Coronavirus

[markhonesmagicstuds]

Meanwhile in Sweden...

View attachment 41763

View attachment 41764

No lockdown
No masks
No hysteria
No complete tanking of the economy (8% decrease in first half of 2020 compared to 23% decrease in the UK)
Schools open throughout the year

For those still people sticking to the idea Sweden got it all wrong, there was a short article in The Spectator earlier in the week which you may find thought-provoking.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-covid-19-threat

One of the problems with letting unqualified people (us) do their own analysis of relatively complex data is that we tend to find the evidence that fits our narrative and dismiss that which doesn't fit. Confirmation bias in action.

My counter to your post is to try to find data presented in an apolitical way, and at least attempt to analyse the data in an apolitical and unbiased way. Again, I'm not saying that you were biased, just that I don't think your charts tell the full story.

When comparing between different European countries, we can see that Sweden suffered much more than the other Scandinavian countries and the Baltics:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

Obviously using just one data source isn't a good approach, so off I go to the next result in my search:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rytojune2020#age-standardised-mortality-rates

(The ONS page actually presents a lot of information, only a small amount of which I have looked at. I would be interested in your interpretations.)

This shows a similar pattern: Sweden suffered a higher spike in deaths than its neighbours. Further on down the ONS page there are more analyses, including those by individual cities. Stockholm is a clear outlier compared to the other Scandinavian capitals.

I'm not saying that Sweden is exactly the same as its neighbours in every respect, but they are at least broadly similar in climate, and have remarkably similar population densities (Denmark aside).

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

So while you maintain that Sweden didn't get it wrong, I say that they paid the price in human life for keeping the economy open compared with their neighbours.

 

[NottyImp]

BBC news on the streets of Swindon this morning.

Retired couple (Mrs) "Where will young and old people find the money to pay the fines?"

That's an absolute pearler, isn't it?

 

[Sincilbanks]

One of the problems with letting unqualified people (us) do their own analysis of relatively complex data is that we tend to find the evidence that fits our narrative and dismiss that which doesn't fit. Confirmation bias in action.

My counter to your post is to try to find data presented in an apolitical way, and at least attempt to analyse the data in an apolitical and unbiased way. Again, I'm not saying that you were biased, just that I don't think your charts tell the full story.

When comparing between different European countries, we can see that Sweden suffered much more than the other Scandinavian countries and the Baltics:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

Obviously using just one data source isn't a good approach, so off I go to the next result in my search:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rytojune2020#age-standardised-mortality-rates

(The ONS page actually presents a lot of information, only a small amount of which I have looked at. I would be interested in your interpretations.)

This shows a similar pattern: Sweden suffered a higher spike in deaths than its neighbours. Further on down the ONS page there are more analyses, including those by individual cities. Stockholm is a clear outlier compared to the other Scandinavian capitals.

I'm not saying that Sweden is exactly the same as its neighbours in every respect, but they are at least broadly similar in climate, and have remarkably similar population densities (Denmark aside).

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

So while you maintain that Sweden didn't get it wrong, I say that they paid the price in human life for keeping the economy open compared with their neighbours.

Wasting your time, I've made this point with data over and over again

 

[markhonesmagicstuds]

Wasting your time, I've made this point with data over and over again

What has data ever done for us? Apart from to help us make informed decisions, what has data ever done for us?

 

[57harry]

One of the problems with letting unqualified people (us) do their own analysis of relatively complex data is that we tend to find the evidence that fits our narrative and dismiss that which doesn't fit. Confirmation bias in action.

My counter to your post is to try to find data presented in an apolitical way, and at least attempt to analyse the data in an apolitical and unbiased way. Again, I'm not saying that you were biased, just that I don't think your charts tell the full story.

When comparing between different European countries, we can see that Sweden suffered much more than the other Scandinavian countries and the Baltics:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

Obviously using just one data source isn't a good approach, so off I go to the next result in my search:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rytojune2020#age-standardised-mortality-rates

(The ONS page actually presents a lot of information, only a small amount of which I have looked at. I would be interested in your interpretations.)

This shows a similar pattern: Sweden suffered a higher spike in deaths than its neighbours. Further on down the ONS page there are more analyses, including those by individual cities. Stockholm is a clear outlier compared to the other Scandinavian capitals.

I'm not saying that Sweden is exactly the same as its neighbours in every respect, but they are at least broadly similar in climate, and have remarkably similar population densities (Denmark aside).

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

So while you maintain that Sweden didn't get it wrong, I say that they paid the price in human life for keeping the economy open compared with their neighbours.

Well a European comparison shows Sweden better than some but worse than others. For example Sweden at 578 deaths/million is less than Belgium 855,UK 612 and Italy 589,Spain 634 but worse than the other Scandinavian countries as you say . I cannot see the rationale in just comparing Scandinavian countries.Are you saying that all European and International comparisons are invalid and that the UK should only compare itself with ROI ?

On the point of popualtion density most people live in large Cities,it is not spread out evenly.eg. Stockholm has a larger population density than London

 

[plumbob]

That's an absolute pearler, isn't it?

Like I said, blew my mind. Seem to have confused "fine" with "fee"!!

 

[markhonesmagicstuds]

Well a European comparison shows Sweden better than some but worse than others. For example Sweden at 578 deaths/million is less than Belgium 855,UK 612 and Italy 589,Spain 634 but worse than the other Scandinavian countries as you say . I cannot see the rationale in just comparing Scandinavian countries.Are you saying that all European and International comparisons are invalid and that the UK should only compare itself with ROI ?

On the point of popualtion density most people live in large Cities,it is not spread out evenly.eg. Stockholm has a larger population density than London

There are many considerations when it comes to comparing datasets. I chose to compare the neighbouring Scandinavian countries (and Baltics), because they are comparable (at a high level) by geography, wealth, population, and culture to some extent. I'm not saying it's a watertight analysis, and it really only scratches the surface.

I've done no worse than the post by SwedishImp that I was replying to. I did at least attempt to be a little more detailed. In fact the first link I posted shows a more detailed analysis over time of death rates in Sweden, which shows that the 2020 spike (statistically) is by far the worst in recent years. Without even trying to compare with other countries, this alone is a counterpoint to SwedishImp's "flat" column chart.



The fact that Sweden bucks the local trend to me indicates that it has underperformed as a country.

I did say in my post that we are all guilty of confirmation bias. Would I have chosen to make my original post had it turned out that Sweden had outperformed the other countries? Probably not, but I probably wouldn't have gone looking for some different charts in an attempt to make a point. I literally used the first datasets I found. If I were intellectually invested in this I would have done more research and run some analysis on detailed datasets.

I've not run the numbers. I've not built an epidemiological model to rigorously compare the data. All I've done is taken country-level numbers and done a fairly basic comparison. I hope you can at least understand why I chose to pick the neighbouring countries as a comparison. It wasn't just a case of thinking "they share a border so they're probably similar". I did afford it at least a basic amount of thought. It's not the same as saying we can only compare countries with their neighbours, and I wouldn't choose to compare UK to ROI just because they're nearby.

I'm not writing a paper, I'm just offering something a little more detailed than the post I was replying to.

On the point of popualtion density most people live in large Cities,it is not spread out evenly.eg. Stockholm has a larger population density than London

This is a fair point. As I've already stated, this is not my attempt at a watertight analysis, just a stab at a more detailed analysis than the one made by someone with a political agenda. My post was an attempt to counter that with relatively neutral information.

Having been to all of the Scandinavian capitals bar Helsinki, I can appreciate that the cities themselves are different. Copenhagen has the highest population density, then Stockholm, then Helsinki, then Oslo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populated_municipalities_in_the_Nordic_countries

The numbers I looked at actually show London as having a higher population density than Stockholm, but it probably depends on where you draw the lines on the map, so I'm not reading too much into it.

The interesting thing here though is that Copenhagen has a much higher population density than Stockholm, albeit with 2/3 of the population.

I still don't see the data as showing that Sweden made the right political decision (economy aside). In fact my conclusion is that they would have a flatter curve had they followed the example of Denmark. Just don't tell Sweden I said that - there's a bit of tension up there (or at least there is from the Danish side).

This is not my conclusion for life, it's a quick conclusion based on a fairly shallow analysis. I care much more about what's going on in my city rather than another country.

 

[Norfolk Imp]

Things that make you go hmmmm?

 

[Sincilbanks]

Things that make you go hmmmm?

If you look at that weeks statistics he is showing and remove all the deaths that we have suffered in the UK you can clearly see Covid19 is a hoax!

 

[Sincilbanks]

Hurrah just "weeks" away from a testing system that's fit for purpose. Project Moonshot hasn't got a hope in hell has it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54163683

"World class test and trace system" remember? Jesus....

 

[SwedishImp]

One of the problems with letting unqualified people (us) do their own analysis of relatively complex data is that we tend to find the evidence that fits our narrative and dismiss that which doesn't fit. Confirmation bias in action.

My counter to your post is to try to find data presented in an apolitical way, and at least attempt to analyse the data in an apolitical and unbiased way. Again, I'm not saying that you were biased, just that I don't think your charts tell the full story.

When comparing between different European countries, we can see that Sweden suffered much more than the other Scandinavian countries and the Baltics:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

Obviously using just one data source isn't a good approach, so off I go to the next result in my search:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...rytojune2020#age-standardised-mortality-rates

(The ONS page actually presents a lot of information, only a small amount of which I have looked at. I would be interested in your interpretations.)

This shows a similar pattern: Sweden suffered a higher spike in deaths than its neighbours. Further on down the ONS page there are more analyses, including those by individual cities. Stockholm is a clear outlier compared to the other Scandinavian capitals.

I'm not saying that Sweden is exactly the same as its neighbours in every respect, but they are at least broadly similar in climate, and have remarkably similar population densities (Denmark aside).

https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

So while you maintain that Sweden didn't get it wrong, I say that they paid the price in human life for keeping the economy open compared with their neighbours.

Good post. Always happy to see a measured and reasoned comeback like this.

Honestly, I find the comparisons with our Scandinavian neighbours a bit lazy. Not having a go at you for this... it's something the government and media have done constantly since March.

The article I've linked from the American Institute of Economic Research lays out very well what some of the factors behind Sweden's numbers have been in comparison with their neighbours. It's well worth a read:

https://www.aier.org/article/sweden...rdics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

I do totally agree that data is used to fit narratives, although I'm not sure that is limited to unqualified people like us; medical professionals and scientists have been doing that ad nauseam as well. So here's another two graphs that suit my narrative to show how Sweden's fatalities compare to previous years:





I still find the criticism against Sweden quite incredible, particularly in the context of statistics and other extremely unwelcome 'side effects' of lockdown countries.

Sweden was always playing the long game by not going into lockdown, and as I've said on here previously, the time to really judge them will be towards the end of the year. Their chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said much the same a few months ago, along with the excellent comment that initiating lockdowns is much like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

The facts are that Sweden are now seeing significantly lower case rates than most other European countries (along with the similarly very low levels of deaths and hospitalisations that other European countries are seeing), and it's worth reiterating that to achieve this, they've never once closed a school; they haven't created an unmanageable backlog of treatment for other very sick people; and they're now in a position where instead of the completely ridiculous, fear-mongering, business-destroying 'Rule of 6', they're now looking at increasing gatherings from 50 to 500. And still no masks, still no blanket shutting down of the economy, still no local lockdowns, and still no widespread panic over a virus that now has the same IFR rate as a relatively severe flu season. Yet I'm sure despite all that evidence, the likes of Sincilbanks and NottyImp will still be steadfastly claiming that lockdown was the right move all along.

Goodness knows where it'll all end in the UK, but I fear that until people en masse wake up to the successes Sweden have had, and wake up to the other big issues around testing, mental health and the terrible figures on non-Covid deaths thanks to lockdown, it'll be a very long and troubled road ahead.

 

[SwedishImp]

Hurrah just "weeks" away from a testing system that's fit for purpose. Project Moonshot hasn't got a hope in hell has it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54163683

"World class test and trace system" remember? Jesus....

Have you done your research on the PCR test yet? And specifically the number of cycles that are used to give a result? I wonder if proper use of this will be part of a 'world class test and trace system'.

 

[SwedishImp]

Wasting your time, I've made this point with data over and over again

I find it very hard to agree with you on anything, whatever 'data' you put my way.

There's quite a few reasons for this. However, the main one is I've never seen you acknowledge any of the other issues around this crisis beyond 'test, test, test' and 'the virus'. You've not once posted anything here expressing concern for the millions of people left jobless from lockdowns and all the terrible impacts that can cause; you've never expressed concern for the huge damage done to children's education and psychological development; you've never expressed concern over the effects the constant government and media agenda of fear has had on people's mental well-being; and you've never expressed concern about the terrible and life-ending outcomes lockdowns have had on cancer or heart disease patients.

And to remind you, we now know these lockdowns were put in place off the back of a 'virus' no more serious in terms of infection to fatality than a relatively severe flu season.

 

[markhonesmagicstuds]

Good post. Always happy to see a measured and reasoned comeback like this.

Honestly, I find the comparisons with our Scandinavian neighbours a bit lazy. Not having a go at you for this... it's something the government and media have done constantly since March.

The article I've linked from the American Institute of Economic Research lays out very well what some of the factors behind Sweden's numbers have been in comparison with their neighbours. It's well worth a read:

https://www.aier.org/article/sweden...rdics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

I do totally agree that data is used to fit narratives, although I'm not sure that is limited to unqualified people like us; medical professionals and scientists have been doing that ad nauseam as well. So here's another two graphs that suit my narrative to show how Sweden's fatalities compare to previous years:

View attachment 42188

View attachment 42189

I still find the criticism against Sweden quite incredible, particularly in the context of statistics and other extremely unwelcome 'side effects' of lockdown countries.

Sweden was always playing the long game by not going into lockdown, and as I've said on here previously, the time to really judge them will be towards the end of the year. Their chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said much the same a few months ago, along with the excellent comment that initiating lockdowns is much like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

The facts are that Sweden are now seeing significantly lower case rates than most other European countries (along with the similarly very low levels of deaths and hospitalisations that other European countries are seeing), and it's worth reiterating that to achieve this, they've never once closed a school; they haven't created an unmanageable backlog of treatment for other very sick people; and they're now in a position where instead of the completely ridiculous, fear-mongering, business-destroying 'Rule of 6', they're now looking at increasing gatherings from 50 to 500. And still no masks, still no blanket shutting down of the economy, still no local lockdowns, and still no widespread panic over a virus that now has the same IFR rate as a relatively severe flu season. Yet I'm sure despite all that evidence, the likes of Sincilbanks and NottyImp will still be steadfastly claiming that lockdown was the right move all along.

Goodness knows where it'll all end in the UK, but I fear that until people en masse wake up to the successes Sweden have had, and wake up to the other big issues around testing, mental health and the terrible figures on non-Covid deaths thanks to lockdown, it'll be a very long and troubled road ahead.

Honestly, I find the comparisons with our Scandinavian neighbours a bit lazy

I appreciate your frustration. The countries do - on paper - share some similarities, but of course it will always be a generalisation to compare any country with any other country. It's pretty difficult to even compare region to region or city to city within any given country.

The article I've linked from the American Institute of Economic Research lays out very well what some of the factors behind Sweden's numbers have been in comparison with their neighbours. It's well worth a read

Obviously right-leaning publications are going to make a case FOR Sweden, and left-leaning publications are going to make a case AGAINST Sweden. The article does at least seem reasonably balanced in its right-leaning analysis. I agree that it is an interesting read.

I do totally agree that data is used to fit narratives, although I'm not sure that is limited to unqualified people like us; medical professionals and scientists have been doing that ad nauseam as well

The beauty of science is that it provides knowledge based on a consensus. We don't have understanding without a consensus. The issue with doing science out "in the open", as we have seen so far, is that the data is coming in on a daily basis. What initially appeared to be a mad scramble for the correct interpretation should eventually calm down to a widely agreed upon set of analyses on a large set of data. I'm not sure how far along the road to consensus we are yet.

The facts are that Sweden are now seeing significantly lower case rates than most other European countries

I'm not sure where that "fact" came from? The chart in my link below (as of 15th September) puts Sweden at 6th in Europe for number of cases per capita - ahead of a majority other European countries. To say they have significantly lower case rates than most other European countries is plain wrong.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1110187/coronavirus-incidence-europe-by-country/

They are 11th in Europe going by the absolute number of cases.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104837/coronavirus-cases-europe-by-country/

To be fair, one of your points is that it's not all doom and gloom in Sweden, and the current number of cases does go some way to supporting that. We'll never know what would have happened if Sweden had closed down. But we only need to look across to our American friends to see what happens if you take a non-sensible approach to keeping society open.

And still no masks

Is this something to be proud of? I honestly don't get the anti-mask brigade. The worst case is that Covid turns out to be less serious than we thought. So we had to wear a mask just in case it helps protect others? Boo-hoo.

still no blanket shutting down of the economy, still no local lockdowns, and still no widespread panic over a virus that now has the same IFR rate as a relatively severe flu season. Yet I'm sure despite all that evidence, the likes of Sincilbanks and NottyImp will still be steadfastly claiming that lockdown was the right move all along.

You're guilty here of comparing Sweden and the UK - a comparison that you should go nowhere near if you're upset about Sweden being compared with Norway and Denmark.

Some things we will never know. To say that the UK would have been fine (at least no worse?) with the Swedish approach though is plain wrong. The fact that the UK is faring poorly despite the measures that were taken (bungled or not) to me indicates that we would be drowning in Covid now (as you put it elsewhere).

The death rate in the UK (deaths / official cases) is currently around 11%.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Obviously this is an extremely broad calculation that depends on testing and what counts as a Covid death, etc, etc. But however you slice it, the numbers in the UK are high. The death rate is much worse than seasonal flu. These are facts. How would the UK have fared under an open Swedish-style approach? We'll never know. But I'm certain it would have been much worse. And we have no idea what lies ahead.

 

[SwedishImp]

Another good reply MHMS.

You're right... the statement on 'most European countries' is wrong. I got over-excited and should have said 'many'.

However, my latest figures have a better showing than 6th place. I should also make clear my focus was on current trends (e.g. the 14-day figures you can see below) rather than an overall 'since start of crisis' number.



On the IFR in the range of a quite severe flu season, again I should have made clear I was looking more globally. However, 11% - as you allude to - will be way above the actual IFR for the UK as other factors come into play beyond just the 'positive' tests and deaths attributed to Covid. This page has some interesting numbers comparing Covid and flu:

https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/

On masks, I think people's beef is that there's been no new evidence to show they are effective, and the official advice given now goes completely against what was being said back in March and April when a 'just in case' approach would have been more justified. There is also evidence that masks are harmful if worn for long periods - something seemingly ignored by mainstream media and government as they don't appear to have done any formal risk assessment on the mandatory wearing of masks.

The 'anti-mask' evidence is quite extensive, whilst a lot of the 'pro mask' also questionable. A repository of some of the research is here:

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Probably my biggest concern with masks (along with the fact that they there are mountains of health professionals saying they are not effective) is that they are the single biggest display of a health emergency, when actually if you look at how deaths and hospitalisations were declining even before masks were introduced, there isn't a health emergency at hand.

And in my view, it's the 'health emergency' that is driving the out-of-control fear in many people... and it is this fear that is causing such terrible problems for the UK and many other locked down countries.

Isn't it time to start attempting to reduce the fear and get people comfortable again with living their lives, whilst of course still encouraging sensible approaches with hand washing, social distancing etc? Stopping the mandatory use of masks would be a very good step in the right direction on this in my opinion. Otherwise, where and when is the fear going to end?

And that's where I take major issue with the UK government, even more than the lockdowns. Do we really need to be so fearful of this virus given all the numbers and statistics at hand? We've lived with flu for centuries and suffered far greater losses than Covid has caused. So why the great panic and draconian government interventions now?

This 'poster' was perhaps the worst I saw. Was there really any justification for this? Or maybe I'm just a bit over-sensitive.

 

[NottyImp]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...system-has-huge-problems-admits-boris-johnson

So "world beating" was all total bullshit, then? Who knew?

I'm glad I didn't vote for this shower of shit.

 

[Sincilbanks]

I find it very hard to agree with you on anything, whatever 'data' you put my way.

There's quite a few reasons for this. However, the main one is I've never seen you acknowledge any of the other issues around this crisis beyond 'test, test, test' and 'the virus'. You've not once posted anything here expressing concern for the millions of people left jobless from lockdowns and all the terrible impacts that can cause; you've never expressed concern for the huge damage done to children's education and psychological development; you've never expressed concern over the effects the constant government and media agenda of fear has had on people's mental well-being; and you've never expressed concern about the terrible and life-ending outcomes lockdowns have had on cancer or heart disease patients.

And to remind you, we now know these lockdowns were put in place off the back of a 'virus' no more serious in terms of infection to fatality than a relatively severe flu season.

If we'd done this right, from the get go we wouldn't still be in lockdown, we wouldn't have put all these people through these experiences and we wouldn't have had to bail out the economy to the tune we have had. All of these results are as a direct result of refusing to deal with the problem in an appropriate manner at the appropriate time, ie testing. We could still throw the kitchen sink at this and get out of our situation if we introduce a comprehensive and regular testing system.

We have an excellent model in what happens when you don't take enough measure and ignore the effects of the virus spreading. It's called the United States and it's a complete car crash...

 

[SwedishImp]

We have an excellent model in what happens when you don't take enough measure and ignore the effects of the virus spreading. It's called the United States and it's a complete car crash...

Or there's Japan with its population at roughly double that of the UK conducting around 1.7 million tests compared to over 20 million in the UK. The net result in the only statistic that matters? 40 times fewer Covid deaths per capita.

Japan has had a policy throughout of not testing asymptomatic people. In the UK, the rabid fear spread around the agenda of cases and tests means that on most days, anywhere between 95-98% of tests taken come back with a negative result. This is a monumental waste of time and resources, and in my view is only serving to drive fear and give the mainstream media the case fodder they need to keep the fear going. Therefore, for me, more regular testing - as you've suggested - is very much not the answer and the way out of this sorry mess the UK is in.

The policy now should be reduce fear, reduce the rampant encouragement of anyone and everyone to get tests, and let people take their own decisions based on the clear data gathered on risk groups, survival rates, effective medicines etc. That way, people will have a far greater chance of getting back to their normal lives before there's nothing left of their livelihoods to go back to.

One final thought. I've no doubt Japan's low obesity levels and healthy diet (and thus stronger immune systems) will have have played a massive part in their relative success in keeping Covid under control. Given all the shaming being done on people questioning the efficacy of lockdowns and masks, perhaps it should be time for the UK government to start really hammering home the message that people need to urgently take personal responsibility to stay fit and eat well in order to protect themselves and others from Covid? After all, research and the demographics of people most affected by Covid strongly indicate that a good immune system and a healthy lifestyle will have a much greater chance of keeping Covid at bay than lockdowns and masks. Just a thought.

 

[SwedishImp]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...system-has-huge-problems-admits-boris-johnson

So "world beating" was all total bullshit, then? Who knew?

I'm glad I didn't vote for this shower of shit.

So presumably you voted for Labour (as I did at the last election)? And they've done basically nothing for the last 6 months to scrutinise, challenge or attack the appalling behaviour and mis-management of the Tory government.

Opposition? What a fucking joke.

Hope you're feeling suitably smug and happy with your vote.

 

[Sincilbanks]

Or there's Japan with its population at roughly double that of the UK conducting around 1.7 million tests compared to over 20 million in the UK. The net result in the only statistic that matters? 40 times fewer Covid deaths per capita.

Japan has had a policy throughout of not testing asymptomatic people. In the UK, the rabid fear spread around the agenda of cases and tests means that on most days, anywhere between 95-98% of tests taken come back with a negative result. This is a monumental waste of time and resources, and in my view is only serving to drive fear and give the mainstream media the case fodder they need to keep the fear going. Therefore, for me, more regular testing - as you've suggested - is very much not the answer and the way out of this sorry mess the UK is in.

The policy now should be reduce fear, reduce the rampant encouragement of anyone and everyone to get tests, and let people take their own decisions based on the clear data gathered on risk groups, survival rates, effective medicines etc. That way, people will have a far greater chance of getting back to their normal lives before there's nothing left of their livelihoods to go back to.

One final thought. I've no doubt Japan's low obesity levels and healthy diet (and thus stronger immune systems) will have have played a massive part in their relative success in keeping Covid under control. Given all the shaming being done on people questioning the efficacy of lockdowns and masks, perhaps it should be time for the UK government to start really hammering home the message that people need to urgently take personal responsibility to stay fit and eat well in order to protect themselves and others from Covid? After all, research and the demographics of people most affected by Covid strongly indicate that a good immune system and a healthy lifestyle will have a much greater chance of keeping Covid at bay than lockdowns and masks. Just a thought.

And here it comes...
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/coronavirus/?id=73042312

New COVID-19 deaths increased by nearly 17% in the last week nationally, according to an internal Federal Emergency Management Agency memo obtained Wednesday by ABC News.

In the last seven days, there was a 16.6% increase in new deaths compared to the previous week, the memo said.

Meanwhile, the number of new cases decreased slightly, down 0.7% when looking at the same period.

In the last week, the national test positivity rate remained steady at 4.4% -- a 0.1% decrease over the previous week, according to the memo.