#COVID19 | Page 966 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Apparently the 3 models used by SAGE were all worse assumptions. All assumed vaccinations would remain static and that they would only be 30% efficient. Real world data suggests despite scares we will not be far off all adults vaccinated by end July and vaccines are registering 70% - 90% efficacy even with current variants. Project fear all over again.
 
Strett said:
He's suggesting it may have been higher if we'd locked down earlier last spring.
Click to expand...

It's an argument about timing of the first lockdown, not an argument against it which you've consistently advocated for.

Where is the actual study? I'd be curious what they say about the second lockdown.
 
I'd rather see policy based on worst case scenarios (but playing it by ear and opening up quicker if there's no surge in deaths) than based on 'the sun's shining and we're jabbing away so let's all party'.
 
Strett said:
Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost
A Cambridge University expert argues that countries that locked down early delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality.

Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university's MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain's relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter – when the service traditionally struggles to cope.

He said that, in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections rather than prevent them, suggesting that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.
Click to expand...
30,000 people died in January alone. France, Spain and Germany are about 50,000 deaths down on the UK
 
Pope John XXIII said:
30,000 people died in January alone. France, Spain and Germany are about 50,000 deaths down on the UK
Click to expand...

30,000 (27,000) deaths were recorded in January, they didn’t necessarily die then.
I know it’s pedantic, so apologies for that.

For example of the 40 deaths recorded on 3/4/21, they occurred on the following dates...

87E6BC3F-A055-4B5F-9BC9-7A3B8E3219D6.png

Also, there were 68,796 deaths registered in England in January 2021. This was 15,747 more deaths than in January 2020 and 15,685 deaths more than the five-year average.
 
Last edited:
Strett said:
Maybe, or maybe not. Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost
A Cambridge University expert argues that countries that locked down early delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality.

Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university's MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain's relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter – when the service traditionally struggles to cope.

He said that, in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections rather than prevent them, suggesting that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.
Click to expand...
And yet others disagree. We will probably never know about the first lockdown although having had more notice being an island we could have locked down more thoroughly and closed our borders to limit the virus’ access.

Telling that you haven’t mentioned the second lockdown though...
 
Basha73 said:
And yet others disagree. We will probably never know about the first lockdown although having had more notice being an island we could have locked down more thoroughly and closed our borders to limit the virus’ access.

Telling that you haven’t mentioned the second lockdown though...
Click to expand...
We’re talking about the first lockdown.
 
Deaths ‘with’ Covid-19 in the UK yesterday: 20

-This equates to 0.000031% of the population.
-Total cumulative deaths equates to 0.19% of the population.

Reminder: Average Daily UK deaths:
-Cancer 450
-Heart cardiovascular 450
-Alzheimer’s 180
-Smoking related 210
-Other 310
 
Did you know in 1951 over 100,000 died of flu. In fact thru the 1950 and early 60’s the average death rate due to flu related illness was 60,000 pa. Mostly in Winter. Because of better housing and flu vaccines the average by 1995 fell to under 20,000 pa. sometimes below 10,000. Occasional peaks were hit such as over the winter of 2014/15 with 44,000 deaths.

With covid we have hit 123,000 deaths but over two winters. Undoubtably lock down saved covid related deaths, but perhaps assisted many others for many years.

The point I am making is we have had to live with death. We can’t eradicate it. Vaccines will minimise covid death rates but having got to where we are we must not let the cure be worse than the condition being treated.
 
Wow, this is a groundhog thread. Bill Murray just turned up with Cher, a four pack, some chicken and a fishing rod.


https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/04/02/Canada-One-Big-Pandemic-Response-Experiment-Zero-COVID/

An extensive French study has surveyed nations’ responses to COVID-19 and concludes that those taking an aggressive “Zero COVID” approach fared better than others by both health and economic measures.

The study rests its analysis in part on the experience of Canada, where six large provinces face steeply rising infection rates tied to evolved variants of the virus, while provinces and territories that hewed closer to the Zero COVID approach do not.

Zero COVID, also called Go for Zero or elimination, employs a range of tactics designed to drive infection rates to negligible. Such tactics include one hard serious lockdown followed by strategic testing, active surveillance and tight border controls.

Canada’s experience fits patterns identified in the study released this week by the Paris-based Institut économique Molinari that compared the performance of nations representing 82 million people since the beginning of the pandemic.

“The countries applying the Zero COVID strategy have experienced far less social and economic deterioration than other countries,” summed up the report.

The reason: “Participation in economic and social life is a function of people’s confidence in being able to take part without running the risk of falling ill, contaminating others or seeing health services overwhelmed.”

By almost every measure, nations that decided to eliminate the virus have achieved better results. “They are seeing significantly fewer deaths, their economies are performing more strongly, and their people are not held back to the same degree by mobility restrictions, whether voluntary or mandatory. Nor have they had to cancel other medical treatment.”

In contrast, nations that pursued mitigation programs are now battling variants that are more lethal and contagious with a variety of “circuit breakers” and “emergency brakes.”

These variants, which have only exploded in six Canadian provinces with mitigation policies, limit a government’s abilities to “relax restrictions in view of higher disease and mortality within the mitigation framework, leading to even higher accumulation of economic costs,” says the report.
 
Meanwhile this brexit government had pushed through its plans to reduce 'foreign aid' spending which has led to 70% reductions in programmes that literally reduce the risk of future pandemics.

Absolute short-sightedness in the extreme from a bunch of ignorant charlatans. Maybe the fault lies in scientific communication but if these plonkers running the country (down) cannot see the value in reducing the likelihood of diseases hopping from animals to humans, or of testing vaccines on coronaviruses that have literally already done so, then I fear our political leadership is beyond all hope. Please, please, never again vote for this bunch. We deserve so much better.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Wow, this is a groundhog thread. Bill Murray just turned up with Cher, a four pack, some chicken and a fishing rod.


https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/04/02/Canada-One-Big-Pandemic-Response-Experiment-Zero-COVID/

An extensive French study has surveyed nations’ responses to COVID-19 and concludes that those taking an aggressive “Zero COVID” approach fared better than others by both health and economic measures.

The study rests its analysis in part on the experience of Canada, where six large provinces face steeply rising infection rates tied to evolved variants of the virus, while provinces and territories that hewed closer to the Zero COVID approach do not.

Zero COVID, also called Go for Zero or elimination, employs a range of tactics designed to drive infection rates to negligible. Such tactics include one hard serious lockdown followed by strategic testing, active surveillance and tight border controls.

Canada’s experience fits patterns identified in the study released this week by the Paris-based Institut économique Molinari that compared the performance of nations representing 82 million people since the beginning of the pandemic.

“The countries applying the Zero COVID strategy have experienced far less social and economic deterioration than other countries,” summed up the report.

The reason: “Participation in economic and social life is a function of people’s confidence in being able to take part without running the risk of falling ill, contaminating others or seeing health services overwhelmed.”

By almost every measure, nations that decided to eliminate the virus have achieved better results. “They are seeing significantly fewer deaths, their economies are performing more strongly, and their people are not held back to the same degree by mobility restrictions, whether voluntary or mandatory. Nor have they had to cancel other medical treatment.”

In contrast, nations that pursued mitigation programs are now battling variants that are more lethal and contagious with a variety of “circuit breakers” and “emergency brakes.”

These variants, which have only exploded in six Canadian provinces with mitigation policies, limit a government’s abilities to “relax restrictions in view of higher disease and mortality within the mitigation framework, leading to even higher accumulation of economic costs,” says the report.
Click to expand...

Bingo, people who think minor mitigating does less damage to the economy are nuts.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Bingo, people who think minor mitigating does less damage to the economy are nuts.
Click to expand...
Most of those people probably haven't looked at any data, or read any balance of informed opinions, or have the wherewithal (e.g. training) to come to an independently informed conclusion.
Not necessarily nuts, or stupid, or covidiots, etc, but in an overwhelming and rather depressing world, more easily seduced by the overly simplistic idea that 'shutting things = bad', without considering the alternative, which appears to be 'not shutting things = worse'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.