@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp · 4h The usual people are out there saying all will be fine soon - we just have to let people get infected and it will be done. Just as they did at previous waves.
Except that’s not what “the usual people” (by which I assume she means the like of Francois Balloux or Andrew Lillico) are saying. By and large the message is that this is endemic now, it will never go away, and those in favour of restrictions aren’t articulating what their end game is.
She and the other public health authoritarians need to be honest about what their long term alternative is. If it’s to wait for more anti viral treatments then find, say so. If it’s that we should live with permanent restrictions then fine (we’ll, not fine), say so. Some are now saying exactly this.
In reality the “usual people” is increasingly the British public at large, and not just the young.
I think some of them really do want restrictions to go on for a long time yet.
We know they do. The infamous Professor Michie spilled the beans on that topic some time ago.
Well I'm afraid Starmer is wrong. It is time to lockdown, the models I am afraid are proving correct and we must protect lives going forward.
No. Protection for the most vulnerable cohorts afforded by the vaccines is as high as it is going to get. Pretty much everyone in those groups who hasn't had all their jabs is unable to tolerate them medically or is a refuser. The argument for attempting to defer the cases through lockdown whilst we desperately build more defences, which was a central plank of the case for lockdowns before the vaccines were deployed, therefore falls. Indeed, given the potential waning of vaccine efficacy that you were worrying yourself sick about the other day, putting infections off might even be regarded as counter-productive. It would merely serve to shift more of the cases forward in time, so that some boosted elderly people would find themselves in the zone where they've gone several months without a jab, and might therefore need yet another one to help better combat the virus.
A lockdown now is going to inflict enormous collateral damage on the whole of society and may well achieve nothing useful. Consider: Omicron is already very widespread, is proven to be extremely infectious, and lockdown doesn't remove all significant routes of transmission. Something like two-thirds of the working population has to go to a place of work and cannot WFH. Most adults have to go to essential shops. There is also enormous popular and political resistance to the idea of closing schools again. It is highly likely that it won't work very well. Moreover, even if lockdown did a brilliant job, the disease will sooner or later (and probably sooner, given what we know of its transmissibility) flare up again the moment the restrictions ease, and we'll be back to people like you demanding yet another lockdown. Beyond that, we also have to consider that Omicron will not be the last variant, and that there is enormous selective pressure being placed upon the virus to become more and more transmissible.
Faced with all of these problems, continuous cyclical lockdown is no solution to anything. We are going to have to do our best to cope without this crude, blunt instrument in future.
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
While I expect us to outgrow our European neighbours handily, those figures are a bit flattering. We took a bad knock at the beginning of the pandemic, and therefore there was more room for bounceback.
Looking at the G7 in 2020, the numbers were:
USA -3.5% Japan -4.8% Germany -4.9% Canada -5.4% Italy -8.2% France -8.2% UK -9.9%
Indeed and that's when we were still in the Single Market. 😉
My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, but still the point stands. For something to be a "failed experiment" there normally has to be some evidence that points firmly to say the experiment failed. The data at the moment may not vindicate Brexit fully yet, but it certainly doesn't confirm the experiment as a failure either.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
No citations.
You are ignored.
Good news for the rest of PB. The bickering between you two is relentless.
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
It is time to lockdown. I wish it was a different outcome. I really do.
Hi CHB, how are you?
If by lockdown you mean end all restrictions and abolish Covid isolation requirements for people who've been infected then I completely agree with you. Otherwise, I hope you're having a good evening.
Just when I thought CHB was being ludicrous.
Which element is ridiculous?
The virus is basically a common cold if you're fully vaccinated for most people and we don't lock people down for having the common cold.
Its restrictions telling people to test and isolate etc that are causing more damage now than the virus itself. End the restrictions, the problem goes away.
Using logic to attempt to end 2 years of trauma. Pull yourself together, man!!! That bit.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
I did note earlier that SF in power in NI and RoI might provide a stratospheric amount of reaction which would dwarf Sturgeon and Drakeford. And voila! And we are 2 years away.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
No citations.
You are ignored.
Good news for the rest of PB. The bickering between you two is relentless.
Wonder why you have been marked off topic as well as myself
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
No citations.
You are ignored.
Good news for the rest of PB. The bickering between you two is relentless.
Wonder why you have been marked off topic as well as myself
So much for ignoring, it’s a reassuring sign he’s still reading my posts.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
Fine but I would gently say you should chill a little and enjoy new years eve
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
There's no certainties at all that exiting the Single Market reduces potential growth, since there's literally no evidence whatsoever that being in the Single Market boosts potential growth. The theory is nice, until you look at the data. Since it came about the Single Market nations have on average grown slower rather than faster than the developed nations of the globe not in the Single Market. So if the data shows anything to be a failure its the Single Market, not Brexit.
I fully expect that freed from the sclerotic European Union the United Kingdom will prove to be more economically agile and to have even better potential growth. You may not share the opinion, but its too early to tell.
As for your so-called rot: The UK grew faster than the Eurozone over the decade 2010-2019, just as it did from 2000-2009, so if anything seems to be a failure its the Eurozone and not Brexit.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
For @CorrectHorseBattery Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
If you want to ignore me and others then that is your choice
Cite them or that's it.
You can't. You're ignored.
MAJIKTHISE: We’ll go on strike!
VROOMFONDEL: That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT: Who will that inconvenience?
MAJIKTHISE: Never you mind who it’ll inconvenience you box of black legging binary bits! It’ll hurt, buster! It’ll hurt!
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
My friend. Breathe. It isn't worth it. It is just a niche politics website. We are all friends here. We have no control whether we are right or wrong. Your peace of mind is more important. It's the one thing you have control over. Take a break. You may return triumphant and vindicated. We just don't know. Nobody does. That's why everyone's on edge.
At the risk of sounding like site Earth Mother, please try to be gentle with the horse. He has been commendably open about his issues. And his views aren't particularly outside the mainstream.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
A decent post. I don't want lockdowns either. I would rather an early measured response to avoid them. I suspect Horse is nervous that inaction has put us past the point of no return. I hope Johnson is right, but there are a number of posters who are selecting evidence to fit that frame.
There are also too many ride or die Covid gunslingers on here who confuse wearing a mask with a full lockdown.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
A decent post. I don't want lockdowns either. I would rather an early measured response to avoid them. I suspect Horse is nervous that inaction has put us past the point of no return. I hope Johnson is right, but there are a number of posters who are selecting evidence to fit that frame.
There are also too many ride or die Covid gunslingers on here who confuse wearing a mask with a full lockdown.
I think we should have had extra restrictions on Boxing Day at the latest. Boris is hamstrung by the right wing nutters though.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
A decent post. I don't want lockdowns either. I would rather an early measured response to avoid them. I suspect Horse is nervous that inaction has put us past the point of no return. I hope Johnson is right, but there are a number of posters who are selecting evidence to fit that frame.
There are also too many ride or die Covid gunslingers on here who confuse wearing a mask with a full lockdown.
I think we should have had extra restrictions on Boxing Day at the latest. Boris is hamstrung by the right wing nutters though.
He is Big John, but his problem are entirely of his own making.
Yes but Covid means we cannot usefully compare UK 2020 with DE 2019. Your ONS link says we were spending 10.2 per cent in 2019, and your Eurostat link has Germany on 11.7 per cent in the same year.
This made me smile "Michael Gove ,Minister for levelling up, questioned over why £330,000 of taxpayer's money spent to fill former Conservative peer's driveway potholes"
Because there is an excellent museum at the end of the shared drive and the potholes were limiting public access
Doesn't change the fact that he owned the drive, and the museum doesn't.
I think it just shows that the civil servants were a bit over-literal in interpreting the 'levelling' bit of 'levelling up', so that this was the first application they'd had which seemed to meet the criteria.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
I think for me to change my tune it will need more than just those numbers, Eabhal. You'd also need to persuade me that:
1. Lockdown would be effective at constraining the spread of omicron, at least to the extent of flattening the curve to levels that won't max out healthcare capacity; and 2. Even if lockdown COULD be effective, will it be. I.e. is there a willingness in the community writ large to comply with a lockdown to the extent that the lockdown will be effective, if indeed it can be effective, against omicron. 3. That the harm of lockdown will not exceed the benefits.
I think I can be persuaded on 3. From what I am seeing, I am not sure that the evidence supports 1, and I really don't believe we'll get the level of community compliance to bring 2 even into the ballpark.
Seeing the spat between CHB, Big G and Rob D, I looked at my stats.
3 off topics, 3k likes, and 3 spam.
The off topics I get - we all talk off topic (if the topic be the header) most of the time. But 3 spam????? When have I ever spammed someone?
I read pb on my iPhone - I can’t help but randomly sprinkle off topics, likes and spams as I thumb my way up and down the thread. Apologies for any unintended offence!
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
There's no certainties at all that exiting the Single Market reduces potential growth, since there's literally no evidence whatsoever that being in the Single Market boosts potential growth.
That's not true - there are a bunch of studies that show just that.
I don't myself believe that the boost is particularly significant to the economy overall, and I think it is more than offset by the freedoms we lose, but the great weight of economic evidence and opinion is that it exists.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
The problem policy-makers have is that they cannot wait for numbers to become unsustainable - if problems are to be avoided, action needs taking at least two weeks before they get unsustainable.
We've twice seen the issues with putting restrictions in place too late: back in March 2020 it was only a week or so, and it was an understandable delay; but it still allowed a massive increase in numbers. The delays last December also led to a massive spike a month or so later, and tens of thousands of utterly avoidable deaths.
So the government are taking a gamble: that we can manage omicron without restrictions. It looks as though that gamble might be correct, even without the small changes being made in Wales and Scotland. But if it's wrong then we're in for a world of hurt.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
I find it intriguing that state-mandated public health measures are now widely considered as left-wing, whereas bottom-up measures appealing to a sense of community responsibility are often deemed right-wing. This strikes me as a fairly radical shift from pre-pandemic thinking.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
Indeed. My view is that the vaccines had one chance. It’s so easy to forget that at the start of all this we didn’t think we’d have vaccines.
Robert has constantly told us that people will change their behaviour ahead of the government. Perhaps that’s happened a bit with people not going to pubs and restaurants as much, though they seem busy around here, but the stats suggest people aren’t voluntarily locking themselves away.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
I think there are extremists on both sides of the lockdown argument.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
Indeed. My view is that the vaccines had one chance. It’s so easy to forget that at the start of all this we didn’t think we’d have vaccines.
Robert has constantly told us that people will change their behaviour ahead of the government. Perhaps that’s happened a bit with people not going to pubs and restaurants as much, though they seem busy around here, but the stats suggest people aren’t voluntarily locking themselves away.
There has been a definite change in behaviour - yesterday I had an email from The Ivy in Brighton offering a free glass of Champagne if I joined them for dinner on NYE!
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
I think there are extremists on both sides of the lockdown argument.
I don’t envy the decision Johnson or the cabinet has to make and this time I did not call it earlier but of course I wish I had in the sense we could have saved lives. But I do think this time this has been a very tough decision to make.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
I think there are extremists on both sides of the lockdown argument.
Absolutely.
I completely agree with that. And it doesn’t help when people accuse others or being an extremist when they are not.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
Indeed. My view is that the vaccines had one chance. It’s so easy to forget that at the start of all this we didn’t think we’d have vaccines.
Robert has constantly told us that people will change their behaviour ahead of the government. Perhaps that’s happened a bit with people not going to pubs and restaurants as much, though they seem busy around here, but the stats suggest people aren’t voluntarily locking themselves away.
There has been a definite change in behaviour - yesterday I had an email from The Ivy in Brighton offering a free glass of Champagne if I joined them for dinner on NYE!
Not quite like THE Ivy I see, where you could cancel the evening and go on holiday instead.
Hello everyone! Either pb-ers can't sleep or are posting from somewhere to the East of me, so they're up very early!
Mrs C and I, both 80+, don't like lockdown; it restricts our social life, but we don't want to be severely ill with Covid; people we know have died. We are, of course, both vaccinated, as are all our family and, so far as we know all our friends, so the risk of severe disease now, as opposed to early 2020, should be low. As indeed, was our experience a few months ago, and that of our granddaughter-in-law over Christmas!
If the risks become similar to influenza, then I suspect the sensible course of action would be to reduce restrictions; in particular the requirement for isolation. Vaccination, though, should still be the norm; it's clear that even the Omicron variant is more dangerous for the unvaccinated.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Will you be calling for it each day (or perhaps twice a day just to make sure everyone sees it) going forward?
And the implication of your earlier post is that you made the first call before studying the data. A reflex perhaps?
Please withdraw your remark that I call for it "as my hobby" as that is wrong.
I will not be posting the same remark twice a day, absolutely not.
Yet you’ve done exactly that today.
Well it won't be happening going forward. Withdraw the remark that "calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day." as I have not called for a lockdown in a long time.
If you will not, I ask you to disengage with my posts.
Yea you have, you called for one this morning.
Calling for a lockdown twice in the last many, many months is not "as night follows day".
Please disengage now or I will ignore you going forward.
You don’t think it was inevitable the moment the new variant appeared?
If I was to look at the number of times various commenters had called for a lockdown, I am confident that you would be at the top. I don’t think it’s an unfair accusation that you do it quite often.
Find the last time I called for lockdown other than earlier today.
Disengage now. Or that is it RobD.
Friendly advice. These guys aren't worth arguing with on what you said when. As a rare voice on here calling for restrictions, which is hardly a unique view amongst those studying the epidemic, that makes your opinion interesting, whether right or wrong.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public. That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all. For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally. Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
Thanks friend but people are being nasty and shouting me down, smearing and lying about me. I will not have it hence they are ignored.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
CHB, I think you can hold your view and gain a bit more deference from other posters here if you can cite data/experience/logic. Doctors on PB are doing a good job of that, and are generally well received.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
You can't stat or logic your way through how people feel though.
I think you can, and should. I'm very anti-lockdown, and will really suffer if one is put in place.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
The problem policy-makers have is that they cannot wait for numbers to become unsustainable - if problems are to be avoided, action needs taking at least two weeks before they get unsustainable.
We've twice seen the issues with putting restrictions in place too late: back in March 2020 it was only a week or so, and it was an understandable delay; but it still allowed a massive increase in numbers. The delays last December also led to a massive spike a month or so later, and tens of thousands of utterly avoidable deaths.
So the government are taking a gamble: that we can manage omicron without restrictions. It looks as though that gamble might be correct, even without the small changes being made in Wales and Scotland. But if it's wrong then we're in for a world of hurt.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
Very tricky indeed, and like many things it comes down to your attitude to risk and how much value you put on liberty.
I think the precautionary principle will lead to Covid scares for the next decade or so, and I simply cannot live with that.
I need evidence for lockdown/restrictions, even if that means we have excess deaths.
Hello everyone! Either pb-ers can't sleep or are posting from somewhere to the East of me, so they're up very early!
Mrs C and I, both 80+, don't like lockdown; it restricts our social life, but we don't want to be severely ill with Covid; people we know have died. We are, of course, both vaccinated, as are all our family and, so far as we know all our friends, so the risk of severe disease now, as opposed to early 2020, should be low. As indeed, was our experience a few months ago, and that of our granddaughter-in-law over Christmas!
If the risks become similar to influenza, then I suspect the sensible course of action would be to reduce restrictions; in particular the requirement for isolation. Vaccination, though, should still be the norm; it's clear that even the Omicron variant is more dangerous for the unvaccinated.
Hi OKC. Indeed I cannot sleep.
I don’t think anyone likes lockdown and I hope for our sake we still avoid one. But the numbers simply do not look good at this stage.
Quite obviously those figures are not up to date, or do you suppose that the extra couple of thousand hospitalisations over the last 2 days are Delta?
I don't know about nowadays, Dr F, but in my day in the NHS getting much sensible out of Admin at this time of the year was 'difficult'! And our 'world class' testing service seems to be staggering, if not actually crashing. Just possibly, I suppose, we're overdoing it!
I don’t envy the decision Johnson or the cabinet has to make and this time I did not call it earlier but of course I wish I had in the sense we could have saved lives. But I do think this time this has been a very tough decision to make.
As I said below: March 2020 was an extremely novel situation that the world had not seen before. Frankly, before t'Internet we could not lock down as we did, particularly wrt working from home or shopping deliveries. I think all European countries were much of a muchness in that lockdown, within a week or so. Given the enormity of the decision, a few days delay is forgivable.
December 2020 is a very different matter. The timing was massively unfortunate; not just because it nuked Christmas, but because it was so near the vaccine rollout. The one person I know who has died of Covid would have been eligible for the vaccine at about the time he died. If the Alpha variant had come along a month later, he might well have had the vaccine and lived. I'd argue the decision that was eventually made should have been made at least a couple of weeks earlier: the evidence was there. But I think policymakers were a little overwhelmed by not wanting to 'destroy' Christmas, and the hope they'd be able to get enough vaccines in arms to avoid the worst. The gamble did not pay off, and we ended up with the worst of all options: high deaths, a lockdown, and a ruined Christmas.
This time the situation is very different. We have vaccinations, and that *should* be enough to cope with previous variants. But omicron's high infectivity throws a lot more questions into the mix. Fortunately, it's looking as though it is also milder. Again it's a gamble, but it seems a reasonable one atm, and I hope it pays off.
Hello everyone! Either pb-ers can't sleep or are posting from somewhere to the East of me, so they're up very early!
Mrs C and I, both 80+, don't like lockdown; it restricts our social life, but we don't want to be severely ill with Covid; people we know have died. We are, of course, both vaccinated, as are all our family and, so far as we know all our friends, so the risk of severe disease now, as opposed to early 2020, should be low. As indeed, was our experience a few months ago, and that of our granddaughter-in-law over Christmas!
If the risks become similar to influenza, then I suspect the sensible course of action would be to reduce restrictions; in particular the requirement for isolation. Vaccination, though, should still be the norm; it's clear that even the Omicron variant is more dangerous for the unvaccinated.
Hi OKC. Indeed I cannot sleep.
I don’t think anyone likes lockdown and I hope for our sake we still avoid one. But the numbers simply do not look good at this stage.
Sending you both my best wishes.
Thank you Horse, Can I suggest you find a mindfulness technique that helps to clear your mind. I find finding four or five towns starting with each letter of the alphabet helpful.
If Omicron is the dominant virus then I suggest we ought not to need the isolations that we have, which would free capacity.
While hospitalisations are useful, I think "in hospital *for* Covid" is the key metric. Because if people are being hospitalised for 4 days rather than 8 on average, then you can have twice the number of admissions.
Quite obviously those figures are not up to date, or do you suppose that the extra couple of thousand hospitalisations over the last 2 days are Delta?
I don't know about nowadays, Dr F, but in my day in the NHS getting much sensible out of Admin at this time of the year was 'difficult'! And our 'world class' testing service seems to be staggering, if not actually crashing. Just possibly, I suppose, we're overdoing it!
I am sure that there will be a lot of backfilling over the next 10 days. The problem is that we won't know the peak until it has passed, and that is too late to intervene.
People in England are choosing to cancel or limit events rather than waiting for the government. Personally, I have avoided crowds apart from work and football, and there worn a decent mask. I simply don't want a week off ill or worse.
I favour interventions that are non invasive, such as HEPA filters in offices, schools etc and FFP3 masks for health and social care workers and similar. These are no threat to liberties, reasonably well evidenced and better value than an ineffective lockdown.
While hospitalisations are useful, I think "in hospital *for* Covid" is the key metric. Because if people are being hospitalised for 4 days rather than 8 on average, then you can have twice the number of admissions.
Stop it with your maths and logic rcs! Lockdown now!!
While hospitalisations are useful, I think "in hospital *for* Covid" is the key metric. Because if people are being hospitalised for 4 days rather than 8 on average, then you can have twice the number of admissions.
Not nessicarily trivial. The 30 day mortality for a hip fracture with covid is 38%. About 4 times controls.
Quite obviously those figures are not up to date, or do you suppose that the extra couple of thousand hospitalisations over the last 2 days are Delta?
I don't know about nowadays, Dr F, but in my day in the NHS getting much sensible out of Admin at this time of the year was 'difficult'! And our 'world class' testing service seems to be staggering, if not actually crashing. Just possibly, I suppose, we're overdoing it!
I am sure that there will be a lot of backfilling over the next 10 days. The problem is that we won't know the peak until it has passed, and that is too late to intervene.
People in England are choosing to cancel or limit events rather than waiting for the government. Personally, I have avoided crowds apart from work and football, and there worn a decent mask. I simply don't want a week off ill or worse.
I favour interventions that are non invasive, such as HEPA filters in offices, schools etc and FFP3 masks for health and social care workers and similar. These are no threat to liberties, reasonably well evidenced and better value than an ineffective lockdown.
Every sympathy; if I were still working I'd be doing exactly that. Although as my last job was working with Care Homes I suspect I'd not be doing that! More likely back in a pharmacy somewhere! Understand what you mean about filters (etc). Aeons ago, when a student, one of the things we were taught was how to build a sterile room, and create 'clean' atmospheres. It was a party of the course that I enjoyed, but I never really put that knowledge into use! I did though have a colleague who travelled the country advising hospitals on the subject.
We had quite a few people round the dinner table on Christmas Day and the draught at Grandpa's back was very noticeable.
While hospitalisations are useful, I think "in hospital *for* Covid" is the key metric. Because if people are being hospitalised for 4 days rather than 8 on average, then you can have twice the number of admissions.
Not nessicarily trivial. The 30 day mortality for a hip fracture with covid is 38%. About 4 times controls.
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
I don’t think you can point at business investment from 2016-20 to argue Brexit is a “failure”
The one thing business hates more than anything else is uncertainty… and there has been plenty of that in the last few years.
Let’s check in again in about 20 years and then we’ll have the data to form a tentative view
Parents are planning an overseas holiday next month. Be interesting to see if that goes ahead (I'd be wary, but then, I hardly ever travel and am massively anti-social, which turns out to be an excellent survival trait in a pandemic).
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
Levelling Up and The Benefits of Brexit are both as real as the Garden Bridge
As I am going shopping in a bit and then clubbing to see the new year in i wish everyone a happy New Year and my advice to the country , the world and indeed a lot on here would be to stop obsessing about covid . You only get one life and you will die at some point. Dont let covid stop you doing what you want and dont let others tell you or shame you into doing something that you dont feel is right for you
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
Not saying we do, just that it's important to be clear about the numbers.
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
That average of 85 is for the whole population, so it's pulled down by younger people. Anyone who is 80 or above will die at a later average age. So you're writing them off earlier than in reality.
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
Well, of course they don't. In fact, I'm surprised it's as many as six and I suspect those are 'six people who have second homes in the Yorkshire Dales or the Lake District.'
If they did live in the north they would have known what they were proposing was (a) completely inadequate and (b) totally undeliverable.
It is time to lockdown. I wish it was a different outcome. I really do.
It's getting very late for effective interventions. It's different from Delta when we fully locked down and we ran out of further controls. This time we could have restricted but chose not to. Rightly or wrongly we prioritise no restrictions over hospitalisations as our political choice.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
A better question would have been does any of the 24 actually know how train capacity works and the impact of running trains at different speeds on the same track (hint it means you run 12 or 10 trains an hour rather than 16 or 20).
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
I don’t think you can point at business investment from 2016-20 to argue Brexit is a “failure”
The one thing business hates more than anything else is uncertainty… and there has been plenty of that in the last few years.
Let’s check in again in about 20 years and then we’ll have the data to form a tentative view
Unfortunately we are likely to all be paupers by then , apart from the silver spoon brigade who have their tax havens etc to keep them in the way they are accustomed. You could bet your shirt that the average person will be worse off in 20 years and working harder whilst the rich will be awash with ill gotten goods and cash. Perhaps the peasants will catch on at some point and get out the pitchforks.
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
A better question would have been does any of the 24 actually know how train capacity works and the impact of running trains at different speeds on the same track (hint it means you run 12 or 10 trains an hour rather than 16 or 20).
Why would we ask that? It's the DfT. The answer will be 'no.'
It would be like asking if there are any educated civil servants at the DfE.
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
A better question would have been does any of the 24 actually know how train capacity works and the impact of running trains at different speeds on the same track (hint it means you run 12 or 10 trains an hour rather than 16 or 20).
Why would we ask that? It's the DfT. The answer will be 'no.'
It would be like asking if there are any educated civil servants at the DfE.
UNless they were members of the Oxford University Railway Society.
It is time to lockdown. I wish it was a different outcome. I really do.
It's getting very late for effective interventions. It's different from Delta when we fully locked down and we ran out of further controls. This time we could have restricted but chose not to. Rightly or wrongly we prioritise no restrictions over hospitalisations as our political choice.
Response to Covid is now political across the western world post vaccination. Left of centre and left liberal governments will generally be more likely to lock down and impose further restrictions for Omnicron, right of centre and conservative governments like ours will not
Has there even been any virus, any time in history, in any species, which has spread as fast over the whole world as omicron?
Has there ever been another species who thought it was a good idea for its members from all over the world to get into metal tubes, travel hundreds or thousands of miles in a few hours and then mix with other members of the species?
Our lifestyle makes us incredibly vulnerable to viruses with the possible exception of New Zealand or, possibly, police states. We are quite lucky this particular virus is not that dangerous. We need to accept that we need to be better prepared.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
Ummm....
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.”
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
Ummm....
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.”
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
That average of 85 is for the whole population, so it's pulled down by younger people. Anyone who is 80 or above will die at a later average age. So you're writing them off earlier than in reality.
It is the whole population who would be impacted by further restrictions, not just over 80s. Governments take decisions for the whole of society, not just over 80s
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
Much of the site has become so boring of late - a whole load of personal spats about sfa. Focus on issues would e so refreshing. Don't like someone - ignore! Hopefully absolutely no-one will rrespond to this post! HNY!
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
That average of 85 is for the whole population, so it's pulled down by younger people. Anyone who is 80 or above will die at a later average age. So you're writing them off earlier than in reality.
It is the whole population who would be impacted by further restrictions, not just over 80s. Governments take decisions for the whole of society, not just over 80s
You seem to think the under 80s want to party like 1999, but when you hit that milestone It's all Pleeeeeze, just six months more of sweet, sweet life, at any cost to anyone else. Actually all the 80+ people I know are if possible even more fed up with lockdown than I am.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
Much of the site has become so boring of late - a whole load of personal spats about sfa. Focus on issues would e so refreshing. Don't like someone - ignore! Hopefully absolutely no-one will rrespond to this post! HNY!
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
That average of 85 is for the whole population, so it's pulled down by younger people. Anyone who is 80 or above will die at a later average age. So you're writing them off earlier than in reality.
It is the whole population who would be impacted by further restrictions, not just over 80s. Governments take decisions for the whole of society, not just over 80s
You were arguiong on the basis of age and using a statistical fallacy. Now suddenly you're not arguing on the basis of age. Which may or may not be reasonable but is certainly a completely different approach, goalposts moved.
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
It depends what you mean by soon. According to this, the average life expectancy of an 85-year-old man in the uk is about 6 years. For an 85-year-old woman, it's about 7 years.
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
Not convinced this line of argument is helpful to you.
Are we prepared to consider learning from other European countries that don't use the NHS model?
Are we prepared to spend a lot more money on healthcare?
Also the German figure is bunkum for the purposes of comparison, that bed figure is not staffed like an NHS ICU bed.
Exactly right. A “bed” in health service terms is really about the staff and infrastructure around the patient.
That said, health and social care are not sufficiently funded and this ends up creating the sort of long term problems that come from false economies. We need to spend a higher proportion of GDP on public services, and we need to get that from tax. But first and foremost we need GDP growth to fund the tax which funds services. Which means we also need to spend and invest way more in education and skills. And we need to get back into the European single market pronto. Enough with the silly sovereignty experiment. It doesn’t pay the bills.
. . . I'm really struggling to see your logic as to why we need to rejoin the Single Market? Its almost as if that was simply already your opinion pre-Brexit and nothing has changed your mind and there's no actual data or evidence to say that the experiment is silly. Like you're as open minded to Brexit as Pagel is to Covid?
There’s an element of sophistry in your response, of course. We had the largest fall in GDP of the G7 in 2020 (over 9%!) by quite some margin, then the largest bounce back (by a bit) this year, leaving us around 1% worse than France has done over the 2 years.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
There's no certainties at all that exiting the Single Market reduces potential growth, since there's literally no evidence whatsoever that being in the Single Market boosts potential growth.
That's not true - there are a bunch of studies that show just that.
I don't myself believe that the boost is particularly significant to the economy overall, and I think it is more than offset by the freedoms we lose, but the great weight of economic evidence and opinion is that it exists.
Ah the "gravity model", I knew when I wrote that someone would reply with that.
Though you snipped out much of what I wrote. From reading the abstracts the first article merely is comparing the EU with some hypothetical Europe with simulated 'barriers' while the latter article is the "gravity" model so beloved by some here.
Except what I did was compare the EU not to some hypothetical alternative but to real world alternatives. The real world evidence, not hypothetical gravity modelling, does not seem to substantiate the idea that the EU has grown faster than developed world non-EU nations. Quite the opposite in fact.
@RobD I did but I wanted to come back. I've studied the data, I am afraid it's not looking good.
I won't hold it against the Government up to now but it is time to lockdown as of the numbers today. The models are proving correct and we must save lives.
lol, you’ve studied the data? No, calling for lockdowns is just your hobby. As night follows day.
Not at all. I haven't called for a lockdown in a very long time.
Sure, if six hours ago isn't a long time, then no you haven't.
Or is this still part of the same "call"?
Other than earlier today, when did I last call for one.
Not in a very long time. Please disengage now and do not smear me.
Yesterday and on occasions previously
Indeed I specifically asked you yesterday when you called for a lockdown to explain the restrictions you would impose
What occasions previously.
Yesterday I said it roughly twice.
Cite those other occasions now. Or you will be ignored going forward.
Get a grip you get more belligerent every day , there will soon be no-one left to fall out with. Take a chill pill and stop imagining everyone is against you.
When @malcolmg is accusing you of being belligerent…
Comments
A lockdown now is going to inflict enormous collateral damage on the whole of society and may well achieve nothing useful. Consider: Omicron is already very widespread, is proven to be extremely infectious, and lockdown doesn't remove all significant routes of transmission. Something like two-thirds of the working population has to go to a place of work and cannot WFH. Most adults have to go to essential shops. There is also enormous popular and political resistance to the idea of closing schools again. It is highly likely that it won't work very well. Moreover, even if lockdown did a brilliant job, the disease will sooner or later (and probably sooner, given what we know of its transmissibility) flare up again the moment the restrictions ease, and we'll be back to people like you demanding yet another lockdown. Beyond that, we also have to consider that Omicron will not be the last variant, and that there is enormous selective pressure being placed upon the virus to become more and more transmissible.
Faced with all of these problems, continuous cyclical lockdown is no solution to anything. We are going to have to do our best to cope without this crude, blunt instrument in future.
My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, but still the point stands. For something to be a "failed experiment" there normally has to be some evidence that points firmly to say the experiment failed. The data at the moment may not vindicate Brexit fully yet, but it certainly doesn't confirm the experiment as a failure either.
You are ignored.
The sophistry of course is in the fact we were in the single market as a result of the transition period last year. But the rot started in 2016 as can be seen not only in GDP numbers but also in business investment which has been completely flat since 2016.
It’s not and need not be a political or partisan point. Of course exiting the single market (and to a lesser extent customs union) reduces potential growth because it introduces trade friction and costs / bureaucracy that aren’t there before. They’ll increase yet more on Saturday when we bring in the GVMS on all imports. But that was a trade off in exchange for sovereignty and reduced immigration. I just don’t think it was worth it.
That bit.
And voila!
And we are 2 years away.
I fully expect that freed from the sclerotic European Union the United Kingdom will prove to be more economically agile and to have even better potential growth. You may not share the opinion, but its too early to tell.
As for your so-called rot: The UK grew faster than the Eurozone over the decade 2010-2019, just as it did from 2000-2009, so if anything seems to be a failure its the Eurozone and not Brexit.
Yep. You are in a small minority on here. But a much larger one amongst the general public.
That happens sometimes. It doesn't make you wrong. At all.
For your own mental health please consider that an attack on your views is not necessarily an attack on you personally.
Everyone desperately wants this to be over. Everyone. Desperately. There is a possibility that this may be the beginning of the end. Your saying "Not so fast!" is exactly what many people don't want to hear. Hence the visceral reaction.
I hope it is over too. I still hope I am wrong, I hate the idea of a lockdown and what it will do to my mental health but that is simply how I see it now.
Please stay safe.
We’ll go on strike!
VROOMFONDEL:
That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DEEP THOUGHT:
Who will that inconvenience?
MAJIKTHISE:
Never you mind who it’ll inconvenience you box of black legging binary bits! It’ll hurt, buster! It’ll hurt!
It isn't worth it. It is just a niche politics website. We are all friends here. We have no control whether we are right or wrong. Your peace of mind is more important. It's the one thing you have control over. Take a break. You may return triumphant and vindicated. We just don't know. Nobody does. That's why everyone's on edge.
He has been commendably open about his issues. And his views aren't particularly outside the mainstream.
If I were you, I'd concentrate on the rate of back fill on deaths data, in particular. I'd also look at how hospitals are responding - if there is evidence that our excess deaths are going to increase (Covid or not) then your argument will gain currency.
You could stretch it out to explain how this damages the economy - locking down later = locking down for longer.
I'm open to these ideas if you lay out the data and explanation.
I don't agree with them yet because the specimen date deaths data indicates no increase so far. I also don't agree with closing the country down to save anti-vaxxers, frankly, so you'll have to persuade me on that one too.
NB "Models" is not a worthy explanation. You can chuck any old nonsense into a calculator. And a model is a calculator with half the buttons missing.
But I'll allow people, including CHB, to influence my thinking if they can lay an argument in front of me. I personally think the case numbers could quickly become unsustainable - could - and that there may be some really grim deaths data hidden in the Christmas confusion. If so, I'll change my tune.
There are also too many ride or die Covid gunslingers on here who confuse wearing a mask with a full lockdown.
1. Lockdown would be effective at constraining the spread of omicron, at least to the extent of flattening the curve to levels that won't max out healthcare capacity; and
2. Even if lockdown COULD be effective, will it be. I.e. is there a willingness in the community writ large to comply with a lockdown to the extent that the lockdown will be effective, if indeed it can be effective, against omicron.
3. That the harm of lockdown will not exceed the benefits.
I think I can be persuaded on 3. From what I am seeing, I am not sure that the evidence supports 1, and I really don't believe we'll get the level of community compliance to bring 2 even into the ballpark.
3 off topics, 3k likes, and 3 spam.
The off topics I get - we all talk off topic (if the topic be the header) most of the time. But 3 spam????? When have I ever spammed someone?
I don't myself believe that the boost is particularly significant to the economy overall, and I think it is more than offset by the freedoms we lose, but the great weight of economic evidence and opinion is that it exists.
See e.g. here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893819300882 and https://academic.oup.com/economicpolicy/article-abstract/34/98/145/5486061?redirectedFrom=fulltext
We've twice seen the issues with putting restrictions in place too late: back in March 2020 it was only a week or so, and it was an understandable delay; but it still allowed a massive increase in numbers. The delays last December also led to a massive spike a month or so later, and tens of thousands of utterly avoidable deaths.
So the government are taking a gamble: that we can manage omicron without restrictions. It looks as though that gamble might be correct, even without the small changes being made in Wales and Scotland. But if it's wrong then we're in for a world of hurt.
I'm glad I don't need to make the decision. It's not as easy as the anti-lockdown extremists make out.
https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/1476695952350187525?s=21
Robert has constantly told us that people will change their behaviour ahead of the government. Perhaps that’s happened a bit with people not going to pubs and restaurants as much, though they seem busy around here, but the stats suggest people aren’t voluntarily locking themselves away.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-31/sydney-chemist-breaking-up-rat-packs-selling-25-dollars-for-one/100732014
Either pb-ers can't sleep or are posting from somewhere to the East of me, so they're up very early!
Mrs C and I, both 80+, don't like lockdown; it restricts our social life, but we don't want to be severely ill with Covid; people we know have died. We are, of course, both vaccinated, as are all our family and, so far as we know all our friends, so the risk of severe disease now, as opposed to early 2020, should be low.
As indeed, was our experience a few months ago, and that of our granddaughter-in-law over Christmas!
If the risks become similar to influenza, then I suspect the sensible course of action would be to reduce restrictions; in particular the requirement for isolation.
Vaccination, though, should still be the norm; it's clear that even the Omicron variant is more dangerous for the unvaccinated.
I think the precautionary principle will lead to Covid scares for the next decade or so, and I simply cannot live with that.
I need evidence for lockdown/restrictions, even if that means we have excess deaths.
Hospitalisations and deaths
England
Hospitalisations 815 +49
Deaths 54 +1"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044331/20211230_OS__Omicron_Daily_Overview.pdf
I don’t think anyone likes lockdown and I hope for our sake we still avoid one. But the numbers simply do not look good at this stage.
Sending you both my best wishes.
And our 'world class' testing service seems to be staggering, if not actually crashing. Just possibly, I suppose, we're overdoing it!
December 2020 is a very different matter. The timing was massively unfortunate; not just because it nuked Christmas, but because it was so near the vaccine rollout. The one person I know who has died of Covid would have been eligible for the vaccine at about the time he died. If the Alpha variant had come along a month later, he might well have had the vaccine and lived. I'd argue the decision that was eventually made should have been made at least a couple of weeks earlier: the evidence was there. But I think policymakers were a little overwhelmed by not wanting to 'destroy' Christmas, and the hope they'd be able to get enough vaccines in arms to avoid the worst. The gamble did not pay off, and we ended up with the worst of all options: high deaths, a lockdown, and a ruined Christmas.
This time the situation is very different. We have vaccinations, and that *should* be enough to cope with previous variants. But omicron's high infectivity throws a lot more questions into the mix. Fortunately, it's looking as though it is also milder. Again it's a gamble, but it seems a reasonable one atm, and I hope it pays off.
Can I suggest you find a mindfulness technique that helps to clear your mind. I find finding four or five towns starting with each letter of the alphabet helpful.
If Omicron is the dominant virus then I suggest we ought not to need the isolations that we have, which would free capacity.
Aussie player Travis Head has tested positive, how many more players might end up off sick?
I am sure that there will be a lot of backfilling over the next 10 days. The problem is that we won't know the peak until it has passed, and that is too late to intervene.
People in England are choosing to cancel or limit events rather than waiting for the government. Personally, I have avoided crowds apart from work and football, and there worn a decent mask. I simply don't want a week off ill or worse.
I favour interventions that are non invasive, such as HEPA filters in offices, schools etc and FFP3 masks for health and social care workers and similar. These are no threat to liberties, reasonably well evidenced and better value than an ineffective lockdown.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89617-2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59832076
Understand what you mean about filters (etc). Aeons ago, when a student, one of the things we were taught was how to build a sterile room, and create 'clean' atmospheres. It was a party of the course that I enjoyed, but I never really put that knowledge into use! I did though have a colleague who travelled the country advising hospitals on the subject.
We had quite a few people round the dinner table on Christmas Day and the draught at Grandpa's back was very noticeable.
The one thing business hates more than anything else is uncertainty… and there has been plenty of that in the last few years.
Let’s check in again in about 20 years and then we’ll have the data to form a tentative view
However you do not shut down society again for those who won't
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59832843
How many days are we likely to be behind South Africa?
Parents are planning an overseas holiday next month. Be interesting to see if that goes ahead (I'd be wary, but then, I hardly ever travel and am massively anti-social, which turns out to be an excellent survival trait in a pandemic).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/20/covid-likely-fatal-old-already-infirm/
We do not shut down society again post vaccination for people most of whom would soon be dead anyway on average even without Covid. Nor for those who have been offered but refused vaccinations and boosters
The Great Levelling Up Con (TM) is in itself a part of the increasingly popular ‘The Ever Receding Benefits of Brexit - The Bullshit and Unicorns You Swallowed To Get This Horseshit Over The Line’ series.
If they did live in the north they would have known what they were proposing was (a) completely inadequate and (b) totally undeliverable.
It would be like asking if there are any educated civil servants at the DfE.
Our lifestyle makes us incredibly vulnerable to viruses with the possible exception of New Zealand or, possibly, police states. We are quite lucky this particular virus is not that dangerous. We need to accept that we need to be better prepared.
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”
Just kidding - you have a good one too
Though you snipped out much of what I wrote. From reading the abstracts the first article merely is comparing the EU with some hypothetical Europe with simulated 'barriers' while the latter article is the "gravity" model so beloved by some here.
Except what I did was compare the EU not to some hypothetical alternative but to real world alternatives. The real world evidence, not hypothetical gravity modelling, does not seem to substantiate the idea that the EU has grown faster than developed world non-EU nations. Quite the opposite in fact.