Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a bigger picture here, I think.

Even assuming that there's an increase on suicides during lockdown and other COVID-19 measures (and in fact it is very likely to be the case even if we are not yet able to collect data to quantify it), the fact remains that our government has the obligation of looking at the situation rationally and dispassionately.

Every individual is 100% for their loved ones, and the loss-of-life resulting from suicide can not be compensated-for by statistics.

But ultimately it's the government's responsibility to choose the lesser of the two evils - COVID-19 and mental health. Both cause misery, devastation, and ultimately deaths.

I am not suggesting that I know that the government has indeed done the right thing, and even when choosing one over the other there are still various mitigation that the government can and should employ to help those adversely affected by its COVID-19 policies, both financially and mentally.

My point, however, is that an increase on one type of loss-of-life, as sad and regrettable as it is, shouldn't be used as an automatic condemnation of government policies - instead, we should look at the larger context before passing judgement.

my broader point was that "In October 2020, more people died by suicide in Japan than were killed by the coronavirus in 10 months." is a meaningless statistic as it has no context...
 
Firstly, what Prof Heneghan says sounds plausible, there are other indicators that seem to show that the second spike is nowhere near as bad as the first one. The government will most probably claim that this is the result of decisive action taken early, and indeed there are those who believe that the first lockdown in March was unnecessary delayed, with detrimental consequences at the time.

Then, the NHS running at ~80% capacity will again likely be heralded by the government as a success story, resulting from both the early action and better preparedness this time around.

Of course it's difficult to know just how bad things might have been had we not taken the action that we did, and ultimately there's a risk of COVID-19 becoming a propaganda war between those who claim that we took the right action at the right time, and those who maintain that we would have been better-off doing nothing, with neither side being able to provide definitive evidence to prove their point.

The saying 'history is written by the victors' only applies where there's a clear victor... in all other cases history becomes a subject of much academic debate and I suspect that the COVID-19 episode in human history will be no different.
Professor Henghan is a practitioner of evidence based medicine. He is also a practising GP. "Sounds plausible" would not be good enough i am afraid. Look at the points he has made...
  • The threshold for being admitted with the virus is lower.
  • At the peak of the crisis in spring, doctors had to be selective about who they admitted to hospital because there were so many critically ill patients ...
  • More than 60,000 elderly and vulnerable people have already been killed by the virus,
  • fewer patients with severe disease are coming forward,
... all evidence based

The Government would do well do do the same. Base their actions on evidence. On the basis of the known pathology of SARS-CoV-2.
 
Last edited:
Tuesday 1st December CFR is 3.59%
Wednesday 25th November CFR was 3.63%
Saturday 21st November CFR was 3.68%
Wednesday18th November CFR was 3.74%
Saturday 14th November CFR was 3.89%
Monday 9th November CFR was 4.11%
Friday 6th November CFR was 4.28%
Tuesday 3rd November CFR was 4.45%
Sunday 1st November CFR was 4.60%
Thursday 29th Oct CFR was 4.85%
Tuesday 27th Oct CFR was 4.94%
Sunday 25th Oct CFR was 5.24%
Tuesday 20th Oct CFR was 5.9%
Friday 16th Oct CFR was 6.3%.
Monday 12th Oct CFR was 6.78%.
Thursday 8th Oct CFR was 7.8%.
Monday 5th Oct CFR was 8.2%.

 
...Professor Heneghan said: 'There is a tendency to believe that more people in hospital with Covid is a bad thing, I tend to disagree...
Professor Henghan is a practitioner of evidence based medicine. He is also a practising GP. "Sounds plausable" would not be good enough i am afraid. Look at the points he has made...
  • The threshold for being admitted with the virus is lower.
  • At the peak of the crisis in spring, doctors had to be selective about who they admitted to hospital because there were so many critically ill patients ...
  • More than 60,000 elderly and vulnerable people have already been killed by the virus,
  • fewer patients with severe disease are coming forward,
... all evidence based

The Government would do well do do the same. Base their actions on evidence. On the basis of the known pathology of SARS-CoV-2.

With respect, I don't think that your view of what the term 'evidence-based' means is the same as mine.

I don't understand the term 'Evidence-based' to mean that one should keep their mouth shut and not comment on any matter for which there's no definitive evidence as yet.

What it does mean, is that one should always make a clear distinction between what is factual and what is a supposition.

You quoted the following:

...Professor Heneghan said: 'There is a tendency to believe that more people in hospital with Covid is a bad thing, I tend to disagree...

This is a good example of a scientist who rightly makes a clear distinction between fact and opinion. The use of the phrase "I tend to disagree" indicates that this is a view, an opinion, not (yet) a scientifically-proven fact.

I wouldn't expect Prof Heneghan - or any other researcher for that matter - to declare only proven facts, and never state his view, opinion, and advice.

My response to Prof Heneghan's declared opinion was that I found his view to be plausible... and yet you seem to take exception to my comment.
 
Tuesday 1st December CFR is 3.59%
Wednesday 25th November CFR was 3.63%
Saturday 21st November CFR was 3.68%
Wednesday18th November CFR was 3.74%
Saturday 14th November CFR was 3.89%
Monday 9th November CFR was 4.11%
Friday 6th November CFR was 4.28%
Tuesday 3rd November CFR was 4.45%
Sunday 1st November CFR was 4.60%
Thursday 29th Oct CFR was 4.85%
Tuesday 27th Oct CFR was 4.94%
Sunday 25th Oct CFR was 5.24%
Tuesday 20th Oct CFR was 5.9%
Friday 16th Oct CFR was 6.3%.
Monday 12th Oct CFR was 6.78%.
Thursday 8th Oct CFR was 7.8%.
Monday 5th Oct CFR was 8.2%.


Thanks ... so:

Pre-lockdown 5th Oct to 5th Nov: down from 8.2% to 4.28% ... a reduction of 48%

During lockdown 6th Nov to 1st Dec: down from 4.28% to 3.59% ... a reduction of 16%

So .... lockdown reduces the rate of reduction in CFR by 2/3

Who's for the advantages of lockdown, then?

Anyone?
 
Tuesday 1st December CFR is 3.59%
Wednesday 25th November CFR was 3.63%
Saturday 21st November CFR was 3.68%
Wednesday18th November CFR was 3.74%
Saturday 14th November CFR was 3.89%
Monday 9th November CFR was 4.11%
Friday 6th November CFR was 4.28%
Tuesday 3rd November CFR was 4.45%
Sunday 1st November CFR was 4.60%
Thursday 29th Oct CFR was 4.85%
Tuesday 27th Oct CFR was 4.94%
Sunday 25th Oct CFR was 5.24%
Tuesday 20th Oct CFR was 5.9%
Friday 16th Oct CFR was 6.3%.
Monday 12th Oct CFR was 6.78%.
Thursday 8th Oct CFR was 7.8%.
Monday 5th Oct CFR was 8.2%.


your source page does not appear to have been updated since March 17, 2020????
 
Try an be honest with yourself... do you belive Lukashenko's version over the IMF's because Lukashenko comes across to you as a decent honest chap, the sort that wouldn't tell a lie?... or because the lockdown conspiracy theory needs all the help it can get, even if comes from someone who under any other circumstances you wouldn't trust with loaning a tenner?

And this goes back to my original point: looking at this from a rational point of view, does it not bother you that the quality of the evidence to support this storyline is so poor? Almost every link to an article published here in support of the 'world domination' narrative contained fabricated facts or some other form of misinformation. Do you not find that there's something fundamentally wrong with a theory that can only find the testimony of a despot to rely on? You dismissed the alarmist article that almost-fraudulently used the word 'implant' to describe a biometric passport as an anecdote - well, no, it isn't, and the problem is that they are all like that. Did it not occurr to you to ask why there are no articles to be found that support this particular point of view without having to rely on some form of deception?

You asked me if I am not convinced. Well, it requires a massive leap of faith on my part to accept as true a theory that no one seems to be able so far to find credible evidence to support it.

So, does the attached article (and the accompanying comments) support your theory, mine, or both, do you think?


Do you not think Hitchens has a point about the dumbing down of education resulting in folk now having been taught what to think?

How would you propose to confront the government on its significant failings on dealing with the virus on, for example, the deaths of those citizens denied essential healthcare treatment and those who felt they could not ask?

What time frame do you envisage before asking "why are we still doing this"?
 
COVID-19 stands for Corona Virus Disease 2019

I always thought it was: Certificate Of Vaccination ID 2019

:rolleyes:
 
Thanks ... so:

Pre-lockdown 5th Oct to 5th Nov: down from 8.2% to 4.28% ... a reduction of 48%

During lockdown 6th Nov to 1st Dec: down from 4.28% to 3.59% ... a reduction of 16%

So .... lockdown reduces the rate of reduction in CFR by 2/3

Who's for the advantages of lockdown, then?

Anyone?
Thanks for that Swotty. I had not thought to compare the reduction in CFR during periods of lockdown and no lockdown / tier system. Very interesting. Maybe send it to HMG. They could use it as part of their risk assessment they did not bother to do.

(The CFR data is scraped daily from the Worldometers site. Updated 01/12/2020 at 13:41)
 
With respect, I don't think that your view of what the term 'evidence-based' means is the same as mine.

I don't understand the term 'Evidence-based' to mean that one should keep their mouth shut and not comment on any matter for which there's no definitive evidence as yet.

What it does mean, is that one should always make a clear distinction between what is factual and what is a supposition.

You quoted the following:



This is a good example of a scientist who rightly makes a clear distinction between fact and opinion. The use of the phrase "I tend to disagree" indicates that this is a view, an opinion, not (yet) a scientifically-proven fact.

I wouldn't expect Prof Heneghan - or any other researcher for that matter - to declare only proven facts, and never state his view, opinion, and advice.

My response to Prof Heneghan's declared opinion was that I found his view to be plausible... and yet you seem to take exception to my comment.
No exception taken. Just stating my point of view, namely that the we will never know line of thought will not wash anymore when 10 months into this health crisis the known pathology should be guiding policy.
 
Thanks ... so:

Pre-lockdown 5th Oct to 5th Nov: down from 8.2% to 4.28% ... a reduction of 48%

During lockdown 6th Nov to 1st Dec: down from 4.28% to 3.59% ... a reduction of 16%

So .... lockdown reduces the rate of reduction in CFR by 2/3

Who's for the advantages of lockdown, then?

Anyone?

Thanks for that Swotty. I had not thought to compare the reduction in CFR during periods of lockdown and no lockdown, tier system. Very interesting. Maybe send it to HMG. They could use it as part of their risk assessment they did not bother to do.

The CFR is a statistical figure - why would the lockdown affect the CFR?

The lockdown could (and should) affect the absolute number of COVID-19-related fatalities, but not the CFR.

The CFR is affected primarily by our improvements in treatments and medical interventions, then potentially by the virus mutating, and possibly also by other factors such as 'culling' of the vulnerable during the first spike, or better-protecting our care homes and shielding the elderly and infirm etc. It might even be affected by the development of resilience or partial-immunity in the population, though the latter is only speculative at this stage.

But either way, CFR is an empirically-derived figure that simply states your statistical probability of dying within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis - it isn't affected by an increase or decline in the overall number of infections.
 
Playing it by Ear? smoke and mirrors article
 
So, does the attached article (and the accompanying comments) support your theory, mine, or both, do you think?


Do you not think Hitchens has a point about the dumbing down of education resulting in folk now having been taught what to think?

How would you propose to confront the government on its significant failings on dealing with the virus on, for example, the deaths of those citizens denied essential healthcare treatment and those who felt they could not ask?

What time frame do you envisage before asking "why are we still doing this"?

Firstly, Peter Hitchens' criticism of government policies is very welcomed. This is part if the job of free press, to take the government to task.

But there's nothing in what Peter Hitchens says to suggest that the government is anything other then misguided and incompetent. He makes no reference to our government doing the bidding of a secretive international organisation whose aim is to subjugate us all.

My view is that the government should be confronted using our long-established institutions. We have local Councillors and MPs and two houses of Parliament, and once every 5 years also general elections.

This system served us well for centuries and through two World Wars.

The issue I have is that people who do not get satisfaction from the system on a particular issue (and no system of government can satisfy everyone all of the time), choose to undermine and delegitemise it to their own ends.

The narrative that says our government and MPs are all part of a conspiracy by the rulling elite is exactly that - it's an attempt to circumnavigate our Democratic system of government by a minority that can not get their message across as long as people accept the moral authority of our State institutions.
 
Update,
The Court of Appeal has today handed down its judgment on our legal challenge to lockdown after hearing the case over four weeks ago on October 29 and 30.

The judges ruled that the Government should not face a Judicial Review into the first lockdown measures.

However, Simon will now seek permission to take this case to the Supreme Court.

Here is a statement about the judgement and the case.


Simon Dolan said: “The Lord Chief Justice, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh have decided that the Government should not face a full judicial review of its actions in imposing the lockdown measures on us all between March 26 and July 2.

“We did score one important victory. The three judges allowed an important ground of the appeal which concerned the legal powers of Ministers to make the lockdown regulations using the Public Health (Control of Infectious Disease) Act 1984. We argued that they had acted ‘ultra vires’ (beyond their powers) by using this legislation and that as a result, the lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government were illegal.

“The Court of Appeal accepted that it was in the public interest for the appeal to be allowed on this important legal point. In doing so, they overturned Mr Justice Lewis's ruling back in July that this point was unarguable.

“Unusually, having allowed the appeal on the ultra vires point, the Court decided to make a final, substantive ruling on the substance of the issue itself – rather than send it back to the High Court.

“Unfortunately, however, having considered it, the Court of Appeal held against us. It has ruled that on the wording of the 1984 statute, the Government does have the power to impose measures against the whole population as it has been doing.

“We still disagree strongly and the fight will go on. We can and will seek permission to appeal the ultra vires point to the Supreme Court.

“Many eminent lawyers, including Lord Sumption, himself a former Supreme Court judge, have questioned whether the 1984 Act really does give the Government the power to the lockdown regulations it has been imposing since March 26. We would hope that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal concerning this hugely important point of law.

“We had also challenged the lockdown on various other grounds. We argued that it was incompatible with our human rights. Because the court refused us permission to appeal on those other grounds, we cannot take those parts of the challenge any further in this case. We will not be able to challenge the proportionality of the earlier lockdown measures such as the right to gather for protests nor the effect on private and family lives.

“However, the Court of Appeal’s refusal of permission on human rights grounds related to the factual circumstances in which the first lockdown was imposed from March. It was not asked to judge on later restrictions which put into place from September. We are still pursuing a separate legal case to challenge the lawfulness of those later regulations in a separate judicial review.

“We find some other aspects of the Appeal Court judgement surprising. The lockdown regulations clearly imposed a blanket prohibition of all forms of gatherings for protest purposes – which is enshrined in Article 11’s right to freedom of assembly. Yet the Court suggested the ‘reasonable excuse’ proviso in the regulations gave people an opportunity to invoke Article 11 in order to challenge any prosecution for breach of the regulations.

“We seriously question whether anyone would feel comfortable going on a protest, in breach of the regulations, believing they could escape a conviction by arguing that they had a ‘reasonable excuse’. Would a policeman or magistrate really go along with that?

“Last weekend more than 100 people were arrested for gathering to protest about their freedoms being curtailed (including the very right to protest) under the current lockdown. The police were very clear that they did not regard anyone as having an excuse to do so.

“In a postscript to its judgment, the Court of Appeal also commented on the question of so-called ’rolling judicial reviews’ where a party, instead of starting a fresh claim, amends its existing claim in response to changes to the legislation under challenge. It criticised the practice.

“We have relied on doing this throughout both of our judicial reviews purely because the Government has repeatedly changed the lockdown legislation – sometimes within a couple weeks of the last change being made.

“The Court suggested such rolling reviews should not be allowed. We profoundly disagree. If we were required to file a completely new set of proceedings every time the Government amended the lockdown, it would make it even harder for them to face scrutiny. It is already hard enough to challenge a constantly moving target.

“It would also leave each legal challenge more vulnerable to the charge that it is ‘academic’. That seems to us to be grossly unfair to would-be claimants.

“I took up this legal battle because, since March, the Government has seized power and control over people’s lives in a manner which has never been seen before, even in wartime. They have done this using emergency powers (in the 1984 Act) and have sought to justify the ‘emergency’ with spurious data and discredited modelling.

“The regulations were imposed without prior scrutiny by Parliament. They were signed into law by Ministers guided by unelected scientific ‘experts’, many of whom are on the State's payroll.

“Any vote by Parliament was just a rubber-stamping exercise. We find ourselves in a situation where we no longer live in a functioning democracy.

"Our only recourse was to challenge the lockdown by way of Judicial Review. If Parliament did not examine the lockdown and the Courts will not review what the Government has done, then who is holding Ministers to account? We are living in a country where the Government can do whatever it wants.

"Given the continued acquiescence of MPs and peers to the making of the lockdown laws, our last chance to challenge these destructive measures may now rest with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"This is not a one-man crusade. It is on behalf of the families and businesses across the UK whose lives have been wrecked by lockdown
policies which were implemented in haste without proper consideration.

“Our legal challenge has become one of the largest crowdfunded cases in UK legal history. We have raised over £410,000 from almost 14,000 pledges. This fight is on behalf of all of those people."

 
Playing it by Ear? smoke and mirrors article

When someone says there will be a vaccine passport, they must be telling the truth.

When someone says there will not be a vaccine passport, they must be lying.

Surely you can see that this is not a very scientific method of collecting evidence in an impartial attempt to find out the truth.....?
 
My view is that the government should be confronted using our long-established institutions. We have local Councillors and MPs and two houses of Parliament, and once every 5 years also general elections.

We have the long established institution of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

Problem we seem to have these days though - is that when Her Majesty's Government gets a bit mixed up and dysfunctional that the Opposition suffers the same affliction.
 
Firstly, Peter Hitchens' criticism of government policies is very welcomed. This is part if the job of free press, to take the government to task.

But there's nothing in what Peter Hitchens says to suggest that the government is anything other then misguided and incompetent. He makes no reference to our government doing the bidding of a secretive international organisation whose aim is to subjugate us all.

My view is that the government should be confronted using our long-established institutions. We have local Councillors and MPs and two houses of Parliament, and once every 5 years also general elections.

This system served us well for centuries and through two World Wars.

The issue I have is that people who do not get satisfaction from the system on a particular issue (and no system of government can satisfy everyone all of the time), choose to undermine and delegitemise it to their own ends.

The narrative that says our government and MPs are all part of a conspiracy by the rulling elite is exactly that - it's an attempt to circumnavigate our Democratic system of government by a minority that can not get their message across as long as people accept the moral authority of our State institutions.

But how long do you give the govt to sort this, MJ? What about those who have already died and those yet to die as the result of being unable to access essential NHS services.

Today, only 4 hospitals in England are busier than last winter, meaning the other 1250-odd have more capacity now:

 
But how long do you give the govt to sort this, MJ? What about those who have already died and those yet to die as the result of being unable to access essential NHS services.

Today, only 4 hospitals in England are busier than last winter, meaning the other 1250-odd have more capacity now:

The problem for the government is the steepness of that curve upwards - and whether the rate of increase accelerates without inervention.

It's all very well saying hospitals are not that busy - the risk for those in charge is that without intervention that they are a lot busier or even overwhelmed.

It takes a while for policy changes to affect that curve. So if that curve is going up and looking like it is getting worse you might have to wait two to three weeks to see any effect. (This is why I think the speed with which we see changes means that the public has already started to respond before the government has fully weighed in with official instructions).

I don't think the public as a whole have an issue with the principle of controlling the curve. The issue is what is practical and effective as all of us keyboard bound experts get annoyed at what we see as inconsistenecies and heavy handedness. And at times the politicians and media treat the public as if they were children
 
But how long do you give the govt to sort this, MJ? What about those who have already died and those yet to die as the result of being unable to access essential NHS services.

Today, only 4 hospitals in England are busier than last winter, meaning the other 1250-odd have more capacity now:


It's human to judge actions by results, instead of intentions, but it is also misleading.

By rewarding based only on results, we are in fact rewarding luck and chance. And I wouldn't want to be rewarding anyone simply for taking a gamble that happened to pay-off.

The question to my mind is whether the government took reasonable decisions in the circumstances and based on what was known at the time. If they can demonstrate that this is indeed what they did, then they have done what we expect of them.

So I would ask if being prudent and taking measures aimed at keeping the hospitals' capacity at a reasonable level in order to be able to accommodate for a 'second spike' was the right thing to do. Perhaps it wasn't - but either way I would argue that the fact that the hospitals weren't overwhelmed is in itself neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating the quality of the government's decisions.
 
The question to my mind is whether the government took reasonable decisions in the circumstances and based on what was known at the time. If they can demonstrate that this is indeed what they did, then they have done what we expect of them.

So I would ask if being prudent and taking measures aimed at keeping the hospitals' capacity at a reasonable level in order to be able to accommodate for a 'second spike' was the right thing to do. Perhaps it wasn't - but either way I would argue that the fact that the hospitals weren't overwhelmed is in itself neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating the quality of the government's decisions.

In some ways an the media is playing the same game as they do when somebody who is well known expert or talent showing an old school report where the teacher points out their deficiencies. The teacher is of course portrayed as mistaken or even stupid because the pupil has gone on to great things. And yet it may well have been that teachers' criticism or intervention that propelled the pupil on to great things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom