Hitchin Priory Rotary Club - The Human...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
What's Wrong With The Meeja....?
48 Answers
https:/
..why should the incumbent apologise for the activities of a predecessor? All this apologise yada yada yada balearics is getting out of hand.
..why should the incumbent apologise for the activities of a predecessor? All this apologise yada yada yada balearics is getting out of hand.
Answers
I'm another who was anti-
22:27 Tue 15th Nov 2022
//It’s, as the common phrase goes, not rocket science.//
It may not be rocket science, Zacs. In fact it’s no science at all. To assume that because one thing happened at the same time as another, the first was the cause of the second is, at best, wishful thinking.
//…but it worked.//
It may seem “obvious” that lockdown worked but it isn’t. There is quite a groundswell of opinion that suggests that it didn’t in fact work. The science is complex and includes (among other things) an assumption that all the time lockdowns were in place, natural immunity among the population – the vast majority of whom were at no serious risk - was delayed. This means that those who may have acquired that immunity by exposure to the virus did not and so were vulnerable to a subsequent wave.
In the recent history of pandemics (and there have been four previous novel coronavirus epidemics and a number of serious ‘flu outbreaks) there has never been any question of imposing lockdowns anywhere in the world – and certainly not in the UK - to any significant degree. The one big question that does not seem to have been asked, let alone answered, is why were they imposed for this one?
//As for the damage done to children. Poppycock.//
You’d best read some of this before you dismiss it as poppycock:
https:/
https:/
There’s lots more where that came from. There's a wider world than your small village.
It may not be rocket science, Zacs. In fact it’s no science at all. To assume that because one thing happened at the same time as another, the first was the cause of the second is, at best, wishful thinking.
//…but it worked.//
It may seem “obvious” that lockdown worked but it isn’t. There is quite a groundswell of opinion that suggests that it didn’t in fact work. The science is complex and includes (among other things) an assumption that all the time lockdowns were in place, natural immunity among the population – the vast majority of whom were at no serious risk - was delayed. This means that those who may have acquired that immunity by exposure to the virus did not and so were vulnerable to a subsequent wave.
In the recent history of pandemics (and there have been four previous novel coronavirus epidemics and a number of serious ‘flu outbreaks) there has never been any question of imposing lockdowns anywhere in the world – and certainly not in the UK - to any significant degree. The one big question that does not seem to have been asked, let alone answered, is why were they imposed for this one?
//As for the damage done to children. Poppycock.//
You’d best read some of this before you dismiss it as poppycock:
https:/
https:/
There’s lots more where that came from. There's a wider world than your small village.
'to assume that because one thing happened at the same time as another, the first was the cause of the second is, at best, wishful thinking.'
Neither of us are scientists, NJ, but it would be fairly logical to conclude that a reduction in hospital admissions was the result of lockdown, even in my small village, as you so condescendingly put it.
'There is quite a groundswell of opinion that suggests that it didn’t in fact work'
Then you'll have no problem providing some robust links to prove it, I'm sure.
I'm well aware of the effects of COVID on children and the wider population. In fact my own daughter was in a neurological rehab unit recovering from Guillam Barre Syndrome and we could only see her 3 times in a 3 month period and that was through a perspex screen in a specially created booth.
We will obviously never see eye-to-eye on this. I cannot accept your assertions that a lockdown wasn't worth the after effects and neither can I accept your illogical assertions that there was some co-incidence of infection figures dropping, rather than it being as a result of the lockdown itself.
I look forward to reading some links to peer-reviewed scientific articles which back up your claim.
Neither of us are scientists, NJ, but it would be fairly logical to conclude that a reduction in hospital admissions was the result of lockdown, even in my small village, as you so condescendingly put it.
'There is quite a groundswell of opinion that suggests that it didn’t in fact work'
Then you'll have no problem providing some robust links to prove it, I'm sure.
I'm well aware of the effects of COVID on children and the wider population. In fact my own daughter was in a neurological rehab unit recovering from Guillam Barre Syndrome and we could only see her 3 times in a 3 month period and that was through a perspex screen in a specially created booth.
We will obviously never see eye-to-eye on this. I cannot accept your assertions that a lockdown wasn't worth the after effects and neither can I accept your illogical assertions that there was some co-incidence of infection figures dropping, rather than it being as a result of the lockdown itself.
I look forward to reading some links to peer-reviewed scientific articles which back up your claim.
///didnt Khruschev apologise for the excesses of Stalin? 1952///
conversely, recent Turkish rulers have refused to accept responsibility for the actions of the Ottomans, arguing that a great number of rebels died to get rid of them and so can hardly be held responsible for the actions of an empire they overthrew. That seems about right: there was continuity between the Soviet leaders, and the Tories, that wasn't the case with the Turks.
One of the outcomes of Truss's actions was to put Sunak in the top job. So it wouldn't hurt him to apologise for having to clean up the mess, if not for causing it in the first place.
conversely, recent Turkish rulers have refused to accept responsibility for the actions of the Ottomans, arguing that a great number of rebels died to get rid of them and so can hardly be held responsible for the actions of an empire they overthrew. That seems about right: there was continuity between the Soviet leaders, and the Tories, that wasn't the case with the Turks.
One of the outcomes of Truss's actions was to put Sunak in the top job. So it wouldn't hurt him to apologise for having to clean up the mess, if not for causing it in the first place.
…//the result of lockdown, even in my small village, as you so condescendingly put it.//
The small village I referred to was the one gness mentioned to in her post about the effect of lockdown (or the lack thereof) on children, Zacs. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
No, we won’t agree, Zacs. Of that I’m sure. Here’s one chap who agrees with me:
https:/
He is Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University. He counsels that as the disease was so very discriminatory (contrary to the statement Michaele Gove made to Parliament) it was foolish to introduce such a severe and non-discriminatory approach to dealing with it.
This was largely the approach I suggested would have been more effective overall, bearing in mind the long term effects of lockdown which are now becoming all too apparent. But a complete lockdown was the lazy option.
The Professor partially answers my question (no lockdowns for previous pandemics, why this one?) by suggesting we did because we could. That’s not really a suitable answer. I would argue that we could not, without serious consequences, but that’s another argument. But because we can do something it doesn’t mean we necessarily should.
The small village I referred to was the one gness mentioned to in her post about the effect of lockdown (or the lack thereof) on children, Zacs. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
No, we won’t agree, Zacs. Of that I’m sure. Here’s one chap who agrees with me:
https:/
He is Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University. He counsels that as the disease was so very discriminatory (contrary to the statement Michaele Gove made to Parliament) it was foolish to introduce such a severe and non-discriminatory approach to dealing with it.
This was largely the approach I suggested would have been more effective overall, bearing in mind the long term effects of lockdown which are now becoming all too apparent. But a complete lockdown was the lazy option.
The Professor partially answers my question (no lockdowns for previous pandemics, why this one?) by suggesting we did because we could. That’s not really a suitable answer. I would argue that we could not, without serious consequences, but that’s another argument. But because we can do something it doesn’t mean we necessarily should.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.