But what about the Bank Holiday second spike????

i wasn’t saying you were either a tory or a brexiteer just that we have the worst leader at the worst time for all this. The lockdown policy was followed in the vast majority of countries based on scientific evidence. Countries like Germany used that time wisely Flattening the curve and developing strategies for a safe resumption of society. We got Johnson and are no further forward.

I’d like the lockdown to end. I’d like to have a functioning govt that doesn’t lie lie and lie again. Our track test and isolate system ‘might’ be ready by September. We have released lockdown for vulnerable people for no reason at all. We currently have more deaths per week than all EU member states added together. I have zero confidence that we have a handle on things.

 

Be more surprising if it wasn’t.

 

Just like we needed to lockdown 3 weeks or before we did, we needed to carry on with complete lockdown for 3 weeks more than we have (to make up for the three weeks we lost at the start, because if we'd started earlier, we wouldn't have to finish later).

If however there's something to get wrong with this pandemic, this government will find out how to do it.

 

What would these terrible statistics be without lockdown and social distancing?

 

I’m not saying that it hasn’t happened in some cases, but overall they have underreported the number of covid deaths. That’s a fact. So there must be more covid deaths getting reported as another cause than other causes reported as covid. I really don’t understand your logic that this trend will be reversed in winter. On current evidence, they will be reporting winter covid deaths as winter flu deaths.

 

If it was, no. It should be increasing exponentially considering the change in behaviour of not just the population in our country, but every country that has suffered considerable infections and deaths. But it's not. And it's not in any of these countries. It bloody well should be if the model we have been sold is correct, but it's not. It's fluctuating a bit, but we're not seeing anywhere near the increase in R rate that the change in behaviour should have resulted in. And this is born out again and again and again and again. Everywhere the same. The only places that quickly get spikes are the places that shut the virus down before it could take hold. Those that didn't don't get them. The reason for this? The model is wrong. Not just a little flawed, but fundamentally incorrect. And the best indication that my previous statement is true is that they've gone away, those that told us how it was, and they've shut the fk*k up because they know they're wrong, they just don't know why yet.

 

I'm not quite sure - but are you saying that those places that didn't lock down - have developed some kind of - what shall we call it - some kind of "herd immunity".

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ath-rate-worst-country-covid-19-a9539206.html

working well for Sweden.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-in-north-west-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

No. There hasn't been enough infections for that. Nowhere near enough. Even in the worst hit communities it's not even close to what would be required for herd immunity.

I don't believe the model took into account the variance in susceptibility to the virus amongst individuals. I think there's a possibility that exposure to viruses of a similar nature, other Covid viruses, common colds, may give immunity to Covid-19. But I'm guessing. And so are the people who produced the flawed models.

 

That's great Jimmy, you've given a link to an article that doesn't really say anything. Do you want me to link you to the post you made on here about the number of young people who were going to die of Covid-19? It was one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on here and you never apologised for it so I don't think you really want me to do that.

 

I'm only going on a report today that said that it had crept back above 1 in two regions of England. I have nothing to back it up but to be fair I haven't really read any further into it.

 

I didn't think so either for the very same reason.

I don't think it's easy for the modellers either.

It seems that some people only have to be near it and they catch it - but some people can live amongst it and not catch it.

theres a story from Singapore where an old couple sat in the same chair as someone who had it - but hours later and caught it - but yet others were sat next to the same initial infectious people "live" and didn't catch it.


People like healthcare workers and bus drivers who could be exposed to many multiple overlapping - infectious contacts seem to get it really bad and even low risk individuals are dying - but others in the same situation don't even generate antibodies when they have clearly been infected.

I guess the only way to model this is to establish some kind of control group to observe infection rates - but of course the ethics there are too difficult to grapple with

 

Hi mate. Wasn't having a go. I didn't explicitly say it, but can completely understand the post you made. The R rate should be going up and we shouldn't be surprised, and I'm with you on that way of thinking. We're no longer sticking to the lock down. That should lead to an increase. Trouble is, the measurement of the R rate isn't very accurate. It's between this and this, small percentages, so you get these up and down fluctuations. But our change in behaviour should have resulted in a massive spike, but it hasn't.

 

Thank you for the considered reply. Genuinely means a lot. And I agree with you. There's no consistency in who contracts and who doesn't contract the virus, but the model that was produced relied on consistency. I'm not having a go at people who produced the model (even though my previous post appeared like I was), I've read some amazing explanations of what could happen, distilled high science for lay people like me, but they all relied on us being equally susceptible to the virus. That is a very narrow field of view. It is also very difficult to take into account if you don't know it's a factor. Working things out is hard. I think they're wrong, and I also think they know they're wrong, and if I've got any genuine grievances at the moment it's that no one has come out and said, "actually, we may have got this wrong." And meanwhile people are suffering and dying, not of Covid-19, but of the measures taken because of a flawed model.

 

No worries Jay, I knew you weren't having a go. You're right that the lockdown is over, that is clear to see. I honestly don't know what to make of the figures that are being reported and the forecasts being given which in all honesty seem to vary from one source to another. Personally I'm becoming more concerned about the long term damage to the economy than I am about the possibility of a second spike, if it even happens.

 

Your defense of Capitalism at all costs is very sweet.

 

I’m not an expert - but if I was trying to calculate the R rate I’d be comparing the Number of infected with the number from before whatever the gestation period is.

I believe that the infection number is gathered from random testing on behalf of the ONS.

Not the daily reported ‘new infections’ from PHE, which were mostly made up of hospital admissions but now include many more tests of people who believe they have symptoms.

 

Testing for Covid has been routine upon admission to hospital for any reason for quite a while.

Leading straight to misinformation headline no2:

So if you test positive and die of something else you’ll get counted in the figures.

 

Doesn't really go into much detail that article. Its saying Sweden didn't lockdown and went for herd immunity. It also says Sweden are a long way off achieving a 60% infection rate of the population to reach herd immunity.
So that suggests the virus hasn't spread at the exponential rate that was predicted. Now regardless of whether or not you think they should have locked down it does raise some very interesting questions. As does the fact that number are not rising rapidly in the countries as they ease the lockdown.