You do it so often mate. The amount of times I've had a reply from you when you've only quoted half a line and only replied to that and ignored the rest is very high. I don't claim to be an angel on here, I often post without thinking and if I feel like I go to far or say something I regret I will apologise for it.
A little bit. Do I think there’s causation in the two things? Mmm, probably not. Do I think it shows that lockdown measures have zero impact on infection rates? Yep. Yes I do.
I can guarantee I’ve never failed to answer a question or reply. Even in this exchange, you’re claiming I do something ‘so often’ but I haven’t even done it here. The point was schools are closed so testing will have dropped. I suggested testing hasn’t dropped. Just because I didn’t mention schools specifically isn’t ignoring that point, it was already covered. Otherwise we’d all be writing war and peace.
I can see how you might argue that lockdown measures have a limited effect on infection rates. I would personally disagree with you, but I could see how you might argue that. It's not logically possible to argue that they have zero impact on infection rates.
As a minimum you have to agree that it calls into serious question the judgement of those members of SAGE who were estimating between 100 and 250k cases a day by now - and therefore by extension the measures that they’ve championed?
I would have thought of more realistic comparisons to make. Italy perhaps or didn’t they not suit your argument? I wonder how many food banks they have in Sweden?
I’m starting to wonder if you read the exchange? Wasn’t a case of suiting an argument, and I hate using the word argument anyway when discussing anything. Is that what we’ve become? A forum of arguing? Or was I just suggesting/replacing one country that tried to remain fairly open with one that did remain fully open? Italy wouldn’t have made sense considering their lockdowns - that would have been an even worse comparison.
Splitting hairs, but I think the pessimistic estimates were between 100,000 and 200,000. Listen, it's good news for sure. But just one week on, it's too early to say that we have yet seen the consequences of lifting the final lockdown provisions. But equally, it would be too early to say that the downturn in infections is due to the schools, which also only broke up one week ago. And after it looked like Blackburn and Bolton were beginning to head towards 'herd immunity' infection rates in those areas have begun to rise again (Bolton up 36% in the last reported seven-day figure; Blackburn up 17%). The lockdowns bought time to acquire PPE (somewhat calamitously) and to ramp up the vaccination programme. And the NHS wasn't overwhelmed - but can we say for sure it wouldn't have been if things had been let rip? I welcome the lifting of the final parts of this lockdown, but we just need to keep an eye on the figures for a while before jumping to conclusions.
Some rubbish in the OP from @Tyketical Masterstroke Given there is around a 7 day lag between any action and this being reflected in cases the drop in the last week has absolutely nothing to do with lockdown relaxation. It seems that the wave has peaked - though whether this is due to a purely natural peak or is somehow related to schools breaking up and the good weather meaning people have met much more outside is a much harder to answer question. Given that I still cant get a full understanding of transmission - but it seems to be close contact due to airborne transmission is the primary way its hard to believe that lockdowns have zero effect. I might be wrong and cant be bothered to check again the figures but I think the three most common places to spread the virus are - at home , at school/uni and in hospitals. ie places where you can spend significant periods in close proximity to others. I think work transmission is also a factor but as a lot of people have been home working that has definitely reduces this. A full lockdown where schools are closed and visiting homes or hospitality definitely does stop transmission whether the half done one the government has implemented over the last month or so has any significant effect is much more open to debate As @Loko the Tyke has pointed out repeatably there is little evidence that hospitality is a significant spreader - certainly over the last year or so when operating under social distancing and well ventilated conditions - will opening nightclubs and removal of distancing have an effect - my guess is it will but we will need to wait and see if its just a small increase or a more significant one. I dont expect it to become close to the current top 3 though and I also think its far to simple to treat covid in isolation to mental health and peoples livelihoods But I can guarantee that if in September when the schools go back cases start to rise - the first target in any new lockdown plans will be hospitality again
Quite right JD...the lockdowns gave a breathing space for the vaccine to be produced and brought into play.
Read this and thought of our exchange last night. It's difficult to have too strong an opinion as I don't have kids of my own, but I've been baffled at how positive people have been in general about lockdown towards children. I think it's an absolute nightmare of a scenario and the impact will be felt for years. https://www.theguardian.com/educati...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1627255397
I'm just going to quote my own post to duplicate the links to the peer reviewed papers that confirm that lockdowns do work... With some measures significantly more effective than others. One interesting thing I noted is the finding that large public events have a much lower effect on the spread of covid than small gatherings. (I guess maybe small intimate groups ignore distancing more and probably hug more?)
I take your point re Italy but I still think that comparing us to Sweden from a sociodemographic standpoint is as unrealistic in one direction as comparing us to Brazil is in the opposite direction. Also Sweden did impose some lockdown measures only they did so very quietly without all the fanfare that Boris used. Viz “Local officials will have the authority to direct residents to avoid certain public spaces including shopping centers, museums, libraries, swimming pools, gyms, other sports facilities, sports matches and concerts. Regional authorities will also have the power to tell residents to avoid public transport as well as visiting the elderly and others that fall within risk groups, according to theTelegraph.” The measures were introduced last year when Stockholm’s hospitals were perilously close to being overwhelmed. Which neatly brings me to the question ‘ what would the antilockdowners have done in response to hospitals being overwhelmed? Would they have been okay with ambulances queuing up on Pogmoor Rd and Gawber Rd? With people dying on our streets as they were in parts of Spain?
Christ. Do you really need anyone to answer this question? The spins back to the notion that anyone who is anti-lockdown is happy that people died. As I've repeated many times, I think a strategy that invested massively in where cases were coming from and the people it affected the most, e.g. care homes and hospitals, whilst protecting the vulnerable as much as possible with business open for those with close to zero risks, would have been a more positive strategy. Sweden is a lot closer economically and socially to the UK than Brazil is. If someone is saying 'Do you want us to be like Brazil' when pointing at a country that tried to remain open, it's only natural that you'd offer them the perspective to also look at Sweden. I don't think you needed to jump in to this thread as much as you did.
I think people seem to forget that cases doesn't always mean illness. Texas and Florida remained open largely, too. And your other point on where transmission actually took place is also overlooked. 60%+ (I believe) of new infections last year were in hospitals.
Its interesting that the figures on the large open air test events the govenrnent wouldnt publish because they wanted to extend lockdown showed almost negiligble cases I think even indoor ones like the snooker were the same. Admittedly everyone entering had to pass a covid test which clearly would have an effect. Superspreader events seem to be things like Weddings where a group of people are in close contact for extended periods quite likely with hugging Kissing etc between the attendees Also I think choir rehearsals etc where a group are belting out songs in a confined space I think the risk sitting down for a meal in a pub is quite small - I suspect though have no evidence that a jam packed pub all standing in front of a screen yelling at a football match is more risky.
Just so you're aware, cases aren't actually dropping like a stone...NEW cases are dropping like a stone. The government defines new cases as someone who has not tested positive for COVID19 before. The daily dashboard figures do not include people who are being infected after being vaccinated, and if these were included the volume of infections would be shown to be steeply increasing. We will have to come out of lockdown at some point, as I think we all agree, but the lack of transparency about the evidence to support such a move at this stage is the part most are worried about. I would like to see how the government has modelled what an acceptable level of death looks like because it's a sociological discussion that we need to have as a society. Undoubtedly the lockdown has directly and indirectly led to death and suffering, but it could be argued that the threat of death is less imminent and therefore easier to justify a lockdown. This is the real debate that we need to have, in addition to conversations about topics such as euthanasia and more closely defining the role and regulation of politicians. Let's hope for the sake of everybody in society, particular the most vulnerable, that the government's motives are responsible in this instance.
Did you get this from Peston by any chance? This is already proven to be incorrect but I don't believe he's retracted what he put out there. 'They do publish it, just not daily on the dashboard. Currently less than 1% (0.53%) of total positives represent people potentially getting it for the 2nd time. They could start publishing it daily but I'm not sure it would be as controversial as you're suggesting.'