Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
I'd imagine a matter of time. For example, 2 weeks could be the dividing line if that's what you're saying SAGE have handed down as an official definition.
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
What do the WHO say?
Coming next to pb - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
In all seriousness I suspect there is no definition of circuit breaker in the context of disease spread. After all it was an analogy that was introduced at the time. I think the issue is that the length suggested, be it two weeks or three would never be long enough to really suppress the virus. We have seen that it takes eight or more weeks both times we have done this seriously. Two or three would not suppress cases enough to prevent a strong rebound, fairly soon after the release.
The SAGE objective was not to suppress the virus but slow its growth so that we would go into winter from a lower base, and thereby protect the NHS from overload. In the black and white world of arguments today, this was ignored and forgotten and circuit breakers are judged on whether they could magically stop the virus in two or three weeks. Of course they cant. Any level of reduced interaction would have reduced the spread. Whether it would have reduced the spread enough to make it worthwhile we shall never know, you would need to run hundreds of trials or more to get a good idea.
We do know.
Wales did it. People acted in an entirely foreseeable manner - partying before and after it and overall net it had no impact on transmission levels. Just as those of us on here who thought it was a stupid idea had predicted.
Wales afterwards was the worst performing of the 4 home nations casewise, despite being the only one to have a 2 week circuit break over halfterm as SAGE recommended.
Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
I'd imagine a matter of time. For example, 2 weeks could be the dividing line if that's what you're saying SAGE have handed down as an official definition.
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
What do the WHO say?
Coming next to pb - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
In all seriousness I suspect there is no definition of circuit breaker in the context of disease spread. After all it was an analogy that was introduced at the time. I think the issue is that the length suggested, be it two weeks or three would never be long enough to really suppress the virus. We have seen that it takes eight or more weeks both times we have done this seriously. Two or three would not suppress cases enough to prevent a strong rebound, fairly soon after the release.
The SAGE objective was not to suppress the virus but slow its growth so that we would go into winter from a lower base, and thereby protect the NHS from overload. In the black and white world of arguments today, this was ignored and forgotten and circuit breakers are judged on whether they could magically stop the virus in two or three weeks. Of course they cant. Any level of reduced interaction would have reduced the spread. Whether it would have reduced the spread enough to make it worthwhile we shall never know, you would need to run hundreds of trials or more to get a good idea.
We do know.
Wales did it. People acted in an entirely foreseeable manner - partying before and after it and overall net it had no impact on transmission levels. Just as those of us on here who thought it was a stupid idea had predicted.
Wales afterwards was the worst performing of the 4 home nations casewise, despite being the only one to have a 2 week circuit break over halfterm as SAGE recommended.
Sample of one, ridiculously implemented, does not prove anything.
I'm a lockdown sceptic, and I didn't really find much to complain about in what Chris Whitty said. It was pretty factual - 'the modelling shows another surge' etc. Now we might disbelieve the modelling, but he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't report what it was saying.
And I wouldn't expect deaths to go down to zero. The point is to see deaths in the right context.
Exactly. It joins the flu. There's a touch of paranoia around imo. Perhaps understandably given the strange experience we're living through. It's affecting us all in different ways. Certainly is me. I've forgotten many of the social niceties. Feeling a bit "wild".
I fully expect the timetable to be stuck to. My point earlier was that everyone has their red lines and one person's "Surely they will open up earlier given the stats" is another's "Best to wait a few more months to be sure". Both scenarios should be in anyone's analysis.
I give extension as no more than a 15-1 shot and I'll have a fiver with you on it as you kindly offered.
Hang on. That's ripping yourself off. I only offered you 5s.
Your £5 my £25 - you sure?
I will have a fiver at the 15s you are offering that the lockdown will be extended beyond the current June deadline. If it is extended that's £75 you owe me. If not the fiver's yours.
My post to you at 5:06. I offered you 5/1. Put your monocle in!
15/1 sounds right. I'm up for it. Don't tell me you think it's only a five to one shot that the lockdown will be extended.
Edit: and I like the put your monocle in bit. You can take the boy out of...
We both need to see terrific value to make it work. I don't at 15. You don't at 5. Never mind. We'll do a bet on something sometime, no doubt.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
Yes - it's as close as the RF come to swearing in public.
Nonsense. It's a skillful statement that allows people to see what they want to see. Including people like you.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
Yes - it's as close as the RF come to swearing in public.
Nonsense. It's a skillful statement that allows people to see what they want to see. Including people like you.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
What's so brilliant about it is the understanding about how it will travel across The Pond.
The Americans will take it literally, and find it very classy.
The Brits will be able to admire it's eloquence whilst also understanding all the subtleties woven into it.
Comments
NEW THREAD
Wales did it. People acted in an entirely foreseeable manner - partying before and after it and overall net it had no impact on transmission levels. Just as those of us on here who thought it was a stupid idea had predicted.
Wales afterwards was the worst performing of the 4 home nations casewise, despite being the only one to have a 2 week circuit break over halfterm as SAGE recommended.
Texts can tell us many things. For instance, I can deduce from yours that you can't spell 'skilful'
The Americans will take it literally, and find it very classy.
The Brits will be able to admire it's eloquence whilst also understanding all the subtleties woven into it.
Quite quite brilliant.