to sort this.
Additionally doctors who 'volunteered' where ignored ( I know this from a very close family member)
And of course, unless you were feathering the nest of your mates, why create at the cost of millions to the tax payer the nightingale hospital if you couldn't staff them?
A valid point. However the Government have had eight months to sort this.
Additionally doctors who 'volunteered' where ignored ( I know this from a very close family member)
And of course, unless you were feathering the nest of your mates, why create at the cost of millions to the tax payer the nightingale hospital if you couldn't staff them?
Pfft, I've written longer.
Yes, it does a little. I suppose I can't help but wonder how it took you so long to see through Johnson, if your problems with him are at least partly down to his character and his lack of transparency.
In terms of the modelling, I don't feel that I should defend models I had no hand in and haven't checked personally, but, on the other hand, what about it is "ridiculous" for you? The usual approach to modelling should be based on its premises and its input parameters. I'm personally sceptical about the particularly extreme suggestions of 4,000 deaths a day -- unless this was intended to be an all-cause mortality rate, but the impression I got from the articles I read was that it was Covid-only -- but death tolls comparable to the April peak seem more likely, especially over Winter when there's a usual increase in respiratory illness deaths anyway.
On the point of whether this is the first or second wave, let's split the difference and call it a second peak.
Yes, it does a little. I suppose I can't help but wonder how it took you so long to see through Johnson, if your problems with him are at least partly down to his character and his lack of transparency.
In terms of the modelling, I don't feel that I should defend models I had no hand in and haven't checked personally, but, on the other hand, what about it is "ridiculous" for you? The usual approach to modelling should be based on its premises and its input parameters. I'm personally sceptical about the particularly extreme suggestions of 4,000 deaths a day -- unless this was intended to be an all-cause mortality rate, but the impression I got from the articles I read was that it was Covid-only -- but death tolls comparable to the April peak seem more likely, especially over Winter when there's a usual increase in respiratory illness deaths anyway.
On the point of whether this is the first or second wave, let's split the difference and call it a second peak.
// I shouldn't need to explain why this argument is clearly flawed -// yes you probably should - this is after all AB
nd whilst you are at it- reassure ABers that we do think covid exists and is killing people, and oh god dont forget to point out that injecting yourself with hettol is NOT a good idea
nd whilst you are at it- reassure ABers that we do think covid exists and is killing people, and oh god dont forget to point out that injecting yourself with hettol is NOT a good idea
