R now below 1.0
- Thread starter Old Timer
- Start date
- Status
Narrative ! Bingo.
D
Deleted member 43869
Guest
That's hugely troubling though don't you think. It has implications for understanding just how much fear and of course how much adjustments we should have been making on our lives since April. In essence, if that's the case, it poses significant questions about what is the proportionate psychological and logistical response to the virus.
Brian Griffin
Striker
Seriously man. Have a think about why the R is below 1.
Have a think about what will happen to the R if we all mingle again?
6 more months. Put on your big boy pants and it’ll all be over. f***ing hell man.
I mean it's a troubling concept I agree but other than what Duff Man has said, which may have been incorrect or miscommunicated, I've heard nothing of this.
I think a lot of people confuse the three separate ways of counting COVID deaths - all deaths within 28 days of a positive test, all deaths within 60 days of a positive test, and all deaths where COVID is on the death certificate.
Even if you believe nothing about how deaths are classified and coded - nothing else explains the significant excess of deaths we've experienced.
callum
Midfield
It’s self-serving to want the constituency you represent to be better off by being open for business and not impinged upon by restrictions?
0321safc
Striker
No certainties of that. Besides the consequences of this shutdown will last the rest of my lifetime.
Frijj excess deaths are explained by two things
1 the putting of covid patients in care homes led to thousands of deaths
2 deaths from missed operation cancer treatment plus people avoiding hospitals also likely deaths of despair from loneliness in care homes
In other words the lockdown policy led to excess deaths
1 the putting of covid patients in care homes led to thousands of deaths
2 deaths from missed operation cancer treatment plus people avoiding hospitals also likely deaths of despair from loneliness in care homes
In other words the lockdown policy led to excess deaths
D
Deleted member 43869
Guest
The one that is generally reported in the media is the first of those three. To be fair I remember you setting me straight that even though that was the case the number of deaths where covid was identified as a cause of death was only fractionally less. I hadn't realised that the number was so similar to the reported within 28 days number. If you're now saying that doctors are entering covid as an underlying cause purely on qualification of a positive case within '28 days' then it does bring in the whole 'car crash' scenario that some people like to trot out. I'm sorry but for me that significantly changes the situation.
As for the excess deaths figure it would be helpful to know how much of that has been caused by alterations to access for non covid treatment. Maybe it's an estimate hugely exaggerated by the' conspiracy theorists etc' but it'd certainly be a point of interest at the very least.
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said at least in the usa there has been a financial incentive to report deaths as covid deaths in this country many families have said covid was put on the death certificate when the patient didn't really die of covid
As regards conspiracy theories let us distinguish between looking at the facts and questioning things vs flat earth conspiracy theories remember the govt deliberately increased the fear level in the population that ain't no conspiracy
As regards conspiracy theories let us distinguish between looking at the facts and questioning things vs flat earth conspiracy theories remember the govt deliberately increased the fear level in the population that ain't no conspiracy
What's your former posting name while truth seeking ?
Lockdown did not lead to excess deaths. That is simply not true. You're making a false statement and you're erroneously linking things that are not the fault or part of lockdown, with lockdown.
Excess deaths were always going to happen - we were dealing with a pandemic of a novel coronavirus. That fact is not dependent on government policy.
The extent to which we have an excess however, is dependent government policy.
Your claim that excess deaths are explained by just two things is not right. Doubtless those two things are in part responsible for the number of excess deaths, however there are a multitude of factors to consider.
Even if you exclude care home deaths from the figures, you still have a substantial excess of deaths.
When you plot this over time, week by week, you see that this excess matches the trend of cases. If your theory that cancelled treatment or avoidance of hospitals caused such significant excess, why does the excess match the trend of cases? Wouldn't we see a consistent excess, rather than one that nearly matches cases?
Your theory doesn't fit the evidence. You're not wrong to say that some of the excess deaths were caused by a policy of discharging infectious patients back to care homes* and you're not wrong to say that some of the excess deaths were caused by people missing or avoiding treatment.
However, you are wrong to say that "excess deaths are explained by two things" because that statement does not match what the data says.
It is incorrect to say that lockdown policy led to excess deaths. If anything, lockdown led to a substantial decrease in the number of excess deaths. It didn't cause the excess. It mitigated the excess to levels that the health system was able to cope with.
Do you have any idea how many deaths we'd be seeing if we hadn't locked down?
*on this - where did you expect those discharged patients to go, exactly?
_
No reply @david818?
Last edited:
Deaths of despair from loneliness
fuck off man!
While I agree with the sentiment of your post I'm starting to wonder (worry?) about the 'x more months' element.
It's reminiscent of the old Soviet five-year plans I used to learn about in History classes, many moons ago.
'So, Comrade. How goes the five-year plan?'
'Not so good, Comrade. We are nowhere near hitting our targets.'
'Not to worry, Comrade. Here's another five-year plan.'
Brian Griffin
Striker
This time next year we will be pretty much back to normal.
The alternative is we all do what we want. And then infections and all that comes with it.
I'm hoping it's more along the lines of Easter time, as-near-as-damnit, what with the imminent vaccines and the current restrictions.
It's the raising of people's hope, then the dashing of that hope in the very next breath that has been such a prominent part of this Government's response that worries me the most. That, for me, has been the most mentally debilitating thing about this whole situation.
It's also why, whilst desperately hoping otherwise, I have very little confidence that they will do anything other than pay lip service to the reviewing of the current tiers. Especially with regard to loosening restrictions.
Brian Griffin
Striker
What hopes have been raised and then dashed if you don't mind me asking?
The virus never went anywhere as far as I know?
Just the general talk of vaccines being ready, closely followed by reports they may not be ready when promised, or work as well as expected.
A four-week lockdown followed by 'easing' of restrictions which, for the vast majority, hasn't happened.
Any glimmer of light is immediately followed by a 'black cloud', any mention of something positive is a pre-cursor to a po-faced 'Ah, but...' pronunciation. Whenever we get thrown a bone, it turns out to have no juicy marrowbone at it's centre but is dry as old sticks.
I understand they want to underplay things to ensure people stay vigilant and follow the rules but it just seems at the minute that every time we hear about a plus, someone comes along with a negative to cancel it out.
As I said earlier, it's mentally debilitating and it could end up being counter-productive as it may not be long before a lot of people (not a minority as at present, despite what some believe) start to get worn down by the whole thing and actively ignore what they are being told to do.
- Status
